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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specification
The title of the invention “WORKING VEHICLE” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 and 06/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a border-crossing prevention controller”, “a determiner”, “a border-crossing permitter”, “a limiter”, “setter”, “acquirer”, and “a controller” in claims 1, 9, 16, and 20. See specification [0128-0129], [0138-140], and [0158-167].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okubo (WO 2021145046 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Okubo discloses a working vehicle to perform automatic operation including doing work at an agricultural field using a working device [0050] “This rice transplanter can drive automatically the pavement surface bordered by the boundary object”, the working vehicle comprising:
a border-crossing prevention controller configured or programmed to prohibit the working vehicle from traveling beyond a borderline of the agricultural field [0090] “The menstruation prevention control unit 56b determines whether or not the aircraft 1 does not cross the boundary line based on the position of the aircraft, and issues a stop instruction for prohibiting the vehicle 1 from traveling beyond the boundary line to the travel control unit 6 .” See also [0065] “When the position of the body 1 reaches the boundary line, the body is forcibly stopped.” Okubo system prevents travel beyond the stored boundary line by issuing a stop instruction.;
a determiner configured or programmed to determine whether or not to permit a cross-border state in which the working vehicle remotely operated by a remote controller crosses the borderline [0087] “Remote control approach driving state: A state in which the aircraft (1) is approaching the headland beyond the inner area by remote control operation using the remote control (90).” [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode”;
a border-crossing permitter configured or programmed to permit the cross-border state if the determiner determines to permit the cross-border state [0090] “The menstruation permission unit 56c temporarily expands the boundary line stored in the boundary line storage unit 56a toward the crest side. By the expansion of this boundary line, the body 1 can approach the crest to the limit.” [0024] “in response to a menstruation permission instruction output from the menstruation permission instruction unit based on the travel control state, traveling beyond the boundary line is enabled without being prohibited by the menstruation prevention controller. Thereby, the agricultural vehicle can approach boundary objects, such as a headland and a density concentration, without stopping.” Okubo system shows expanding the boundary line as the mechanism that permits travel across the border line that would otherwise be blocked by the prevention controller;
and a limiter configured or programmed to limit content of an operation of the working vehicle in the cross-border state [0090] “Although the boundary line is set by taking a safe distance from boundary objects, such as a rice transplanter, a rice transplanter is set at the limit position in which a rice transplanter does not contact a boundary object, as for the boundary line, the expanded boundary line. Therefore, in order to avoid interference of the body 1 with the head, the condition is that this approach travel is performed manually at a low speed” See also [0092-0096]. Okubo explicitly limits operation in the boundary-permitted approach state which is the permitted approach must be low speed, which is an operational limitation such as a low speed.
Regarding Claim 2, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine to permit the cross-border state if a vehicle speed of the working vehicle is lower than a prescribed value, and determine not to permit the cross-border state if the vehicle speed of the working vehicle is higher than or equal to the prescribed value [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode” [0024] “traveling beyond the boundary line is enabled without being prohibited” [0090] “permission unit temporarily expands the boundary line [] Therefore, the condition is that this approach travel is performed at a low speed.” See also [0076] “travel sensor group detect vehicle speed” [0074] “vehicle speed is adjusted by controlling shift operation motor” Okubo’s “low speed condition” is enforced in the permitted state.
Regarding Claim 5, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine to permit the cross-border state if the working device is not doing work [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode” [0024] “traveling beyond the boundary line is enabled without being prohibited” [0068] “In a turning path, a direction change path, a start guidance path, and a transition path, since the rice transplanter travels without performing an operation work (i.e., not performing work), these paths are shown with dotted lines. In the round straight path and the straight path, the rice transplanter travels while performing work (i.e., doing work), so these paths are indicated by solid lines.” [0070] “.Seedling supply process approach straight run. For this reason, in seedling replenishment a boundary line is expanded (permitted).”, The cross-border permission (boundary line expansion) is applied during a replenishment approach and is associated with non-work travel segments (i.e., not performing work). This is the functional “permit when not doing work” condition.
and determine not to permit the cross-border state if the working device is doing work [0068] “In a turning path, a direction change path, a start guidance path, and a transition path, since the rice transplanter travels without performing an operation work (i.e., not performing work), these paths are shown with dotted lines. In the round straight path and the straight path, the rice transplanter travels while performing work (i.e., doing work), so these paths are indicated by solid lines.” [0090] “issues a stop instruction for prohibiting traveling beyond the boundary line” When “travel while performing work” the default is do not cross boundary (stop/prohibit beyond boundary). Therefore, permission is not granted in the work state. See also [0076] “The work sensor group 29 includes sensors for detecting the states of seedling transplantation device fertilization device.” The system can detect whether the implement is operating / in work state to gate permission.
Regarding Claim 9, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a setter configured or programmed to make a setting to permit or not to permit the cross-border state in accordance with a user selection wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to: if permitting the cross-border state is set by the setter, determine to permit the cross-border state; and if not permitting the cross-border state is set by the setter, determine to not permit the cross-border state [0096] “borderline is extended by issuing a permission instruction” [0102] “permission instruction is canceled, and the expanded boundary line returns” These are the functional equivalents of user setting “permit” to instruction issued; and user setting “not permit” to instruction cancelled/restored. See also [0092] “the remote control 90 has 7 buttons and 2 indicators.” It also describes stop/slow/start operations using these buttons by a user remote device 90. Thus, Okubo shows user-driven control via remote control and cancellation.
Regarding Claim 10, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether or not to permit the cross-border state in which the working vehicle, which has been switched from the automatic operation to a remote operation controlled by the remote controller, crosses the borderline [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode” Okubo teaches the automatic to remote control approach where permission is issued. See also [0092] “Next, the procedure of seedling replenishment processing during unmanned automatic driving will be described. Control of the rice transplanter in seedling replenishment processing is performed by remote control operation of the monitor outside the field. As shown in Fig. 9, the remote control 90 has 7 buttons and 2 indicators. []” [0093] “The procedure for seedling replenishment processing using remote control operation in the case where seedling replenishment is necessary during the seedling transplantation operation in a round-trip straight run is as follows.” [0094] “In the reciprocating travel in the inner region, at the transplant end position of the end portion of the straight path, it stops temporarily before entering the turning travel in the next straight path. The timing at which the front part of the base 1 reaches the posture facing the head for seedling replenishment is the start timing of the seedling replenishment process.” [0095] “First, when the operator simultaneously presses and operates the function button 90g and the third button 90c of the remote control 90, the aircraft 1 advances at a slow speed, not a turning path, but an extension of the straight path. Follow it towards the headland.” [0096] “Simultaneously, the borderline is extended by issuing a menstruation permission instruction from the menstruation permission instruction unit 56d to the menstruation permission unit 56c.”
Regarding Claim 11, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether or not to permit the cross-border state upon detection of switching to a remote control [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode” Okubo teaches what happens when remote-control approach state is detected/switched (permission instruction). See also [0092] “Next, the procedure of seedling replenishment processing during unmanned automatic driving will be described. Control of the rice transplanter in seedling replenishment processing is performed by remote control operation of the monitor outside the field. As shown in Fig. 9, the remote control 90 has 7 buttons and 2 indicators. []” [0093] “The procedure for seedling replenishment processing using remote control operation in the case where seedling replenishment is necessary during the seedling transplantation operation in a round-trip straight run is as follows.” [0094] “In the reciprocating travel in the inner region, at the transplant end position of the end portion of the straight path, it stops temporarily before entering the turning travel in the next straight path. The timing at which the front part of the base 1 reaches the posture facing the head for seedling replenishment is the start timing of the seedling replenishment process.” [0095] “First, when the operator simultaneously presses and operates the function button 90g and the third button 90c of the remote control 90, the aircraft 1 advances at a slow speed, not a turning path, but an extension of the straight path. Follow it towards the headland.” [0096] “Simultaneously, the borderline is extended by issuing a menstruation permission instruction from the menstruation permission instruction unit 56d to the menstruation permission unit 56c.”
Regarding Claim 12, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, Okubo discloses further comprising: a position detector to detect a position of the working vehicle; and a memory and/or a storage to store in advance an agricultural field map including position information of the agricultural field and position information of the borderline [0061] “positioning unit 8 satellite positioning module inertial measurement module” [0082]: “calculates aircraft position based on satellite positioning data” [0064] “From this running trajectory a pavement outline that is, a pavement map is obtained.” [0090] “boundary line storage unit 56a stores the boundary lines”;
wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether or not to permit the cross-border state when the position of the working vehicle detected by the position detector is at a position short of the borderline stored in the memory and/or the storage [0086] “Straight approach state to the boundary line The distance has reached a certain distance.” [0026] “travel control state includes a straight approach state When a straight approach state is detected, the permission instruction is output.” Short of borderline is within a predetermined distance. Okubo expressly defines such a state and uses it to trigger permission.
Regarding Claim 13, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, Okubo discloses wherein the limiter is configured or programmed to limit at least one of a vehicle speed of the working vehicle in the cross-border state [0090] “Although the boundary line is set by taking a safe distance from boundary objects, such as a rice transplanter, a rice transplanter is set at the limit position in which a rice transplanter does not contact a boundary object, as for the boundary line, the expanded boundary line. Therefore, in order to avoid interference of the body 1 with the head, the condition is that this approach travel is performed manually at a low speed” See also [0092-0096]. Okubo explicitly limits operation in the boundary-permitted approach state which is the permitted approach must be low speed, which is an operational limitation such as a low speed.,
an acceleration of the working vehicle in the cross-border state, changing a speed stage of the working vehicle in the cross-border state [0092] “The second button 90b temporarily stops the aircraft 1 by a single pressing operation, and ends the automatic travel by a simultaneous pressing operation with the function button 90g. The third button 90c accelerates the aircraft 1 by a single pressing operation, and advances the aircraft 1 at a slow speed by a simultaneous pressing operation with the function button 90g. The fourth button 90d decelerates the aircraft 1 by a single pressing operation, and slowly reverses the aircraft 1 by a simultaneous pressing operation with the function button 90g.” The system can limit acceleration/deceleration by limiting the remote-control acceleration/deceleration functions during cross-border permission. [0060] “a shift operation motor M2 for automatically operating the main shift lever 22 is also provided, and during automatic driving, the shift operation motor M2 operates based on the shift signal, thereby shifting the continuously variable transmission device 14 . The position is adjusted.” The system can shift automatically, it can also limit/lock shifting in cross-border permitted state.
a beyond-border range for the working vehicle, or content of an operation of the working device [0115] “permission unit 56c expands the boundary line by a preset predetermined value.” That predetermined value bounds how far “beyond” the original border the vehicle is permitted (i.e., limits beyond-border range.) [0057] “The blower 43 operates with electric power from a battery (not shown) mounted on the base body 1, and generates a conveying wind that conveys the fertilizer fed by each feeding mechanism 42 toward the mud surface of the pavement. make it the fertilization apparatus 4 can switch between the operation state which supplies the fertilizer stored in the hopper 41 to a field package by predetermined amount by intermittent operation of the blower 43 etc., and the non-operation state which stops supply.” [0145] “seedling transplantation apparatus is raised then operator lowers” Working device operations are commanded and can be limited/disabled (e.g., keep implement raised, keep fertilizer supply off) while in cross-border permission state.
Regarding Claim 14, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 13, Okubo discloses wherein the limiter is configured or programmed to change one or more limitations on the content of the operation of the working vehicle in the cross-border state based on a geographical feature of the agricultural field and a travel direction of the working vehicle [0026] “As the traveling control state that triggers the extension (invalidation) of the boundary line as described above, several states are exemplified. In the normal work travel in the pavement, the direction change (turning travel) of the aircraft is performed before approaching the boundary line, whether it is automatic travel or manual travel.” [0091] “By remote control operation, even if the aircraft 1 enters the outer peripheral region from the transplantation end position, if it does not turn and goes straight, the boundary line is expanded according to the menstruation permission instruction, and the aircraft 1 approaches the head without stopping.” [0115] “predetermined value change with environmental conditions, such as the state of a pavement and weather.” [0053] “criteria current site conditions affecting traction (e.g., surface makeup and moisture content)” Okubo teaches adjusting boundary-expansion parameters based on environmental conditions (i.e., geographical feature of the agricultural field).
Regarding Claim 16, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
Okubo teaches an acquirer to acquire path information indicating a path on the agricultural field [0066] “In the route generation the travel route target of the automatic travel is created” [0084] “travel route management unit receives and manages the travel route” Okubo teaches an “acquirer” of path info (generation management/storage).;
wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether or not to permit the cross-border state based on the path information acquired by the acquirer [0029] “.straight travel in the inner work travel mode continues to the outer periphery region extension of the boundary line is executed.” [0086] “Straight approach state distance to the boundary line has reached a certain distance.” Permission is triggered by a state that is inherently path-based (how the vehicle is traveling along/relative to the route). It’s obvious to a person that is skilled in the art to use the acquired planned path segment approaching a boundary as an explicit input to permission decisions.
Regarding Claim 17, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, Okubo discloses wherein the border-crossing permitter is configured or programmed to, when permitting the cross-border state, set another borderline by shifting the borderline, and determine whether or not to permit a cross-border state in which the working vehicle crosses the other borderline [0090] “permission unit 56c temporarily expands the boundary line [] prevention control determines whether does not cross the boundary line and issues a stop instruction” [0031] “boundary line is offset by a predetermined distance” [0025] “extension instruction extend or an invalidation instruction” Okubo shift is implemented by expansion/offset/invalidation mechanisms creating an “other borderline.” Once boundary line is shifted/expanded, the same “does not cross boundary line” determination applies to that updated boundary line. Thus, Okubo expressly teaches shifting the boundary line and enforcing crossing checks via prevention control
Regarding Claim 18, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, Okubo discloses further comprising: a memory and/or a storage to store in advance an agricultural field map including position information of the agricultural field position information of a travel route for the automatic operation in the agricultural field, and position information of the borderline; wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to, when the automatic operation is switched to remote operation, determine whether or not to permit the cross-border state in which the working vehicle crosses the borderline, based on the borderline of the agricultural field map that was used in the automatic operation [0064] “a pavement map is obtained.” [0066] “travel route target of the automatic travel is created” [0084] “receives and manages the travel route” [0090] “boundary line storage unit stores the boundary lines” [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode” Okubo teaches that the remote event occurs during automatic operation and uses the boundary line system already used for automatic operation.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo (WO 2021145046 A1), in view of Kakkar (US 20240147888 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether or not to permit the cross-border state … [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode” [0024] “traveling beyond the boundary line is enabled without being prohibited”
Okubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding performing the border cross state “based on a type of the working device”
However, Kakkar teaches equivalent teachings wherein different implement types when performing the border cross state based on a type of the working device See Fig. 5B and [0022] “Vehicle 104 may be operably coupled to one or more types of implements, such as implement 108. Implement 108 may be a machine, device, and/or attachment that configures vehicle 104 to perform a particular function. For example, in the agricultural context, implement 108 may be a plow, ripper, planter, applicator, drill, and the like. As another example, in the construction context, implement 108 may be a grater, leveler, blade, roller, boom, bucket, and the like.” [0064] “as illustrated in FIG. 5B, it may be determined that, while envelope 524-2 will pass over a horizontal location of boundary 510-2, because vertical measurement 520-3 from surface 501 to a bottom of implement 508 is greater than height 515-2 of boundary 510-2, envelope 524-2 will not intersect with boundary 510-2, and therefore precautionary action is not necessary.” [0069] “user terminal 608 is configured to receive one or more vehicle and/or implement definitions. For example, one or more GUIs may be configured to receive a selection of a particular vehicle and/or implement system from a set of vehicle and/or implement systems with predefined dimensions. Additionally, or alternatively, one or more GUIs may enable an operator to enter one or more dimensions associated with a new vehicle and/or implement system.” Kakkar explicitly teaches identifying/receiving implement definitions (type data).
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Okubo and Kakkar to incorporate implement type into Okubo’s permission decision using Kakkar’s explicit implement definition/selection mechanism to tailor cross-border permission to safer implement types (predictable safety benefit) to make the system wherein performing the border cross state based on a type of the working device.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Okubo and Kakkar to improve efficiency and affordability Kakkar [0018] “While such solutions may improve efficiency and affordability associated with efficient route planning and execution, autonomous and semi-autonomous driving solutions may benefit from additional safeguards to prevent vehicle operation outside of predefined boundaries. Such safeguards can include detecting that a vehicle is within close proximity to a boundary and slowing or stopping the vehicle to avoid an intersection or collision. However, slowing or completely stopping a vehicle merely because it is within close proximity to a boundary may lead to unnecessary speed reductions and/or unsafe stopping conditions”
Regarding Claim 8, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether or not to permit the cross-border state … [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode” [0024] “traveling beyond the boundary line is enabled without being prohibited”
Okubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding performing the border cross state “based on a height of the working device”
However, Kakkar teaches equivalent teachings performing the border cross state based on a height of the working device [0007] “the definition of the autonomous vehicle and an implement coupled to the autonomous vehicle includes one or more height measurements and the method further comprises generating a three-dimensional (3D) envelope and a 3D projection envelope using the one or more height measurements.” [0056] “envelopes include various vertical measurements” See also Kakkar [0056]–[0058] that shows examples include “vertical measurement to a bottom of implement” Kakkar teaches explicit height measurement modeling of vehicle and implement to evaluate boundary interaction.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Okubo and Kakkar to incorporate implements height measurements into Okubo’s permission decision using Kakkar’s explicit implement definition/selection mechanism to tailor cross-border permission to safer implement types (predictable safety benefit) to make the system wherein performing the border cross state based on a height of the working device.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Okubo and Kakkar to improve efficiency and affordability Kakkar [0018] “While such solutions may improve efficiency and affordability associated with efficient route planning and execution, autonomous and semi-autonomous driving solutions may benefit from additional safeguards to prevent vehicle operation outside of predefined boundaries. Such safeguards can include detecting that a vehicle is within close proximity to a boundary and slowing or stopping the vehicle to avoid an intersection or collision. However, slowing or completely stopping a vehicle merely because it is within close proximity to a boundary may lead to unnecessary speed reductions and/or unsafe stopping conditions”
Regarding Claim 19, The combination of Okubo and Kakkar teaches the working vehicle according to claim 1, Okubo discloses further comprising: a memory and/or a storage to store in advance an agricultural field map including position information of the agricultural field position information of a travel route for the automatic operation in the agricultural field, and position information of the borderline [0064] “a pavement map is obtained.” [0066] “travel route target of the automatic travel is created” [0084] “receives and manages the travel route” [0090] “boundary line storage unit stores the boundary lines” [0090] “boundary line storage unit stores the boundary lines” [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode”;
Okubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “the determiner is configured or programmed to, when the agricultural field map is not selected, determine to permit the cross-border state”
However, Kakkar teaches equivalent teachings wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to, when the agricultural field map is not selected, determine to permit the cross-border state [0062] “receive a selection of a predefined geofence boundary saved in a memory” [0002] “method comprise receiving a geofence boundary.” Kakkar explicitly teaches that geofence/boundary enforcement is premised on a boundary being received/selected. If no field map/boundary is selected/loaded, the system cannot compute “beyond borderline” or apply prevention control; therefore, the default is no boundary restriction (i.e., permit cross-border). This is a predictable default behavior consistent with Kakkar’s boundary-receipt architecture and common control system design. “Kakkar makes boundary enforcement contingent on receiving/selecting a geofence boundary; therefore, it would have been obvious that if no field map/boundary is selected, the system cannot apply the boundary restriction and defaults to allowing travel (i.e., permits the cross-border state).”
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Okubo and Kakkar to make the system wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to, when the agricultural field map is not selected, determine to permit the cross-border state.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Okubo and Kakkar to improve efficiency and affordability Kakkar [0018] “While such solutions may improve efficiency and affordability associated with efficient route planning and execution, autonomous and semi-autonomous driving solutions may benefit from additional safeguards to prevent vehicle operation outside of predefined boundaries. Such safeguards can include detecting that a vehicle is within close proximity to a boundary and slowing or stopping the vehicle to avoid an intersection or collision. However, slowing or completely stopping a vehicle merely because it is within close proximity to a boundary may lead to unnecessary speed reductions and/or unsafe stopping conditions.”
Claim(s) 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo (WO 2021145046 A1), in view of Crinklaw (US 20170325443 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, Okubo discloses wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine to permit the cross-border state … [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode” [0024] “traveling beyond the boundary line is enabled without being prohibited”,
Okubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “If a received signal strength of a control signal from the remote controller is higher than or equal to a predetermined value and determine not to permit the cross-border state if the received signal strength is lower than the predetermined value”
However, Crinklaw teaches equivalent teachings wherein if a received signal strength of a control signal from the remote controller is higher than or equal to a predetermined value [0053] “Remote control interface 310 allows ADV 110 to be operated by a remote operator, who can maintain control of ADV using a wireless link 311.” [0078] ” The operator of the control center 1000 can monitor, without limitation, all of the vehicle’s fluid levels, critical components temperature, radio signal strength, and speeds. If any of these items are out of tolerance, the operator can shut down, slow, or pause the vehicle from computer 1020, so necessary action can be taken.” It would have been obvious to use Crinklaw’s signal-strength ‘out of tolerance’ logic as a gating condition before permitting Okubo’s boundary-crossing permission state, to ensure reliable communications near boundaries.
and determine not to permit the cross-border state if the received signal strength is lower than the predetermined value [0084] “the radios will automatically drop the video feed to free up bandwidth for the more important command and control signals, once the signal strength degrades to a predetermined level” Crinklaw teaches the system monitors signal strength and uses a predetermined threshold for behavior changes.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Okubo and Crinklaw to make the system if a received signal strength of a control signal from the remote controller is higher than or equal to a predetermined value and determine not to permit the cross-border state if the received signal strength is lower than the predetermined value.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Okubo and Crinklaw to improve overall system operational efficiency Crinklaw [0077] “For example, setting the path before sending vehicles out to work is a first step in preventing overlap and that the vehicles are covering the field in the most efficient way possible, for example, by minimizing time spent turning at the end of a row.”
Regarding Claim 20, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
an obstacle sensor to detect an obstacle [0063] “in the rice transplanter, remote control using the remote control 90 (refer to FIG. 1) and the obstacle detection by the obstacle detector 80 (refer to FIG. 3) are performed, so the function check of the remote control 90 and the obstacle detector 80 is performed. It is also performed as a pretreatment. As shown in Fig. 3, the obstacle detector 80 in this embodiment is of a sonar type, and four front sonars 80f whose detection range is in front of the body 1”;
Okubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding having “a controller configured or programmed to stop the working vehicle if the obstacle sensor detects an obstacle even in a case that the determiner determines to permit the cross-border state”
However, Crinklaw teaches equivalent teachings wherein a controller configured or programmed to stop the working vehicle if the obstacle sensor detects an obstacle even in a case that the determiner determines to permit the cross-border state [0049] “when an object comes within a pre-determined distance planar laser send an alert ADV 200 stops to avoid collision.” [0055] “LiDAR proximity stop prevents accidental collision” [0056] “front bumper causes the engine to be shut off and parking brake engaged.” Crinklaw explicitly teaches obstacle sensing and automatic stopping and engine shutoff/parking brake engagement.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Okubo and Crinklaw to make the system to have a controller configured or programmed to stop the working vehicle if the obstacle sensor detects an obstacle even in a case that the determiner determines to permit the cross-border state.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Okubo and Crinklaw to improve overall system operational efficiency Crinklaw [0077] “For example, setting the path before sending vehicles out to work is a first step in preventing overlap and that the vehicles are covering the field in the most efficient way possible, for example, by minimizing time spent turning at the end of a row.”
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo (WO 2021145046 A1), and further in view of Skillsater (US 20180162410 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 14, Okubo discloses wherein the limiter is configured or programmed to less strictly or more strictly limit the content of the operation of the working vehicle in the cross-border state based on …of the agricultural field as the geographical feature of the agricultural field, and based on the travel direction of the working vehicle [0090] “By the expansion of this boundary line, the body 1 can approach the crest to the limit. Therefore, in order to avoid interference of the body 1 with the head, the condition is that this approach travel is performed manually at a low speed.” [0091] “By remote control operation, even if the aircraft 1 enters the outer peripheral region from the transplantation end position, if it does not turn and goes straight, the boundary line is expanded according to the menstruation permission instruction, and the aircraft 1 approaches the head without stopping.” See also [0061] “The positioning unit 8 outputs positioning data for calculating the position and orientation (aircraft orientation) of the base body 1 . The positioning unit 8 includes a satellite positioning module 8A for receiving radio waves from satellites of the global navigation satellite system (GNSS), and an inertial measurement module 8B for detecting the inclination and acceleration of three axes of the body 1” Okubo teaches calculation and detecting the inclination, orientation, and position of the working vehicle which are the measurable basis for direction (i.e., direction of travel relative to heading).
Okubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding limit the content of operation based on “an angle of slope and a direction of slope”
However, Skillsater teaches equivalent teachings wherein limit the content of operation based on an angle of slope and a direction of slope [0042] “According to some of the example embodiments, the method comprises: determining a slope direction at the location of the extracted ground gradient; predicting a driving direction of the working machine at the ground gradient area associated with the extracted ground gradient based on the predicted future driving path; determining a relative angle between the slope direction and the driving direction of the working machine along the predicted future driving path; and determining a current maximal allowed ground gradient for the working machine based on said weight information and the determined relative angle. As discussed above, for more accurately predicting the risk for rollover both the driving direction of the working machine and the slope direction at the area of the ground gradient should be taken into account in the rollover risk prediction calculation.”
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Okubo and Skillsater to modify Okubo’s boundary-permitted “low speed” limiting condition and the vehicle’s travel direction to be more strict or less strict based on IMU detected slope angle and as taught by Skillsater, because Skillsater expressly teaches that determining a slope direction at the location of the extracted ground gradient; predicting a driving direction of the working machine at the ground gradient area associated with the extracted ground gradient based on the predicted future driving path which affects and limits field operations to make the system wherein the limiter is configured or programmed to less strictly or more strictly limit the content of the operation of the working vehicle in the cross-border state based on an angle of slope and a direction of slope of the agricultural field.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Okubo, Kakkar and Skillsater to improve system overall risk management by predicting the risk of rollover caused by slopes and ground gradients Skillsater [0035] “the method comprises generating a 3D ground topographic map based on the ground topographic data. Having an entire 3D map available does not only enable improved prediction of the risk for rollover. For example, one or more isolated large ground gradients within a geographical area close to the working machine may generally be deemed reflecting less risk for rollover compared with a large area having large ground gradient, because the possibility of driving past the large gradient area is smaller.”
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo (WO 2021145046 A1), in view of Gong (JP 2017538203 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Okubo discloses the working vehicle according to claim 1, Okubo discloses wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine to permit the cross-border state if a position indicated by position some information of the remote controller is within a predetermined range from the working vehicle, and determine not to permit the cross-border state if the position is outside the predetermined range from the working vehicle [0091] “when the driving control state detecting unit 55 detects the above-described remote control approach driving state, the menstruation permission command unit 56d issues a menstruation permission instruction to the menstruation permission unit 56c. When the need for seedling replenishment occurs while the seedling transplantation operation in the inner region is being performed by unmanned automatic driving, the supervisor operates the remote control 90 to temporarily stop the automatic running in the internal working driving mode [] By remote control operation, even if the aircraft 1 enters the outer peripheral region (i.e., range) from the transplantation end position, if it does not turn and goes straight, the boundary line is expanded according to the menstruation permission instruction, and the aircraft 1 approaches the head without stopping.” [0024] “traveling beyond the boundary line is enabled without being prohibited”
Okubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “the remote controller is within a predetermined range” [0507] “In certain embodiments, the geo-fencing device may be a remote controller that receives user input. The remote controller can control the operation of the UAV. This allows geo-fencing boundaries to operate UAV within the geo-fencing boundary, but may be useful when limiting the operation of UAV outside the geo-fencing boundary. For example, a UAV may only be allowed to fly within a geo-fencing boundary. If the UAV approaches the boundary or leaves the boundary, you can change the flight path of the UAV and keep the UAV within the geo-fencing boundary. If the UAV is allowed only flight within the geo-fencing boundary, this allows the UAV to be maintained within the defined proximity range of the remote controller. This can help the user to monitor the UAV more easily. Also, this can prevent the UAV from flying out of the desired range and getting lost. If the geo-fencing device is a remote controller, the user may be able to walk around and the boundary of the geo-fencing device may move with the remote controller. In this way, the user may have some freedom to freely cross an area while the UAV remains within the desired boundary relative to the user.”
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Okubo and Gong to make the system wherein if a position indicated by position information of the remote controller is within a predetermined range from the working vehicle, and determine not to permit the cross-border state if the position is outside the predetermined range from the working vehicle.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Okubo and Gong to improve the overall vehicle monitoring and help the user to monitor and control the vehicle more easily Gong [0507] “This can help the user to monitor the UAV more easily. Also, this can prevent the UAV from flying out of the desired range and getting lost. If the geo-fencing device is a remote controller, the user may be able to walk around and the boundary of the geo-fencing device may move with the remote controller. In this way, the user may have some freedom to freely cross an area while the UAV remains within the desired boundary relative to the user.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662