DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This 2nd non-final action is in response to applicant's filing filed on May 22, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 14-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Clar (US 9481977 B1)
Regarding claim 1, Clar teaches a computer-implemented method of handling a machine health/job quality issue in an autonomous work machine ([0001]-[0002] The machines may operate in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or manual manner to perform these tasks in response to commands that may be generated as part of a work plan for the machines), the method comprising:
detecting a machine health/job quality issue while performing a mission with the autonomous work machine([0044] Each of these necessary input conditions may be generally characterized as communications errors and autonomous operation of machine 10 may be stopped or paused if a failure or interruption (e.g., lack of appropriate signals or poor signal quality) occurs for a time period that exceeds a predetermined time threshold. [0042]-[00051] Necessary input conditions may be aspects of each of the relevant systems and subsystems that must operate in a desired manner and/or properly communicate; input condition may be that the appropriate visual images must be available from the visual image system 40 at the remote control unit 130. For example, the autonomous operation system 50 may require that the front camera or left and right cameras be operating properly while the machine 10 is moving forward and the rear camera be operating properly while the machine is moving in reverse. [0051] In each instance, the lack of a necessary input condition (i.e., the existence of a pause condition) may cause the generation of a pause command that results in stopping or pausing the autonomous operation of the machine 10);
determining, with a robotic controller of the autonomous work machine, whether the detected machine health/job quality issue has an exception routine for the detected machine health/job quality issue (the lack of a necessary input condition (i.e., the existence of a pause condition) may cause the generation of a pause command that results in stopping or pausing the autonomous operation of the machine 10; [0061] Under some circumstances, it may be possible to eliminate a pause condition related to the electronic map without the intervention of the remote control operator. For example, if the position of the crest 103 is undefined or the data too old, or if the data from electronic map along the path is missing or is too old, the data may be replaced with new data if another machine or system operates to define the required components of the electronic map. This may occur if another machine is operating in the area and provide the necessary data to the controller 36. In other instances, it may be desirable for the remote control operator to operate the machine 10 by remote control to re-define or update the data defining the crest or the path 117 );
performing the exception routine for the detected machine health/job quality issue (pause; the lack of a necessary input condition (i.e., the existence of a pause condition) may cause the generation of a pause command that results in stopping or pausing the autonomous operation of the machine 10; [0060] –[0069]At decision stage 69, the controller 36 may determine whether the pause condition may be overcome without input from the remote operator. For example, a communications error may be caused by some type of interference that is temporary and may resolve itself without intervention or action by the remote operator. In another example, a pause condition may occur when the machine 10 and another machine are too close together. In such case, stopping the machine 10 until the other machine passes may resolve the pause condition without input from the remote operator; If the pause condition may be overcome without input from the remote operator, the controller 36 may begin at stage 71 a timer that operates to measure the amount of time that the machine 10 has remained idle or stopped due to the pause condition; [0069] In situations in which one or more additional pause conditions arise while autonomous operation is paused due to a first pause condition such as during stages 71 - 75, the controller 36 may evaluate the additional pause conditions in a manner similar to stage 69 to determine if any of the additional pause conditions may be overcome without operator input);
determining whether the exception routine resolved the machine health/job quality issue (Step 73-74 in Fig. 5; At stage 74, the controller 36 may analyze or evaluate each of the necessary input conditions required for operation of the autonomous operation system 50 as described above with respect to stage 65. [0065]-[0066] At decision stage 75, the controller 36 may determine whether the source of the pause condition has been resolved or eliminated.);
based on whether the determination of whether exception routine resolved the machine health/job quality issue, selectively generating a communication to a supervisor, wherein the communication requests a supervisor decision ([0069]. If any of the additional pause conditions may not be overcome without operator input, the system may proceed to stage 70 ); and
receiving user input indicative of a supervisor decision and taking responsive action ([0063] If the pause condition may not be overcome without input from the remote control operator, the controller 36 may notify the remote operator at stage 70 and the machine 10 may idle or otherwise remain inoperative until the remote operator takes the necessary actions. the machine 10 may idle or otherwise remain inoperative until the remote operator takes the necessary actions to begin operation again. [0070] regardless of the timing, if a pause condition occurs that may not be overcome without operator input, the operator may be notified and the system may await the operator input before re-starting autonomous operation such as at stage 70).
Clar does not explicitly teach machine health/job quality issue, but Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), failure or interruption (e.g., lack of appropriate signals or poor signal quality) is interpreted as a machine health/job quality issue.
Regarding claim 9, Clar teaches A control system for an autonomous work machine (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs), the control system comprising:
a robotic controller (Controller 36 );
a position detection system coupled to the robotic controller ([0029]-[0031] A position sensing system 27; the position sensor 28 [0042]);
a sensor coupled to the robotic controller and configured to provide a sensor signal ([0033] The machine 10 may include a visual image system 40 such as a camera system for generating visual images indicative of a point of view relative to the machine 10);
a plurality of controlled systems system coupled to the robotic controller to receive control signals from the robotic controller, the plurality of controlled systems (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs) comprising:
a propulsion system configured to propel the autonomous work machine over a worksite (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs; [0017] FIG. 2 depicts a diagrammatic illustration of a machine 10 such as a dozer with a ground engaging work implement such as a blade 16 configured to push material. The machine 10 includes a frame 12 and a prime mover such as an engine 13);
a steering system configured to steer the autonomous work machine (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs; [0019] Machine 10 may include a cab 24 that an operator may physically occupy and provide input to control the machine. Cab 24 may include one or more input devices such as joystick 25 through which the operator may issue commands to control the propulsion system and steering system of the machine as well as operate various implements associated with the machine; the blade 16 ); and
an additional system configured to perform a work operation on a worksite (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs);
wherein the robotic controller is configured to;
generate an event relative to the machine health/job quality issue ( [0051] In each instance, the lack of a necessary input condition (i.e., the existence of a pause condition) may cause the generation of a pause command that results in stopping or pausing the autonomous operation of the machine 10) comprising at least one of:a health issue of the autonomous work machine; or a quality issue of the work operation performed by the additional system; selectively generate a communication containing at least some information relative to the to a supervisor; and receive user input from the supervisor and take responsive action based on the user input (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Clar teaches wherein controllable subsystem comprises an implement ([0002] ground engaging implements used to engage a work surface to move material and/or otherwise alter the work surface at a work site).
Regarding claim 14, Clar teaches wherein the additional system comprises an actuator configured to actuate an earth moving tool ([0018] Blade 16 may be pivotally connected to frame 12 by arms 18 on each side of machine 10. First hydraulic cylinder 21 coupled to frame 12 supports blade 16 in the vertical direction and allows blade 16 to move up or down vertically from the point of view of FIG. 2. Second hydraulic cylinders 22 on each side of machine 10 allow the pitch angle of blade tip 23 to change relative to a centerline of the machine ).
Regarding claims 15-16, please look at the rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claims 18, Carl teaches wherein the machine health/job quality issue comprises an issue with a quality of a work operation performed by the autonomous work machine ([0044] Each of these necessary input conditions may be generally characterized as communications errors and autonomous operation of machine 10 may be stopped or paused if a failure or interruption (e.g., lack of appropriate signals or poor signal quality) occurs for a time period that exceeds a predetermined time threshold. [0047] Still further necessary input conditions may relate to the position or operating conditions of the machine 10. For example, the autonomous operation system 50 may require the machine 10 to be within a predetermined position or alignment threshold of the desired path 117 in order to continue autonomous operation. In one example, the center of the machine 10 must be within two meters of the center of the desired path 117. In another example, the planned trajectory of the machine must be no more than twenty degrees from the center of the desired path).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Clar (US 9481977 B1) in view of Fang (US 20210192867A1)
Regarding claim 2, While Clar teaches the machine 10 may idle or otherwise remain inoperative until the remote operator takes the necessary actions, Clar does not explicitly teach but Fang teaches responsively shut down the automated work machine based on the user input ([0314] [0333] the remote-control manager shuts down the vehicle and disables remote control support in response to the battery charge falling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar, shutting down the automated work machine, as taught by Fang, as Clar and Fang are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using shutting down the automated work machine ([0033] Fang) and predictably applied it to save vehicle energy.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Clar (US 9481977 B1) in view of Konrardy (US11016504 B)
Regarding claim 3, while Clar teaches pulling the vehicle 102 over, Clar does not explicitly teach but Konrardy teaches wherein the responsive action includes generating a path to a service location and moving the autonomous work machine to the service location (the method 600 may include then locating the nearest repair facility with the necessary. the controller 204 or the server 140 may send a request for assistance (block 434). autonomous vehicle caravan method for causing a malfunctioning or damaged autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle to follow an autonomous tow/repair vehicle to enhance the functionality of the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle 600. the AV or SAV vehicle controller may select the nearest repair facility that is qualified to repair the AV or SAV damage, include determining the best route to the repair facility based upon the AV or SAV current condition; 4) if the AV or SAV remains serviceable, locating a nearest repair facility having the necessary electronic components in stock and technical expertise to repair the autonomous feature or sensor that is malfunctioning (such as via wireless communication or data transmission over one or more radio links or wireless communication channels); The method 600 may include causing the AV or SAV to mimic ARV maneuvers until reaching the repair facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar, moving the autonomous work machine to the service location, as taught by Konrardy, as Clar and Konrardy are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using moving the autonomous work machine to the service location and predictably applied it to Clar’s teaching for repairing a malfunctioning autonomous vehicle timely.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Clar (US 9481977 B1) in view of Konrardy (US11016504 B) in view of Fang (US 20210192867A1)
Regarding claim 4, While Clar as modified by Konrardy teaches pulling the vehicle 102 over, Clar as modified by Konrardy does not explicitly teach but Fang teaches shutting down the autonomous work machine at the service location ([0314] [0333] the remote-control manager shuts down the vehicle and disables remote control support in response to the battery charge falling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar as modified by Konrardy, shutting down the automated work machine, as taught by Fang, as Clar, Konrardy and Fang are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using shutting down the automated work machine ([0033] Fang) and predictably applied it to save vehicle energy (battery).
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Clar (US 9481977 B1) in view of Schwie (US 20200103239 A)
Regarding claim 5, while Clar teaches “The remote-control request message 230 requests the remote controller 208 to take some control of the autonomous vehicle 102. The remote controller 208 may then grant or deny the remote-control request message 230 via a remote-control response message 240 while the autonomous vehicle 102 perform missions”, Clar does not explicitly teach but Schwie teaches wherein the user input is indicative of a decision to ignore the machine health/job quality issue and the responsive action is continuing to perform the mission ( the self-driving vehicle 2 may enter an emergency mode when the vehicle management system 65 is unable to communicate with the remote computing device 12 (ignored). It should be appreciated that when the self-driving vehicle 2 is in the emergency mode, the vehicle management system 65 sends a series of second wireless communications 136 to the remote computing device 12. In other words, in the emergency mode, the vehicle management system 65 sends multiple requests to the remote computing device 12 (cannot be ignored)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar, ignoring the machine health/job quality issue, as taught by Schwie, as Clar and Schwie are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility ignoring the machine health/job quality issue to prioritize the response based on vehicles’ confidence levels.
Regarding claim 6, while Clar teaches “the SAE 308 could receive a request from a vehicle 102 at a construction site and determine that the request is related to a request that was previously received (e.g., geographic location matches, event label matches, and/or second request received within time limit). The SAE 308 may display data from the prior request and provide an input option corresponding to the guidance that was transmitted to the vehicle that sent the prior request”, Clar does not explicitly teach but Schwie teaches determining with the robotic controller that the machine health/job quality issue cannot be ignored and generating a second communication to the supervisor indicating that the machine health/job quality issue cannot be ignored ( the self-driving vehicle 2 may enter an emergency mode when the vehicle management system 65 is unable to communicate with the remote computing device 12 (ignored). It should be appreciated that when the self-driving vehicle 2 is in the emergency mode, the vehicle management system 65 sends a series of second wireless communications 136 to the remote computing device 12. In other words, in the emergency mode, the vehicle management system 65 sends multiple requests to the remote computing device 12 (cannot be ignored))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar, ignoring the machine health/job quality issue, as taught by Schwie, as Clar and Schwie are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility ignoring the machine health/job quality issue to prioritize the response based on vehicles’ confidence levels.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Clar (US 9481977 B1) in view of Lockwood (US 10564638 B1)
Regarding claim 7, Clar does not explicitly teach but Lockwood teaches wherein generating the communication to the supervisor includes selecting, with the robotic controller, the supervisor among a plurality of supervisors based on a categorization of the machine health/job quality issue (a teleoperator elevation requirement can be associated with the event and/or combination. For example, a teleoperator elevation requirement can specify a “high elevation” that indicates that only teleoperations devices having elevated teleoperator credentials associated therewith are permitted to handle the request (e.g., the elevated teleoperator credentials could indicate a senior teleoperator or a more advance or specially trained artificial intelligence) a teleoperator elevation requirement can specify that a teleoperator response to the request for assistance must be confirmed by one or more additional teleoperation device and/or that the request is to be disseminated to more than one teleoperations device (e.g., because of a highly complex event or the involvement of multiple vehicles requiring guidance in concert)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar, generating the communication to the supervisor includes selecting, with the robotic controller, the supervisor among a plurality of supervisors based on a categorization of the machine health/job quality issue, as taught by Lockwood, as Clar and Lockwood are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility generating the communication to the supervisor includes selecting, with the robotic controller, the supervisor among a plurality of supervisors based on a categorization of the machine health/job quality issue to avoid technical limitations or failures of supervisors.
Regarding claim 8, Carl teaches wherein generating the communication to the supervisor includes generating the communication to a supervisor at a remote operation center (Step 70 in Fig. 5).
Claims 11-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Clar (US 9481977 B1) in view of Aberle (US 20180373259 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Clar does not explicitly teach but Aberle teaches wherein the implement comprises a towed implement that is towed by a towing machine ( [0018]the liquid applicator implement 10 includes a vehicle 12 carrying a liquid storage tank 15 and a boom 16 along which a plurality of drop assemblies 18 are laterally spaced. It should be appreciated that the term “drop assemblies” as used herein refers to any structure that extends below the boom 16 for delivering liquid product to the crops, or to the soil. It should also be appreciated that while the liquid applicator implement 10 is depicted as a self-propelled implement in FIG. 1, the liquid applicator implement 10 may be attached to a tractor via a three point hitch (not shown) or the liquid applicator implement 10 may be a towed implement that is pulled behind a tractor (not shown). [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar, implement being towed by a towing machine as taught by Aberle, as Clar and Aberle are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying Carl’s teaching to Aberle handle the exception while the implement is in operation
Regarding claim 12, Clar does not explicitly teach but Aberle teaches wherein the worksite comprises a field (work site 100 ), and the work operation comprises an agricultural operation ( Aberle US 20180373259 A1 [0018]the liquid applicator implement 10 includes a vehicle 12 carrying a liquid storage tank 15 and a boom 16 along which a plurality of drop assemblies 18 are laterally spaced. It should be appreciated that the term “drop assemblies” as used herein refers to any structure that extends below the boom 16 for delivering liquid product to the crops, or to the soil. It should also be appreciated that while the liquid applicator implement 10 is depicted as a self-propelled implement in FIG. 1, the liquid applicator implement 10 may be attached to a tractor via a three point hitch (not shown) or the liquid applicator implement 10 may be a towed implement that is pulled behind a tractor (not shown). [0022]).
Regarding claim 19, please look at the rejection to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Clar does not explicitly teach but Aberle teaches wherein the additional system comprises at least one of a harvesting system, a spraying system, or a planting system (Aberle, [0018], [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar, implement being towed by a towing machine as taught by Aberle, as Clar and Aberle are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying Carl’s teaching to Aberle handle the exception while the implement is in operation.
Regarding claim 20, please look at the rejection to claim 13.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Clar (US 9481977 B1) in view of Kouhei (US 2019101931A1)
Regarding claim 17, Clar does not explicitly teach but Kouhei wherein the machine health/job quality issue comprises a health issue of the autonomous work machine ([0103] Next, whether or not there is any abnormality in the autonomous travel work vehicle 1 is determined (S 8 ). If there is an abnormality, the type of abnormality is indicated (S 9 ). The operation is not started and the abnormality is resolved (S 10 ). Abnormalities include, for example, an engine stop, a buildup in oil temperature or water temperature, a disconnection or short circuit in an electrical system, failure of the implement, a door of the autonomous travel work vehicle 1 not fully closed (detected by a sensor), or the remote controller 112 unattended by (distanced from) the operator. Whether or not the operator is paying attention to (away from) the remote controller 112 is determined through detection with a camera or a touch sensor provided to the remote controller 112. [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling a machine, as taught by Clar, machine health/job quality issue comprising a health issue of the autonomous work machine as taught by Kouhei, as Clar and Kouhei are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying Carl’s teaching to Kouhei’s work machine to handle the exception when the work machine has a health issue.
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
For example, Pedersen (US 20200310417 A1) teaches [0025] When an AV encounters an obstruction situation, the AV can classify the obstruction situation into a normal situation or an exception situation. If the obstruction situation is classified as a normal situation, the AV can autonomously negotiate (e.g., go around) the obstruction situation. If, on the other hand, the obstruction situation is classified as an exception situation, the AV can determine (e.g., select, calculate, map, etc.) a trajectory (i.e., a path) around the exception situation and determine a risk for the path. In some situations, the trajectory around the exception situation can merely be that the AV comes to complete stop until the exception situation has resolved itself. [0028] In the case of a wait response, the AV comes to a complete stop and can re-evaluate the situation over time. Depending on how the situation changes over time, the AV can either continue to wait, autonomy go around the obstruction, or contact a tele-operator. In an example, if the obstruction situation does not resolve itself within a predefined period of time, the AV can perform an assistance response. In an example, the obstruction situation may change such that the AV can perform either a normal response or an assistance response.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights