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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024, 10/10/2025, and 10/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system for map data generation. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A map data generation system comprising:
a storage to store map data for an agricultural machine that performs self-driving; and
a processor configured or programmed to, when data of a road is not included in a predetermined region indicated by the map data, generate data of the road in the predetermined region based on:
a trajectory of a vehicle including a GNSS receiver and traveling in the predetermined region, the trajectory being acquired in the predetermined region based on GNSS data that is output from the GNSS receiver; and
attribute information of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the step of generating road data based on a trajectory of a vehicle and attribute information of the vehicle in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (stored, acquired, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A map data generation system comprising:
a storage to store map data for an agricultural machine that performs self-driving; and
a processor configured or programmed to, when data of a road is not included in a predetermined region indicated by the map data, generate data of the road in the predetermined region based on:
a trajectory of a vehicle including a GNSS receiver and traveling in the predetermined region, the trajectory being acquired in the predetermined region based on GNSS data that is output from the GNSS receiver; and
attribute information of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the step of acquiring a trajectory is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the data generation and other steps), and amounts to no more than mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 further recites a storage, a processor, an agricultural machine/vehicle, and a GNSS receiver. These limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose mapping environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and storage to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitation of acquiring the trajectory is considered well-understood, routine and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including 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), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate a path for the agricultural machine that performs self-driving to travel outside fields by using data of the road in the predetermined region in the map data” in claim 12 is not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the agricultural machine performs self-driving according to the generated path” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190137282 A1, with an earliest priority date of November 8th, 2017, hereinafter “Minowa”, in view of US 20170371337 A1, filed June 24th, 2016, hereinafter “Ramasamy”.
Regarding claim 1, Minowa teaches A map data generation system. See at least [0017] and figure 1.
comprising: a storage to store map data for an agricultural machine that performs self-driving. See at least [0017], [0028]-[0031], and figure 1, database 10b1 which stores map data useable by vehicles V1-m. See at least [0061], wherein the vehicles perform self-driving.
and a processor configured or programmed to, when data of a public road is not included in a predetermined region indicated by the map data, generate data of the road in the predetermined region. See at least [0038] and figure 1, wherein processor 10a performs the steps of figure 4. See at least [0039]-[0040], [0043], and figure 4, step S112, wherein road data is generated based on the vehicle being within a cultivated land area, and the map data stored in the database is updated. See at least [0029]-[0030], wherein cultivated land areas indicate areas with agricultural land and farm service roads, and excludes public roads.
See at least [0048]-[0049], wherein the generated map data is for new roads.
based on: a trajectory of a vehicle including a GNSS receiver and traveling in the predetermined region, the trajectory being acquired in the predetermined region based on GNSS data that is output from the GNSS receiver. See at least [0020], [0036]-[0037], and figure 3, step S10, wherein vehicle position data is acquired from position sensors 20 of the vehicle at predetermined time intervals. The position sensors include GPS receivers. See at least [0040] and figure 4, step S102, wherein the vehicle position data is used for the map data generation, and the vehicle position data is acquired from a particular cultivated land area.
and attribute information of the vehicle. See at least [0041] and figure 4, step S106, wherein the map data generation is additionally based on a vehicle type identifier. See at least [0026]-[0027], wherein the vehicle type identifiers identify whether or not the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle.
Minowa remains silent on generating the road data when data of a road is not included in a predetermined region indicated by the map data. As discussed above, Minowa teaches generating the road data when the predetermined region indicated by the map data is “cultivated land area”. This classification includes cultivated land, and farm service roads, but does not include public roads. Therefore, Minowa only discloses the predetermined map data region excluding some road data.
Ramasamy teaches when data of a road is not included in a predetermined region indicated by the map data. See at least [0014], [0052], and figure 1, wherein the road data generation is performed when there is no defined lane data for roads within a predetermined area of 500 feet of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of generating road data when data of a road is not included in a predetermined region indicated by the map data. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Minowa remains silent on when the attribute information of the vehicle includes information on a width of the vehicle, set a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle.
Ramasamy teaches when the attribute information of the vehicle includes information on a width of the vehicle, set a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle. See at least [0058] and figure 3, wherein the width of lane 120 is set to be greater than the width of the vehicle 142. See at least [0074] and figure 8A, step 830, wherein lane data for the road is defined based on received vehicle information. The defined lane data sets the width of the lane to the width of the vehicle plus a predefined buffer area. See at least [0030], wherein the vehicle information comprises a width of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of setting a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle based on vehicle width attribute information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and Minowa additionally teaches when the attribute information of the vehicle includes information as to whether the vehicle is an agricultural machine or not, and the vehicle is an agricultural machine, set a category of the road in the predetermined region to agricultural road. See at least [0042]-[0043] and figure 4, steps S106 and S112, wherein, based on the vehicle type identifier being type S, the road is set to be a cultivated land area road. See at least [0026], wherein type S vehicles are farm utility vehicles such as tractors. See at least [0029]-[0030], wherein cultivated land area roads comprise farm service roads in agricultural areas, distinct from public roads.
Regarding claim 5, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Minowa remains silent on set an orientation of the vehicle in the predetermined region as an orientation of the road in the predetermined region, the orientation of the vehicle being acquired based on the trajectory of the vehicle at least in the predetermined region.
Ramasamy teaches set an orientation of the vehicle in the predetermined region as an orientation of the road in the predetermined region, the orientation of the vehicle being acquired based on the trajectory of the vehicle at least in the predetermined region. See at least [0043] and figure 8A, step 810, wherein the acquired vehicle information includes a traveling direction of the vehicle. See at least [0049]-[0052] and figure 8A, steps 820-830, wherein the generated road data defines the traveling direction of the lane to be the same as the traveling direction of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of setting an orientation of the lane to be an orientation of the vehicle, the orientation being acquired based on the trajectory of the vehicle in the predetermined region. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Minowa additionally teaches hold the generated road in the predetermined region and another road existing in the map data in association. See at least [0031]-[0033], wherein the term “location concerned” refers to the vehicle trajectory data and its associated map data links, or roads. See at least [0043], wherein the “location concerned” related to the generated road data is updated in the map data storage.
Regarding claim 7, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Minowa additionally teaches when the data of the road is included in the predetermined region, update the data of the road in the predetermined region. See at least [0029]-[0033], wherein the vehicle’s position data is either associated with a road or with cultivated land area in the map data. See at least [0034]-[0037], and figure 3, step S10, wherein the vehicle trajectory data is used to update the map database regardless of if the generated road data is associated with existing road data, or with cultivated land area.
based on: a trajectory of a vehicle including a GNSS receiver and traveling in the predetermined region, the trajectory being acquired in the predetermined region based on GNSS data that is output from the GNSS receiver. See at least [0020], [0036]-[0037], and figure 3, step S10, wherein vehicle position data is acquired from position sensors 20 of the vehicle at predetermined time intervals. The position sensors include GPS receivers. The position data and locations concerned are used to update the map database. See at least [0033], wherein the locations concerned of the trajectory data indicate the map data within a region.
and attribute information of the vehicle. See at least [0041] and figure 4, step S106, wherein the map data generation is additionally based on a vehicle type identifier. See at least [0026]-[0027], wherein the vehicle type identifiers identify whether or not the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above, and Minowa remains silent on when the attribute information of the vehicle includes a width of the vehicle, and the width of the vehicle is greater than a width of the road in the predetermined region, update the width of the road in the predetermined region to the width of the vehicle.
Ramasamy teaches when the attribute information of the vehicle includes a width of the vehicle, and the width of the vehicle is greater than a width of the road in the predetermined region, update the width of the road in the predetermined region to the width of the vehicle. See at least [0058] and figure 3, wherein the width of lane 120 is set to be greater than the width of the vehicle 142. See at least [0074] and figure 8A, step 830, wherein lane data for the road is defined based on received vehicle information. The defined lane data sets the width of the lane to the width of the vehicle plus a predefined buffer area. See at least [0030], wherein the vehicle information comprises a width of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of setting a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle based on vehicle width attribute information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 12, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Minowa additionally teaches wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate a path for the agricultural machine that performs self-driving to travel outside fields by using data of the road in the predetermined region in the map data. See at least [0061], wherein the vehicle performs self-driving to travel on public roads not in the cultivated land area using the updated map data. See at least [0020]-[0021], wherein the vehicle navigates autonomously along a travel route.
Regarding claim 13, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above, and Minowa remains silent on generate the path by combining roads having a width which is equal to or less than a width of the agricultural machine.
Ramasamy teaches generate the path by combining roads having a width which is equal to or less than a width of the agricultural machine. See at least [0058] and figure 3, wherein, when the lane 110 has a width too narrow for the vehicle 142, the vehicle 142 is directed to travel on a newly defined lane 120, which can accommodate the width of the vehicle. See at least [0047], wherein newly defined lanes can be formed by merging existing lanes. See at least [0085] and figure 12, wherein the truck 1044b travels on a lane that combines lanes 1020 and 1010.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of generating a navigation path by combining lanes having a width too narrow for the width of the truck. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Claims 3, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minowa and Ramasamy as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20170168501 A1, with an earliest priority date of February 6th, 2014, hereinafter “Ogura”.
Regarding claim 3, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Minowa additionally teaches the attribute information of the vehicle includes information on whether the vehicle is an agricultural machine, and the vehicle is an agricultural machine. See at least [0042]-[0043] and figure 4, steps S106 and S112, wherein, based on the vehicle type identifier being type S, the road is set to be a cultivated land area road. See at least [0026], wherein type S vehicles are farm utility vehicles such as tractors.
Minowa remains silent on when the attribute information of the vehicle includes information on a width of the vehicle and information as to whether the vehicle has an implement attached thereto or not, and the vehicle has an implement attached thereto, set a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than a width of the implement.
Ramasamy teaches when the attribute information of the vehicle includes information on a width of the vehicle, set a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle. See at least [0058] and figure 3, wherein the width of lane 120 is set to be greater than the width of the vehicle 142. See at least [0074] and figure 8A, step 830, wherein lane data for the road is defined based on received vehicle information. The defined lane data sets the width of the lane to the width of the vehicle plus a predefined buffer area. See at least [0030], wherein the vehicle information comprises a width of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of setting a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle based on vehicle width attribute information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Ogura teaches information as to whether the vehicle has implement attached thereto or not, and the vehicle has an implement attached thereto, a width of the implement. See at least [0072] and figure 5, wherein the vehicle information includes information on the specifications of the vehicle, whether the vehicle has an implement attached, and the width of the implement. See at least [0072] and [0078], wherein, when the vehicle has a rotary tiller implement attached, a width of the road HB in the field H is set to be larger than the width W1 of the rotary tiller implement.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Minowa with Ogura’s vehicle information including implement information and vehicle specification information, the vehicle being an agricultural machine with an attached implement. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient agricultural operations, by allowing vehicles to travel autonomously, as recognized by Ogura (see at least [0009]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above, and Minowa additionally teaches the attribute information of the vehicle includes a type of the vehicle, the vehicle is an agricultural machine. See at least [0042]-[0043] and figure 4, steps S106 and S112, wherein, based on the vehicle type identifier being type S, the road is set to be a cultivated land area road. See at least [0026], wherein type S vehicles are farm utility vehicles such as tractors.
Minowa remains silent on the vehicle having an implement attached thereto, and a width of the implement is greater than a width of the road in the predetermined region, update the width of the road in the predetermined region to the width of the implement.
Ramasamy teaches and a width of the vehicle is greater than a width of the road in the predetermined region, update the width of the road in the predetermined region to the width of the implement. See at least [0058] and figure 3, wherein the width of lane 120 is set to be greater than the width of the vehicle 142. See at least [0074] and figure 8A, step 830, wherein lane data for the road is defined based on received vehicle information. The defined lane data sets the width of the lane to the width of the vehicle plus a predefined buffer area. See at least [0030], wherein the vehicle information comprises a width of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of setting a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle based on vehicle width attribute information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Ogura teaches the vehicle having an implement attached thereto, and a width of the implement. See at least [0072] and figure 5, wherein the vehicle information includes information on the specifications of the vehicle, whether the vehicle has an implement attached, and the width of the implement. See at least [0072] and [0078], wherein, when the vehicle has a rotary tiller implement attached, a width of the road HB in the field H is set to be larger than the width W1 of the rotary tiller implement.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Minowa with Ogura’s vehicle information including implement information and vehicle specification information, the vehicle being an agricultural machine with an attached implement. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient agricultural operations, by allowing vehicles to travel autonomously, as recognized by Ogura (see at least [0009]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Minowa additionally teaches generate or update data of the road in the predetermined region in the map data. See at least [0037] and [0042]-[0043], wherein the road data is generated or updated based on data from position sensors 20. See at least [0020], wherein the position sensors include GPS receivers receiving signals from GPS satellites.
Minowa remains silent on further acquire reception intensities of satellite signals by the GNSS receiver included in the vehicle when the trajectory of the vehicle in the predetermined region is acquired; and when the reception intensities are higher than a predetermined intensity.
Ogura teaches further acquire reception intensities of satellite signals by the GNSS receiver included in the vehicle when the trajectory of the vehicle in the predetermined region is acquired; and when the reception intensities are higher than a predetermined intensity. See at least [0060], wherein the GPS data includes reception intensities of received satellites. See at least [0101], [0114], and [0125], wherein the GPS data is only utilized when the reception intensity is within a preset range.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Minowa with Ogura’s technique of only utilizing GNSS data when the GNSS receiver’s acquired satellite reception intensity is within a predetermined range. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient agricultural operations, by allowing vehicles to travel autonomously, as recognized by Ogura (see at least [0009]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 11, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Minowa remains silent on as the attribute information of the vehicle, acquire information on a width of the vehicle, information as to whether the vehicle has an implement attached thereto or not, and information on a width of the implement if the vehicle has an implement attached thereto; when the vehicle has an implement attached thereto, set a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than a width of the implement; and when the vehicle does not have an implement attached thereto, set the width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle.
Ramasamy teaches as the attribute information of the vehicle, acquire information on a width of the vehicle, and when the vehicle does not have an implement attached thereto, set the width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle. See at least [0058] and figure 3, wherein the width of lane 120 is set to be greater than the width of the vehicle 142. See at least [0074] and figure 8A, step 830, wherein lane data for the road is defined based on received vehicle information. The defined lane data sets the width of the lane to the width of the vehicle plus a predefined buffer area. See at least [0030], wherein the vehicle information comprises a width of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of setting a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than the width of the vehicle based on vehicle width attribute information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Ogura teaches acquire information as to whether the vehicle has an implement attached thereto or not, and information on a width of the implement if the vehicle has an implement attached thereto. See at least [0072] and figure 5, wherein the vehicle information includes information on the specifications of the vehicle, whether the vehicle has an implement attached, and the width of the implement.
when the vehicle has an implement attached thereto, set a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than a width of the implement. See at least [0072] and [0078], wherein, when the vehicle has a rotary tiller implement attached, a width of the road HB in the field H is set to be larger than the width W1 of the rotary tiller implement.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Minowa with Ogura’s vehicle information including implement information and vehicle specification information, the vehicle being an agricultural machine with an attached implement. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient agricultural operations, by allowing vehicles to travel autonomously, as recognized by Ogura (see at least [0009]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 14, Minowa and Ramasamy in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above, and Minowa remains silent on when the agricultural machine has an implement attached thereto, generate the path by combining roads having a width which is equal to or less than a width of the implement.
Ramasamy teaches generate the path by combining roads having a width which is equal to or less than a width of the agricultural machine. See at least [0058] and figure 3, wherein, when the lane 110 has a width too narrow for the vehicle 142, the vehicle 142 is directed to travel on a newly defined lane 120, which can accommodate the width of the vehicle. See at least [0047], wherein newly defined lanes can be formed by merging existing lanes. See at least [0085] and figure 12, wherein the truck 1044b travels on a lane that combines lanes 1020 and 1010.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Minowa with Ramasamy’s technique of generating a navigation path by combining lanes having a width too narrow for the width of the truck. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to travel autonomously in area with no defined road data, while accommodating larger-sized vehicles, as recognized by Ramasamy (see at least [0001] and [0014]-[0018]).
Ogura teaches when the agricultural machine has an implement attached thereto, a width of the implement. See at least [0072] and figure 5, wherein the vehicle information includes information on the specifications of the vehicle, whether the vehicle has an implement attached, and the width of the implement. See at least [0072] and [0078], wherein, when the vehicle has a rotary tiller implement attached, a width of the road HB in the field H is set to be larger than the width W1 of the rotary tiller implement.
when the vehicle has an implement attached thereto, set a width of the road in the predetermined region to equal to or greater than a width of the implement. See at least [0072] and [0078], wherein, when the vehicle has a rotary tiller implement attached, a width of the road HB in the field H is set to be larger than the width W1 of the rotary tiller implement.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Minowa with Ogura’s vehicle information including implement information and vehicle specification information, the vehicle being an agricultural machine with an attached implement. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient agricultural operations, by allowing vehicles to travel autonomously, as recognized by Ogura (see at least [0009]-[0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights