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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 8-16, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, Applicant argues that “the rejection of claim 1 does not account for the integrated nature of the claimed limitations, and that when the claim is read as a whole, as the Alice/Mayo framework requires, it is directed to patent-eligible subject matter.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, Applicant alleges that claims 1 and 16 are not “directed to” an abstract idea, but rather to a specific technological improvement, and a solution to a specific technical problem. Applicant argues that the “specification identifies a specific technical problem: “if one or more of the aforementioned work implement components are not properly configured for transport, the effective height of the work machine may result in undesired costs and downtime,” including “the work machine crashing into bridges, overpasses, signs, and other overhead objects along a travel route.” Specification, at [0003]. The specification further describes a desire to “automatically determine an unsafe transport condition associated with a work machine, and execute or otherwise prompt an intervention to avoid such costs.” Specification, at [0004]. Claim 1 recites a solution which addresses these issues, and accordingly is grounded in a specific technological problem and solution.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and asserts that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea. In particular, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the limitation “automatically generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state” fails to sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. First, the limitation merely requires the automatic generation of one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan. That is, one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan must be automatically generated – the limitation does not require executing the specified intervention, but merely the generation of one or more output signals. Moreover, the claim does not specify how the one or more output signals are automatically generated other than that the one or more output signals correspond to the determined intervention state and that the automatic generation is implemented by a computer (i.e., the recitation is quite broad and there does not appear to be an improvement in computing technology). The portion of [0004] cited by Applicant states: “…and execute or otherwise prompt an intervention to avoid such costs.” That is, with respect to the written description, the execution of a specified intervention is not required, and may instead be merely prompted. With respect to the visual estimation of height and determining of an intervention state, Applicant further argues that “when claim 1 is read as a whole, including real-time height determination during active transport, assessment of intervention states relative to a transport plan, and automatic execution of responsive interventions, the claimed process is not one that a human can reasonably perform mentally”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, as nothing would preclude a human being from (a) determining a current effective height of the work machine (e.g., by visual observation and estimation of current height); (b) determining an intervention state for the transport stage, based at least in part on the current effective height of the work machine (e.g., based on the visual observation, further observing that the current height is too high/too low/unusual, etc.); and (c) automatically generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state (e.g., based on the observation that the current height is too high/too low/unusual, etc., making a mental note to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, wherein the current transport plan may memorized by a human being). The Examiner is therefore unpersuaded by Applicant’s assertion that the claimed invention “can only practically be performed, by a larger automated physical system as also recited in the claims.”
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, Applicant alleges that “assuming, arguendo, that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the claim nonetheless integrates that idea into a practical application through its third step feature: “automatically generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state.”” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant alleges that the Office has failed to consider every limitation in the claim when evaluating the scope of the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s allegation, and respectfully notes that the breadth of the claim language does not require the narrower version of the claims presented in Applicant’s arguments. That is, Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on the assumption that the claimed invention “requires that the generated signals actually cause something to happen in the real world”. This is not the case, as the limitation “automatically generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state.” can reasonably be interpreted as merely requiring the automatic generation of ‘one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state’. The claim language does not clearly require the execution of the specified intervention, and instead merely requires the automatic generation of one or more signals to execute a specified intervention. The Examiner maintains that this fails to amount to a responsive control output, as the generation of signals alone would not necessarily result in the execution of a specified intervention, particularly when considering the fact that a specified intervention may merely be “an alert generated to an operator cab with respect to the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle” (see at least [0015] of the written description). Such generation of alerts to an operator cab and/or user computing device amounts to a manner of receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims as presented do not preclude this interpretation of the specified intervention.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention amounts to an “automated safety feature that, in response to a detected unsafe height condition, prevents the work machine from “crashing into bridges, overpasses, signs, and other overhead objects along a travel route”. Again, the Examiner emphasizes that the claims as written do not necessitate such a narrow interpretation of the claims – at no point in claims 1 or 16 is it required that the specified intervention prevents the work machine from crashing. Moreover, Applicant’s arguments rely upon exemplary language of the written description. Each of the three species discussed in Applicant’s arguments (see [0015]-[0017]) merely state that “the specified intervention may comprise” a particular example of intervention. Similarly, [0076] merely states that the “[a]lerts within the scope of the present disclosure may be audible, visual, or combinations thereof.” That is, the alerts are not required to be audible, visual, or combinations thereof.
With respect to the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 45, Claim 2, the Examiner respectfully notes that claims 1 and 16 of the present application differ from claims 1 and 2 of Example 45 in that claim 2 of Example 45 specifically claims the sending of control signals to the injection molding apparatus, wherein the control signals instruct the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold. Not only is this example claimed at a much higher level of specificity (i.e., specific actual control actions of opening the mold and ejecting molded polyurethane from the mold are claimed rather than the broadly-defined specified intervention of the present application), the claim positively recites sending control signals to the injection molding apparatus. Claims 1 and 16 merely require automatic generation of one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention – this lacks both the specific control actions and the communication of the control signal to a particular apparatus to implement the specific control actions of Example 45. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that claims 1 and 16 of the present application are not sufficiently analogous to claims 1 and 2 of Example 45.
With respect to evidentiary support under Berkheimer, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s allegation that the Office “has not provided the required evidentiary support… for the assertion that the ordered combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional). The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s arguments ignore the clearly cited references to MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(d) (see at least Pg. 4 of the Non-Final Rejection). Each of these sections of the MPEP recite specific judicial evidence of the well-understood and conventional practices recited by the claimed invention. In order to improve clarity of the rejection, the Examiner has included relevant court cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or MPEP 2106.05(d) in the maintained rejection.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20 has been maintained. To overcome this rejection, the Examiner recommends amending independent claims 1 and 16 to further define the specified intervention in a manner similar to that disclosed in dependent claim 15, which has not been rejected under 35 USC 101, and describes a specified intervention which cannot be performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper (i.e., “automatically actuate one or more components of a work implement assembly of the work machine…”).
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 16-22, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 and the prior art rejection(s) of their respective dependent claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, Applicant argues that Sakuma fails to disclose each of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In particular, Applicant argues that Sakuma fails to disclose “during a transport stage for a work machine, wherein the work machine is positioned for transport with respect to a transport vehicle,” alleging that the Office has mischaracterized the “transport stage” of the claimed invention. Applicant argues that the specification “expressly defines the transport stage, which is distinct from an operating stage”, citing to [0056] of the written description. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that independent claims 1 and 16 do not refer to an operating stage – that is, Applicant’s arguments are directed towards features which have not been claimed. Further, the Examiner respectfully notes that [0056] does not expressly define the transport stage in the manner characterized by Applicant. Paragraph [0056] recites in part: “In the context of the present disclosure, the transport stage may generally be contrasted with an operating stage for the work machine, and more particularly relates to a stage in which the work machine is mounted on a transport vehicle such as for example a towed truck bed or trailer.” Here, “may generally be contrasted” amounts to exemplary language; per this disclosure, the transport stage more particularly relates to a stage in which the work machine is mounted on a transport vehicle. Further, the Examiner notes that [0057] discloses in part that if the work machine is not self-propelled, it may remain mounted on the bed or trailer of the transport vehicle during both of the operating and transport stages, or that the work machine and transport vehicle may be integrated, wherein the transport stage may necessarily be distinguished from the operating stage based on actual initiation of transport form a defined jobsite or work area configuration.
Applicant argues that “Sakuma never discloses a transport stage that is distinct from any operating stage. Sakuma exclusively discloses an agricultural tractor performing field work.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Referring to [0048] of Sakuma, it is disclosed that the work machine W is connected to a rear portion of the travelling vehicle body 2. Here, the work machine is clearly mounted on a transport vehicle, consistent with the definition of the transport stage in which the work machine is mounted on a transport vehicle provided in [0056] of the written description of the present application (see discussion above). The Examiner reiterates that independent claims 1 and 16 do not refer to an operating stage which is distinct from the transport stage.
With respect to determining the current effective height, Applicant argues that the specification defines effective height in [0041] as “an elevation difference between a calculated or otherwise determined highest point on the work machine 120 and a ground surface being traversed by the transport vehicle 110 having the work machine 120 mounted thereon.” However, Applicant’s arguments omit the beginning of the sentence quoted from [0041], which states: “For the purposes of the present disclosure, an effective height may refer to…” Here, the use of the phrase “may refer to” amounts to exemplary language and should not be considered an explicit definition of “an effective height”; “current effective height” must therefore be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation. In other words, claims 1 and 16 do not recite the narrow interpretation of the current effective height argued by Applicant, as the definition provided in [0041] has not been claimed.
With respect to determining “an intervention state for the transport stage, based at least in part on the current effective height of the work machine,” Applicant’s arguments again rely upon a narrower interpretation of the transport stage than is required by the claims (see above). As discussed above with respect to [0056] of the written description, Sakuma meets the definition of the transport stage in which the work machine is mounted on a transport vehicle, as the work machine W of Sakuma is mounted on the travelling vehicle body 2 (see at least [0048] and [0085] of Sakuma). Therefore, for at least the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
With respect to “automatically generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan”, Applicant argues that “Sakuma has no transport plan” as defined in [0077] of the written description. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that [0077] does not mention a “transport plan”, instead referring to travel routes. Paragraphs [0007] and [0072] contain the only instances of the words “transport plan” in the entirety of the written description. Paragraph [0007] lacks altogether a definition for “a current transport plan”, and [0072] merely states that “a relevant threshold value may be defined based on a transport plan or associated transport route parameters 310. For example, if a specified route would carry the work machine under relatively low overpasses, or through an area which is known to include overhanging signs, trees, or the like, the threshold value may correspond to a minimum known height for any of the aforementioned obstacles.” Here, no explicit definition of transport plan is given, aside from exemplary language suggesting that the transport plan is related a specified route. The Examiner maintains that the regulation of the lifting of the work machine W while traveling along a planned travelling route R described in [0065] and [0085] amounts to the claimed transport plan and specified intervention.
With respect to the interpretation of every limitation of the claims, Applicant alleges that the “Office has not shown that each and every element as set forth in the claim, read as an integrated whole, is found in Sakuma [and that] when the claim is read as a while with proper regard for the transport-stage context, Sakuma fails to anticipate Applicant’s claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments, and refers to the above discussion regarding Applicant’s interpretation of the transport stage. As Applicant’s arguments are directed towards a narrow interpretation of the transport stage which has not been claimed, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner therefore maintains that Sakuma does disclose every element of claims 1 and 16.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 and the prior art rejection(s) of their respective dependent claims has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are directed to determining a current effective height of a work machine and determining an intervention state. Decision-making processes fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind: i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-14 recite a method with at least one step. Claims 16-20 recite an apparatus comprising one or more processors. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus).
Under step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth the abstract idea of determining a current effective height of a work machine and determining an intervention state in the following limitations:
during a transport stage for a work machine, … determining a current effective height of the work machine;
determining an intervention state for the transport stage, based at least in part on the current effective height of the work machine;
The above-recited limitations establish an abstract decision-making process. A human being is capable of visually determining/estimating a current effective height of a work machine during a transport stage for the work machine. Following this abstract determination, a human being is also capable of determining an intervention state based at least in part on the current effective height of the work machine (e.g., selecting an intervention state appropriate for the current effective height of the work machine).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
A computer-implemented method
wherein the work machine is positioned for transport with respect to a transport vehicle,
and automatically generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state.
These additional elements merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Automatically generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state is claimed broadly and does not specify how the output signals are generated; in the context of “[a] computer-implemented method”, this amount merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965)). Automatically generating one or more output signals amounts to generically reciting a manner of receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f), Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). While the claim does specify that the output signals are generated to “execute a specified intervention”, the written description makes it clear that the specified intervention can also amount to an abstract idea. For example, [0015]-[0017] recite examples of generating an alert or generating a new transport route or plan to a user interface/user computing device, which likewise amount to an abstract decision-making process applied to data transmission over a network. While paragraph [0017] does disclose that the specified intervention may comprise control signals to automatically actuate one or more components of a work implement assembly of the work machine, this disclosure is merely exemplary and the claims do not specify the nature of the determined intervention state. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent claim 16 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and is ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 2, which sets forth:
the current effective height of the work machine is determined based at least in part on a current pose of the work machine,
the current pose being determined based on at least input signals from each of a plurality of sensors associated with respective components of a work implement assembly of the work machine.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining the current effective height of the work machine by further specifying how the current effective height is determined. A human being is capable of considering input signals from each of a plurality of sensors when determining the current effective height of a work machine. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, which sets forth:
the current effective height of the work machine is determined by: calculating a maximum height of the work machine relative to a transport surface based on the current pose;
and determining the effective height of the work machine based on the calculated maximum height of the work machine relative to the transport surface further combined with a determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining the current effective height of the work machine by further specifying how the current effective height is determined. A human being is capable of (e.g., visually and mentally, or with the assistance of pen and paper) determining the effective height of the work machine based on the above-recited calculations. Calculating a maximum height of the work machine relative to a transport surface based on the current pose amounts to a mathematical concept, which has been considered ineligible by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, which sets forth:
upon determining that the work machine is in the transport stage, matching the work machine to a current transport vehicle having a retrievably stored transport surface height.
Such a recitation introduces the additional abstract idea of matching the work machine to a current transport vehicle having a retrievably stored transport surface height. A human being is capable of (mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper) matching a work machine to a current transport vehicle based upon a stored transport surface height. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, which sets forth:
geofence boundaries are determined to define a work area for the work machine,
and the transport stage is determined when a current position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries.
Such a recitation introduces the additional abstract idea of determining geofence boundaries, and embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining a transport stage. A human being is capable of mentally defining a work area by memorizing geofence boundaries, and determining a transport stage based on the current position of the work machine in relation to the geofence boundaries (e.g., by visual observation). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, which sets forth:
the work machine is determined to be in the transport stage based on detected movement of a frame of the work machine without corresponding movement of ground-engaging units supporting the frame.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining the work machine to be in the transport stage, by further requiring that the determination is based on detected movement of a frame of the work machine without corresponding movement of ground-engaging units supporting the frame. A human being is capable of visually determining that a work machine is in a transport stage based on observing that a frame of the work machine is moving while ground-engaging units supporting the frame do not move. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, which sets forth:
generating a model for a height of the work machine over time with respect to various combinations of inputs from each of the plurality of sensors and defining respective poses of the work machine,
wherein the height of the work machine relative to the transport surface is further calculated by reference to the model with respect to the current pose.
Such a recitation introduces the additional abstract idea of generating a model for a height of the work machine over time, and further embellishing upon the abstract idea of determining the height of the work machine. Model generation amounts to an abstract decision-making process, and can be performed mentally by a human based upon visual observations of sensor inputs and respective poses of the work machine. Calculating the height of the work machine by reference to the model with respect to the current pose amounts to a mathematical concept, which has been considered ineligible by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, which sets forth:
determining the current effective height of the work machine comprises: determining a current pose of the work machine based on at least input signals from each of a plurality of sensors associated with respective components of a work implement assembly of the work machine;
capturing images comprising surroundings of the work machine using an image sensor associated with the work machine;
and calculating an effective height of the work machine relative to a ground surface based on the current pose and the captured images.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining the current effective height of the work machine. A human being is capable of determining a current pose of the work machine based upon observed input signals from each of a plurality of sensors, and is further capable of visually observing the surroundings of the work machine, and is even further capable of calculating an effective height of the work machine based on the current pose and the captured images (e.g., by visual observation). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 20 is parallel in scope to claim 8 and is ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 9, which sets forth:
the intervention state is determined at least in part by comparing the current effective height to a threshold value.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining the intervention state. A human being is capable of mentally comparing a current effective height to a threshold value, and determining an intervention state as a result. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, which sets forth:
the threshold value is based on a specified transport route or plan.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining the intervention state by further specifying that the threshold value is based on a specified transport route or plan. A human being remains capable of mentally comparing a current effective height to the claimed threshold value. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, which sets forth:
the threshold value corresponds to a minimum possible height for the work machine.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining the intervention state by further specifying that the threshold value corresponds to a minimum possible height for the work machine. A human being remains capable of mentally comparing a current effective height to the claimed threshold value. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, which sets forth:
the threshold value further corresponds to a specified range with respect to the minimum possible height for the work machine.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining the intervention state by further specifying that the threshold value corresponds to a specified range with respect to the minimum possible height for the work machine. A human being remains capable of mentally comparing a current effective height to the claimed threshold value. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, which sets forth:
the specified intervention comprises an alert generated to an operator cab with respect to the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention by further requiring that the specified intervention comprises an alert generated to an operator cab and/or a user computing device. Generating an alert to an operator cab or a user computing device amounts to a manner of receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, which sets forth:
the specified intervention comprises generation of a new transport route or plan to a user interface associated with the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention by further requiring that the specified intervention comprises generation of a new transport route or plan to a user interface and/or a user computing device. A human being is capable of mentally determining a new transport route or plan. This arrangement amounts to a manner of receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, which sets forth:
the specified intervention comprises control signals to automatically actuate one or more components of a work implement assembly of the work machine from a current pose to a transport pose corresponding to a minimum possible height for the work machine.
Here, the abstract idea(s) are incorporated into the practical application of automatically actuating one or more components of a work implement assembly of the work machine from a current pose to a transport pose. It is not possible for a human being to perform, mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper, the automatic actuation of one or more components of a work implement assembly of the work machine. As such, claim 15 is not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 17, which sets forth:
determining the current effective height of the work machine comprises: determining a current pose of the work machine based on at least input signals from each of a plurality of sensors associated with respective components of a work implement assembly of the work machine;
calculating a height of the work machine relative to a transport surface based on the current pose;
and determining the current effective height of the work machine based on the calculated height of the work machine relative to the transport surface further combined with a determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed.
The limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to those discussed above with respect to claims 2-3; claim 17 is therefore ineligible for similar reasons as claims 2-3 discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, which sets forth:
the one or more processors are configured, upon determining that the work machine is in the transport stage, to match the work machine to a current transport vehicle having a retrievably stored transport surface height,
wherein geofence boundaries are determined to define a work area for the work machine,
and the transport stage is determined when a current position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries.
The limitations of claim 18 are substantially similar to those discussed above with respect to claims 4-5; claim 18 is therefore ineligible for similar reasons as claims 4-5 discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, which sets forth:
the one or more processors are configured, upon determining that the work machine is in the transport stage, to match the work machine to a current transport vehicle having a retrievably stored transport surface height,
wherein the work machine is determined to be in the transport stage based on detected movement of a frame of the work machine without corresponding movement of ground-engaging units supporting the frame.
The limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to those discussed above with respect to claims 4 and 6; claim 19 is therefore ineligible for similar reasons as claims 4 and 6 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, 15-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakuma (US 2020/0205335 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
during a transport stage for a work machine, wherein the work machine is positioned for transport with respect to a transport vehicle, determining a current effective height of the work machine;
Sakuma discloses ([0048]): "The work machine W for performing work in a farm field is connected to a rear portion of the travelling vehicle body 2." Sakuma further discloses ([0049]): "In addition, a lifting device 12 for lifting and lowering the work machine W is provided on the rear portion of the travelling vehicle body 2. The lifting device 12 can move the work machine W to a non-working position by lifting the work machine W." Sakuma even further discloses ([0050]): "In addition, a lift arm sensor 26 for detecting a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 is provided on a base portion of the lift arm 122 (on the vicinity of the axis AX). A height of the work machine W may be calculated based on a result detected by the lift arm sensor 26."
determining an intervention state for the transport stage, based at least in part on the current effective height of the work machine;
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
and automatically generating one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state.
Sakuma discloses ([0065]): "Further, the control unit 40 has an “autonomous operation mode”, in which the tractor 1 performs work while autonomously travelling. In the autonomous operation mode, the control unit 40 controls various parts, including the engine E, the steering device 51, the speed changing device 52, the brake device 53 and the lifting device 12, based on measurement results of the positioning device 30, so that the tractor 1 travels along a planned travelling route R (see FIG. 12) stored in the storage unit." Sakuma further discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
Regarding claim 2, Sakuma discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Sakuma further discloses:
the current effective height of the work machine is determined based at least in part on a current pose of the work machine,
Sakuma discloses ([0050]): "In addition, a lift arm sensor 26 for detecting a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 is provided on a base portion of the lift arm 122 (on the vicinity of the axis AX). A height of the work machine W may be calculated based on a result detected by the lift arm sensor 26."
the current pose being determined based on at least input signals from each of a plurality of sensors associated with respective components of a work implement assembly of the work machine.
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. "
Regarding claim 8, Sakuma discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Sakuma further discloses:
determining the current effective height of the work machine comprises: determining a current pose of the work machine based on at least input signals from each of a plurality of sensors associated with respective components of a work implement assembly of the work machine;
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
capturing images comprising surroundings of the work machine using an image sensor associated with the work machine;
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma further discloses ([0057]): "Also, both the front sensor 21 and the rear sensor 22 are a medium distance sensor. Each of the front sensor 21 and the rear sensor 22 may be an infrared sensor. An infrared sensor may be configured to emit an infrared beam and then to receive a reflected beam from an obstacle."
and calculating an effective height of the work machine relative to a ground surface based on the current pose and the captured images.
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma further discloses ([0096]): "Also, in the case of setting the regulation height of the work machine W, the control unit 40 may lift the work machine W a plurality of times (e.g., three times) and then set the regulation height H based on results of detection by the rear sensor. The results may be obtained by performing trial lifting of the work machine W a plurality of times."
Regarding claim 9, Sakuma discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Sakuma further discloses:
the intervention state is determined at least in part by comparing the current effective height to a threshold value.
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
Regarding claim 10, Sakuma discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. Sakuma further discloses:
the threshold value is based on a specified transport route or plan.
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma further discloses ([0065]): " Further, the control unit 40 has an “autonomous operation mode”, in which the tractor 1 performs work while autonomously travelling. In the autonomous operation mode, the control unit 40 controls various parts, including the engine E, the steering device 51, the speed changing device 52, the brake device 53 and the lifting device 12, based on measurement results of the positioning device 30, so that the tractor 1 travels along a planned travelling route R (see FIG. 12) stored in the storage unit. In this case, the planned travelling route R, which is previously defined for each of farm fields so as to correspond to work contents to be performed by the work machine W, is converted into data and then stored in the storage unit. Meanwhile, the planned travelling route R is set in accordance with shapes and sizes of the farm fields, widths, lengths and numbers of furrows formed in the farm fields, types of crops and the like." As illustrated in FIGs. 7A-7B, included below, the regulation height H is dependent upon, for example, a furrow formed in the farm field, and is therefore dependent on the specified transport route or plan.
PNG
media_image1.png
810
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Sakuma discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Sakuma further discloses:
the specified intervention comprises control signals to automatically actuate one or more components of a work implement assembly of the work machine from a current pose to a transport pose corresponding to a minimum possible height for the work machine.
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." The Examiner has interpreted regulation of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine is lower than the stored regulation height H as actuating one or more components of a work assembly of the work machine from a current pose (i.e., a height of the work machine W) to a pose which is lower than the stored regulation height H. FIGs. 7A and 7B, included above, demonstrate that the height of the work machine W is measured with respect to a minimum possible height for the work machine.
Regarding claim 16, Sakuma discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors configured, during a transport stage for a work machine, wherein the work machine is positioned for transport with respect to a transport vehicle, to: determine a current effective height of the work machine;
Sakuma discloses ([0048]): "The work machine W for performing work in a farm field is connected to a rear portion of the travelling vehicle body 2." Sakuma further discloses ([0049]): "In addition, a lifting device 12 for lifting and lowering the work machine W is provided on the rear portion of the travelling vehicle body 2. The lifting device 12 can move the work machine W to a non-working position by lifting the work machine W." Sakuma even further discloses ([0050]): "In addition, a lift arm sensor 26 for detecting a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 is provided on a base portion of the lift arm 122 (on the vicinity of the axis AX). A height of the work machine W may be calculated based on a result detected by the lift arm sensor 26."
determine an intervention state for the transport stage, based at least in part on the current effective height of the work machine;
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
and automatically generate one or more output signals to execute a specified intervention in a current transport plan, corresponding to the determined intervention state.
Sakuma discloses ([0065]): "Further, the control unit 40 has an “autonomous operation mode”, in which the tractor 1 performs work while autonomously travelling. In the autonomous operation mode, the control unit 40 controls various parts, including the engine E, the steering device 51, the speed changing device 52, the brake device 53 and the lifting device 12, based on measurement results of the positioning device 30, so that the tractor 1 travels along a planned travelling route R (see FIG. 12) stored in the storage unit." Sakuma further discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
Regarding claim 20, Sakuma discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 16. Sakuma further discloses:
determining the current effective height of the work machine comprises: determining a current pose of the work machine based on at least input signals from each of a plurality of sensors associated with respective components of a work implement assembly of the work machine;
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
capturing images comprising surroundings of the work machine using an image sensor associated with the work machine;
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma further discloses ([0057]): "Also, both the front sensor 21 and the rear sensor 22 are a medium distance sensor. Each of the front sensor 21 and the rear sensor 22 may be an infrared sensor. An infrared sensor may be configured to emit an infrared beam and then to receive a reflected beam from an obstacle."
and calculating a current effective height of the work machine relative to the ground surface based on the current pose and the captured images.
Sakuma discloses ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma further discloses ([0096]): "Also, in the case of setting the regulation height of the work machine W, the control unit 40 may lift the work machine W a plurality of times (e.g., three times) and then set the regulation height H based on results of detection by the rear sensor. The results may be obtained by performing trial lifting of the work machine W a plurality of times."
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.
Claim(s) 3-7 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Kuhns (US 5,924,754 A).
Regarding claim 3, Sakuma teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 2. Sakuma further teaches:
the current effective height of the work machine is determined by: calculating a maximum height of the work machine relative to a transport surface based on the current pose;
Sakuma teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
However, Sakuma does not outright teach determining the effective height of the work machine based on the calculated maximum height of the work machine relative to the transport surface further combined with a determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed. Kuhns teaches an adjustable dimension trailer for transporting work equipment, comprising:
and determining the effective height of the work machine based on the calculated maximum height of the work machine relative to the transport surface further combined with a determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed.
Kuhns teaches (Col. 6 lines 14-29): "Thus, the height h2 of such equipment as shown in FIG. 4, can be anything up to a height wherein the sum of h2 and the height h1 of the deck surface 14 above the surface S upon which the trailer is to be moved for transport does not exceed the governmental height restriction of 13.5-14 feet." FIG. 4, included below, demonstrates that the effective height of the work machine is based on the calculated maximum height of the work machine relative to the transport surface (i.e., h2) combined with the determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed (i.e., h1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma to incorporate the teachings of Kuhns to provide determining the effective height of the work machine based on the calculated maximum height of the work machine relative to the transport surface further combined with a determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed. Sakuma and Kuhns are each concerned with monitoring the height of work machines being transported by a vehicle. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Kuhns, as doing so beneficially allows for ensuring that the effective height of the work machine does not exceed a governmental height restriction, as recognized by Kuhns (see at least Col. 6 lines 14-29). Further, incorporating the transport surface of Kuhns beneficially allows for conveyance of the work machine using a trailer which may be adjusted to accommodate various equipment loads of different dimensions, as recognized by Kuhns (see at least Col. 1 lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 4, Sakuma and Kuhns teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 3. Sakuma further teaches:
upon determining that the work machine is in the transport stage, matching the work machine to a current transport vehicle having a retrievably stored transport surface height.
Sakuma teaches ([0084]): "Next, setting of a regulation height of the work machine W will be described with reference to FIGS. 7A and 7B. FIGS. 7A and 7B are explanatory views of setting of the regulation height of the work machine W. FIG. 7A shows a state before the regulation height of the work machine W is set, and FIG. 7B shows a state where the regulation height of the work machine W is being set. In the tractor 1, in order to prevent the work machine W from entering the detection range of the rear sensor 22 and thus, for example, to prevent the tractor 1 from stopping, the control unit 40 (see FIG. 2) executes a control for preventing the work machine W from entering the detection range of the rear sensor 22." Sakuma further teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted... Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma even further teaches ([0091]): "Also, if the control unit 40 can communicate with the work machine W and thus identify the work machine W via communication, the control unit 40 may store the regulation height H set in association with the identification information. Further, for example, in a case where the work machine W has been replaced with another work machine W, if the control unit 40 finds a regulation height H stored in association with information for identification of the replaced work machine W when the control unit 40 starts communication with the newly replaced work machine W, the control unit 40 employs the regulation height H." As the regulation height H is a height measured from the transport surface (i.e., the ground, see FIG. 7B), the Examiner has interpreted the stored regulation height H as a retrievably stored transport surface height.
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma and Kuhns teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 4. However, the first embodiment of Sakuma does not fully teach that geofence boundaries are determined to define a work area for the work machine, and the transport stage is determined when a current position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries. Teachings of the first and third embodiments of Sakuma are combined to provide:
geofence boundaries are determined to define a work area for the work machine,
Sakuma teaches ([0055]): "Also, the tractor 1 can be configured to allow various work in a specific farm field to be set or the like by operation of an information processing terminal…" ([0114]): "As shown in FIG. 12, the tractor 1 enters a farm field F through an entrance Fin of the farm field F along a planned travelling route R, and then automatically performs work while suitably turning and travelling. In addition, depending on programs, it is possible to control the tractor 1 in such a manner that after work, the tractor 1 comes out of the farm field F through an exit Fout of the farm field F and stops at a predetermined location." FIG. 12, included below, demonstrates that farm field F is demarcated by geofence boundaries.
PNG
media_image2.png
804
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the transport stage is determined when a current position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries.
Sakuma teaches ([0114]): "As shown in FIG. 12, the tractor 1 enters a farm field F through an entrance Fin of the farm field F along a planned travelling route R, and then automatically performs work while suitably turning and travelling. In addition, depending on programs, it is possible to control the tractor 1 in such a manner that after work, the tractor 1 comes out of the farm field F through an exit Fout of the farm field F and stops at a predetermined location." Thus, when the position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries, a transport stage of stopping at a predetermined location is determined.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma to combine the first and third embodiments of Sakuma to provide that geofence boundaries are determined to define a work area for the work machine, and the transport stage is determined when a current position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries. In the first embodiment, Sakuma already teaches that the tractor 1 can be configured to allow various work in a specific farm field (see at least [0055]); therefore, the teachings of [0114] the third embodiment would be obvious to incorporate, as the teachings expand upon the working of a specific farm field. Sakuma acknowledges that the third embodiment "may be different from the first and second embodiments as described above, in that an area may be set in which a rearward detection is not performed"; however, this feature is not relevant to the teachings of [0114] and therefore does not preclude this combination of teachings of the first and third embodiments.
Regarding claim 6, Sakuma and Kuhns teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 4. Sakuma further teaches:
the work machine is determined to be in the transport stage based on detected movement of a frame of the work machine without corresponding movement of ground-engaging units supporting the frame.
Sakuma teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." FIGs. 7A-7B, included above, demonstrate that the frame of the work machine is moved without corresponding movement of ground-engaging units supporting the frame (i.e., the work machine is lifted by the lift arm, but the work machine and the vehicle 2 remain otherwise stationary, including the wheels of vehicle 2 which support the frame of the work machine).
Regarding claim 7, Sakuma and Kuhns teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 3. Sakuma further teaches:
generating a model for a height of the work machine over time with respect to various combinations of inputs from each of the plurality of sensors and defining respective poses of the work machine,
Sakuma teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma further teaches ([0096]): "Also, in the case of setting the regulation height of the work machine W, the control unit 40 may lift the work machine W a plurality of times (e.g., three times) and then set the regulation height H based on results of detection by the rear sensor. The results may be obtained by performing trial lifting of the work machine W a plurality of times." Sakuma even further teaches ([0097]): "During setting of the regulation height of the work machine W, if the results of detection by the rear sensor 22 which are obtained by performing trial lifting of the work machine W a plurality of times have variations, there may be a high possibility that the rear sensor 22 detects an obstacle due to causes other than detection of the work machine W." Sakuma still further teaches ([0098]): "In this case, measuring of the height may be repeatedly performed until the variations are eliminated. In some embodiments, measuring of the height may be repeatedly performed until the variations fall within the predetermined range. If the variations fall within the predetermined range, then measuring of the height is ended. Further, the control unit 40 determines a mean value of measured values obtained by lifting a plurality of times and then sets the mean value as a reference value for the regulation height H."
However, Sakuma does not outright teach that the height of the work machine relative to the transport surface is further calculated by reference to the model with respect to the current pose. Kuhns further teaches:
wherein the height of the work machine relative to the transport surface is further calculated by reference to the model with respect to the current pose.
Kuhns teaches (Col. 6 lines 14-29): "Thus, the height h2 of such equipment as shown in FIG. 4, can be anything up to a height wherein the sum of h2 and the height h1 of the deck surface 14 above the surface S upon which the trailer is to be moved for transport does not exceed the governmental height restriction of 13.5-14 feet." FIG. 4, included below, demonstrates that the effective height of the work machine is based on the calculated maximum height of the work machine relative to the transport surface (i.e., h2) combined with the determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed (i.e., h1). Kuhns is modified such that h2 corresponds to the determined mean value set as the regulation height H of Sakuma.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma and Kuhns to further incorporate the teachings of Kuhns to provide that the height of the work machine relative to the transport surface is further calculated by reference to the model with respect to the current pose. Sakuma and Kuhns are each concerned with monitoring the height of work machines being transported by a vehicle. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Kuhns, as doing so beneficially allows for ensuring that the effective height of the work machine does not exceed a governmental height restriction, as recognized by Kuhns (see at least Col. 6 lines 14-29). Further, incorporating the transport surface of Kuhns beneficially allows for conveyance of the work machine using a trailer which may be adjusted to accommodate various equipment loads of different dimensions, as recognized by Kuhns (see at least Col. 1 lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 17, Sakuma teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 16. Sakuma further teaches:
determining the current effective height of the work machine comprises: determining a current pose of the work machine based on at least input signals from each of a plurality of sensors associated with respective components of a work implement assembly of the work machine;
Sakuma teaches ([0050]): "In addition, a lift arm sensor 26 for detecting a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 is provided on a base portion of the lift arm 122 (on the vicinity of the axis AX). A height of the work machine W may be calculated based on a result detected by the lift arm sensor 26." Sakuma further teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. "
calculating a height of the work machine relative to a transport surface based on the current pose;
Sakuma teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H."
However, Sakuma does not outright teach determining the current effective height of the work machine based on the calculated height of the work machine relative to the transport surface further combined with a determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed. Kuhns teaches an adjustable dimension trailer for transporting work equipment, comprising:
and determining the current effective height of the work machine based on the calculated height of the work machine relative to the transport surface further combined with a determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed.
Kuhns teaches (Col. 6 lines 14-29): "Thus, the height h2 of such equipment as shown in FIG. 4, can be anything up to a height wherein the sum of h2 and the height h1 of the deck surface 14 above the surface S upon which the trailer is to be moved for transport does not exceed the governmental height restriction of 13.5-14 feet." FIG. 4, included below, demonstrates that the effective height of the work machine is based on the calculated maximum height of the work machine relative to the transport surface (i.e., h2) combined with the determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed (i.e., h1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma to incorporate the teachings of Kuhns to provide determining the current effective height of the work machine based on the calculated height of the work machine relative to the transport surface further combined with a determined height of the transport surface relative to a ground surface to be traversed. Sakuma and Kuhns are each concerned with monitoring the height of work machines being transported by a vehicle. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Kuhns, as doing so beneficially allows for ensuring that the effective height of the work machine does not exceed a governmental height restriction, as recognized by Kuhns (see at least Col. 6 lines 14-29). Further, incorporating the transport surface of Kuhns beneficially allows for conveyance of the work machine using a trailer which may be adjusted to accommodate various equipment loads of different dimensions, as recognized by Kuhns (see at least Col. 1 lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 18, Sakuma and Kuhns teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 17. Sakuma further teaches:
the one or more processors are configured, upon determining that the work machine is in the transport stage, to match the work machine to a current transport vehicle having a retrievably stored transport surface height,
Sakuma teaches ([0084]): "Next, setting of a regulation height of the work machine W will be described with reference to FIGS. 7A and 7B. FIGS. 7A and 7B are explanatory views of setting of the regulation height of the work machine W. FIG. 7A shows a state before the regulation height of the work machine W is set, and FIG. 7B shows a state where the regulation height of the work machine W is being set. In the tractor 1, in order to prevent the work machine W from entering the detection range of the rear sensor 22 and thus, for example, to prevent the tractor 1 from stopping, the control unit 40 (see FIG. 2) executes a control for preventing the work machine W from entering the detection range of the rear sensor 22." Sakuma further teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted... Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma even further teaches ([0091]): "Also, if the control unit 40 can communicate with the work machine W and thus identify the work machine W via communication, the control unit 40 may store the regulation height H set in association with the identification information. Further, for example, in a case where the work machine W has been replaced with another work machine W, if the control unit 40 finds a regulation height H stored in association with information for identification of the replaced work machine W when the control unit 40 starts communication with the newly replaced work machine W, the control unit 40 employs the regulation height H." As the regulation height H is a height measured from the transport surface (i.e., the ground, see FIG. 7B), the Examiner has interpreted the stored regulation height H as a retrievably stored transport surface height.
However, the first embodiment of Sakuma does not fully teach that geofence boundaries are determined to define a work area for the work machine, and the transport stage is determined when a current position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries. Teachings of the first and third embodiments of Sakuma are combined to provide:
wherein geofence boundaries are determined to define a work area for the work machine,
Sakuma teaches ([0055]): "Also, the tractor 1 can be configured to allow various work in a specific farm field to be set or the like by operation of an information processing terminal…" ([0114]): "As shown in FIG. 12, the tractor 1 enters a farm field F through an entrance Fin of the farm field F along a planned travelling route R, and then automatically performs work while suitably turning and travelling. In addition, depending on programs, it is possible to control the tractor 1 in such a manner that after work, the tractor 1 comes out of the farm field F through an exit Fout of the farm field F and stops at a predetermined location." FIG. 12, included above, demonstrates that farm field F is demarcated by geofence boundaries.
and the transport stage is determined when a current position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries.
Sakuma teaches ([0114]): "As shown in FIG. 12, the tractor 1 enters a farm field F through an entrance Fin of the farm field F along a planned travelling route R, and then automatically performs work while suitably turning and travelling. In addition, depending on programs, it is possible to control the tractor 1 in such a manner that after work, the tractor 1 comes out of the farm field F through an exit Fout of the farm field F and stops at a predetermined location." Thus, when the position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries, a transport stage of stopping at a predetermined location is determined.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma to combine the first and third embodiments of Sakuma to provide that geofence boundaries are determined to define a work area for the work machine, and the transport stage is determined when a current position for the work machine is determined to move from inside the geofence boundaries to outside the geofence boundaries. In the first embodiment, Sakuma already teaches that the tractor 1 can be configured to allow various work in a specific farm field (see at least [0055]); therefore, the teachings of [0114] the third embodiment would be obvious to incorporate, as the teachings expand upon the working of a specific farm field. Sakuma acknowledges that the third embodiment "may be different from the first and second embodiments as described above, in that an area may be set in which a rearward detection is not performed"; however, this feature is not relevant to the teachings of [0114] and therefore does not preclude this combination of teachings of the first and third embodiments.
Regarding claim 19, Sakuma and Kuhns teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 18. Sakuma further teaches:
the one or more processors are configured, upon determining that the work machine is in the transport stage, to match the work machine to a current transport vehicle having a retrievably stored transport surface height,
Sakuma teaches ([0084]): "Next, setting of a regulation height of the work machine W will be described with reference to FIGS. 7A and 7B. FIGS. 7A and 7B are explanatory views of setting of the regulation height of the work machine W. FIG. 7A shows a state before the regulation height of the work machine W is set, and FIG. 7B shows a state where the regulation height of the work machine W is being set. In the tractor 1, in order to prevent the work machine W from entering the detection range of the rear sensor 22 and thus, for example, to prevent the tractor 1 from stopping, the control unit 40 (see FIG. 2) executes a control for preventing the work machine W from entering the detection range of the rear sensor 22." Sakuma further teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted... Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." Sakuma even further teaches ([0091]): "Also, if the control unit 40 can communicate with the work machine W and thus identify the work machine W via communication, the control unit 40 may store the regulation height H set in association with the identification information. Further, for example, in a case where the work machine W has been replaced with another work machine W, if the control unit 40 finds a regulation height H stored in association with information for identification of the replaced work machine W when the control unit 40 starts communication with the newly replaced work machine W, the control unit 40 employs the regulation height H." As the regulation height H is a height measured from the transport surface (i.e., the ground, see FIG. 7B), the Examiner has interpreted the stored regulation height H as a retrievably stored transport surface height.
wherein the work machine is determined to be in the transport stage based on detected movement of a frame of the work machine without corresponding movement of ground-engaging units supporting the frame.
Sakuma teaches ([0085]): "As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W in order to set the regulation height of the work machine W. In this case, the control unit 40 controls a pivot angle of the lift arm 122 pivoted about the axis AX, which serves as a fulcrum, based on a result of detection by the lift arm sensor 26, thereby lifting or lowering the work machine W. Also, the control unit 40 lifts the work machine W and also stores as a regulation height H a height where the rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W while the work machine W is lifted. The rear sensor 22 detects the work machine W, which has entered, for example, a lowest end portion of a cone-shaped infrared beam L corresponding to the detection range thereof. Beam L may be shaped like a gimlet. Then, during work, the control unit 40 regulates lifting of the work machine W in such a manner that a height of the work machine W is lower than the stored regulation height H." FIGSs. 7A-7B, included above, demonstrate that the frame of the work machine is moved without corresponding movement of ground-engaging units supporting the frame (i.e., the work machine is lifted by the lift arm, but the work machine and the vehicle 2 remain otherwise stationary, including the wheels of vehicle 2 which support the frame of the work machine).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Sahlin et al. (US 2008/0201043 A1), hereinafter Sahlin.
Regarding claim 11, Sakuma teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. However, Sakuma does not outright teach that the threshold value corresponds to a minimum possible height for the work machine. Sahlin teaches automated control of a boom and attachment for a work vehicle, comprising:
the threshold value corresponds to a minimum possible height for the work machine.
Sahlin teaches ([0038]): " In FIG. 3, the target boom height is associated with the target boom angular range or target boom position, where the target boom height is greater than a minimum boom height or a ground level."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma to incorporate the teachings of Sahlin to provide that the threshold value corresponds to a minimum possible height for the work machine. Sakuma and Sahlin are each concerned with monitoring the height of work machines being transported by a vehicle. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Sahlin, as incorporating the target boom height setting of Sahlin beneficially allows for selection of a boom height by an operator based on a particular task, or a height or size of a pile of material intended to be moved using the work machine, as recognized by Sahlin (see at least [0037]).
Regarding claim 12, Sakuma and Sahlin teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 11. However, Sakuma does not outright teach that the threshold value further corresponds to a specified range with respect to the minimum possible height for the work machine. Sahlin further teaches:
the threshold value further corresponds to a specified range with respect to the minimum possible height for the work machine.
Sahlin teaches ([0038]): " In FIG. 3, the target boom height is associated with the target boom angular range or target boom position, where the target boom height is greater than a minimum boom height or a ground level."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma and Sahlin to further incorporate the teachings of Sahlin to provide that the threshold value further corresponds to a specified range with respect to the minimum possible height for the work machine. Sakuma and Sahlin are each concerned with monitoring the height of work machines being transported by a vehicle. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Sahlin, as incorporating the target boom height setting of Sahlin beneficially allows for selection of a boom height by an operator based on a particular task, or a height or size of a pile of material intended to be moved using the work machine, as recognized by Sahlin (see at least [0037]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Gupta et al. (US 2024/0377825 A1), hereinafter Gupta.
Regarding claim 13, Sakuma teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Sakuma does not outright teach that the specified intervention comprises an alert generated to an operator cab with respect to the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle. Gupta teaches mapping and detection for safe navigation, comprising:
the specified intervention comprises an alert generated to an operator cab with respect to the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle.
Gupta teaches ([0039]): "In this example, the autonomous system can estimate a clearance under the overpass by estimating distances between points on a bottom edge of the overpass and points on the highway vertically below the points on the bottom edge of the overpass... Based on the distances, the autonomous system can estimate the clearance under the overpass. If the clearance, for example, is less than a height of the vehicle or a trailer towed by the vehicle, then the autonomous system can respond appropriately to navigate the vehicle to avoid going under the overpass." Gupta further teaches ([0042]): "If the estimated measurements indicate that there is insufficient clearance for a vehicle to safely navigate, an alert can be provided to inform a driver (or passenger) of the vehicle that the vehicle will automatically take action to avoid the overhead obstruction when the vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode of operation. As another example, in the event of insufficient clearance, an alert can be provided for display to inform a driver to reroute the vehicle or pull over when the vehicle is operating in a manual mode of operation. Many variations are possible."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma to incorporate the teachings of Gupta to provide that the specified intervention comprises an alert generated to an operator cab with respect to the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle. Sakuma and Gupta are each concerned with monitoring the height of work machines/trailers being transported by a vehicle. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Gupta, as incorporating the height clearance monitoring of Gupta beneficially allows for the vehicle to autonomously take action to avoid an area of insufficient clearance (see at least [0039]), and further allows for alerting a driver of the vehicle that the vehicle is taking the autonomous action to avoid the area of insufficient clearance (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Sakuma teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Sakuma does not outright teach that the specified intervention comprises generation of a new transport route or plan to a user interface associated with the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle. Gupta teaches mapping and detection for safe navigation, comprising:
the specified intervention comprises generation of a new transport route or plan to a user interface associated with the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle.
Gupta teaches ([0039]): "In this example, the autonomous system can estimate a clearance under the overpass by estimating distances between points on a bottom edge of the overpass and points on the highway vertically below the points on the bottom edge of the overpass... Based on the distances, the autonomous system can estimate the clearance under the overpass. If the clearance, for example, is less than a height of the vehicle or a trailer towed by the vehicle, then the autonomous system can respond appropriately to navigate the vehicle to avoid going under the overpass." Gupta further teaches ([0042]): "If the estimated measurements indicate that there is insufficient clearance for a vehicle to safely navigate, an alert can be provided to inform a driver (or passenger) of the vehicle that the vehicle will automatically take action to avoid the overhead obstruction when the vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode of operation. As another example, in the event of insufficient clearance, an alert can be provided for display to inform a driver to reroute the vehicle or pull over when the vehicle is operating in a manual mode of operation. Many variations are possible."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakuma to incorporate the teachings of Gupta to provide that the specified intervention comprises generation of a new transport route or plan to a user interface associated with the transport vehicle and/or a user computing device associated with an operator of the transport vehicle. Sakuma and Gupta are each concerned with monitoring the height of work machines/trailers being transported by a vehicle. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Gupta, as incorporating the height clearance monitoring of Gupta beneficially allows for the vehicle to autonomously take action to avoid an area of insufficient clearance (see at least [0039]), and further allows for alerting a driver of the vehicle that the vehicle is taking the autonomous action to avoid the area of insufficient clearance (see at least [0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Faivre et al. (US 2020/0347570 A1) teaches a system for controlling the position of a work implement of a vehicle, including the use of a traversing threshold height relative to the vehicle or a work surface, and further discloses a traversing implement position system used to maintain the work implement at or above a desired height, either relative to the vehicle or the work surface (see at least [0059]). Irieda et al. (US 2011/0188982 A1) teaches a working machine including a base machine and a working attachment, including measuring a lead-end height and overall height of the working attachment relative to the ground (see at least [0017]) and allowing for lowering of the overall height of the working attachment (see at least [0085]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights