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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/956,752. Responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 3/3/2025, Claims 29-48 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation "navigational information" (e.g., Claim 29, line 8) has been interpreted in accordance with and in light of Applicant's disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0233]) while using a broadest reasonable interpretation analysis.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the processor” should be changed to - -the at least one processor- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 29, line 2, “at least one processor”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8, “transmit” should be changed to - -transmitting- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 38-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "The medium" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 38 should be amended to depend from Claim 36 which is drawn to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” (see, for reference, Claim 36, line 1).
Claim 39 recites the limitation "The medium" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 38 should be amended to depend from Claim 36 which is drawn to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” (see, for reference, Claim 36, line 1).
Claim 40 recites the limitation "The medium" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 40 should be amended to depend from Claim 36 which is drawn to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” (see, for reference, Claim 36, line 1).
Claim 41 recites the limitation "The medium" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 41 should be amended to depend from Claim 36 which is drawn to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” (see, for reference, Claim 36, line 1).
Claim 42 recites the limitation "The medium" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 42 should be amended to depend from Claim 36 which is drawn to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” (see, for reference, Claim 36, line 1).
Claim 43 recites the limitation "The medium" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 43 should be amended to depend from Claim 36 which is drawn to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” (see, for reference, Claim 36, line 1).
Claim 44 recites the limitation "The medium" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 44 should be amended to depend from Claim 36 which is drawn to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” (see, for reference, Claim 36, line 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 29-34, 36, 38-42 and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WERNER et al. (US 2019/0301880 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, WERNER et al. discloses a server-based navigation system (Figs. 3-5), the system comprising: at least one processor associated with a memory (Figs. 3-4; paragraph [0055], “navigation system 410 may be embodied in a computer system 300”), wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processor cause the at least one processor to: receive from a plurality of harvesting vehicles (450) indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel (paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”); correlate the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions with respect to one or more geographic locations (paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”); and generate and transmit navigational information to at least one entity based on the correlated indicators of detected wheel slip conditions with respect to one or more geographic locations (paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0058], “communication with the navigational system 410…to generate routes based on deviations from the expected route by local drivers”).
Regarding Claim 30, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes an alert distributed to a plurality of navigating vehicles (paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0057], “display device 452 displays routes generated”; paragraph [0058], “communication with the navigational system 410…to generate routes based on deviations from the expected route by local drivers”).
Regarding Claim 31, WERNER et al. discloses the alert includes an identification of the existence of slippery conditions detected relative to a particular road segment (paragraph [0053], “current conditions…snow”; paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”).
Regarding Claim 32, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes an indication of a restricted access zone (paragraph [0053], “route that avoids recent road construction or deteriorated road conditions”).
Regarding Claim 33, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes a change to a planned navigation route for one or more vehicles (paragraph [0058], “communication with the navigational system 410…to generate routes based on deviations from the expected route by local drivers”).
Regarding Claim 34, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes an identification of at least one road segment where a road surface condition has been linked to detected wheel slip conditions (paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”).
Regarding Claim 36, WERNER et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (Figs. 3-5) containing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (Figs. 3-4; paragraph [0055], “navigation system 410 may be embodied in a computer system 300”), cause the at least one processor to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving from a plurality of harvesting vehicles (450) indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel (paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”); correlating the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions with respect to one or more geographic locations (paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”); and generating and transmit navigational information to at least one entity based on the correlated indicators of detected wheel slip conditions with respect to one or more geographic locations (paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0058], “communication with the navigational system 410…to generate routes based on deviations from the expected route by local drivers”).
Regarding Claim 38 as best understood, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes an alert distributed to a plurality of navigating vehicles (paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0057], “display device 452 displays routes generated”; paragraph [0058], “communication with the navigational system 410…to generate routes based on deviations from the expected route by local drivers”).
Regarding Claim 39 as best understood, WERNER et al. discloses the alert includes an identification of the existence of slippery conditions detected relative to a particular road segment (paragraph [0053], “current conditions…snow”; paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”).
Regarding Claim 40 as best understood, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes an indication of a restricted access zone (paragraph [0053], “route that avoids recent road construction or deteriorated road conditions”).
Regarding Claim 41 as best understood, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes a change to a planned navigation route for one or more vehicles (paragraph [0058], “communication with the navigational system 410…to generate routes based on deviations from the expected route by local drivers”).
Regarding Claim 42 as best understood, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes an identification of at least one road segment where a road surface condition has been linked to detected wheel slip conditions (paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”).
Regarding Claim 45, WERNER et al. discloses a navigation method (Figs. 3-5), comprising: receiving from a plurality of harvesting vehicles (450) indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel (paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”); correlating the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions with respect to one or more geographic locations (paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”); and generating and transmitting navigational information to at least one entity based on the correlated indicators of detected wheel slip conditions with respect to one or more geographic locations (paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0058], “communication with the navigational system 410…to generate routes based on deviations from the expected route by local drivers”).
Regarding Claim 46, WERNER et al. discloses the navigational information includes an alert distributed to a plurality of navigating vehicles (paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0057], “display device 452 displays routes generated”; paragraph [0058], “communication with the navigational system 410…to generate routes based on deviations from the expected route by local drivers”).
Regarding Claim 47, WERNER et al. discloses the alert includes an identification of the existence of slippery conditions detected relative to a particular road segment (paragraph [0053], “current conditions…snow”; paragraph [0054], “provide routing to non-local drivers based on the observed route deviations and the current conditions”; paragraph [0055], “450…transmit data…wheel slip…and location to the navigational system 410”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 35 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0301880 A1 in view of EP 1 302 378 A2.
Regarding Claim 35, US 2019/0301880 A1 discloses the system of Claim 29, described in detail above, but does not disclose the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel are integrated over time relative to the one or more geographic locations to determine changes in road surface conditions over time.
EP 1 302 378 A2 discloses a method for judging road surface conditions wherein indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel are integrated over time relative to one or more geographic locations to determine changes in road surface conditions over time (see paragraph [0003], “slip rates of the wheels…integrated by a specified period of time…road surface conditions are estimated”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of US 2019/0301880 A1 wherein the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel are integrated over time relative to the one or more geographic locations to determine changes in road surface conditions over time, as disclosed by EP 1 302 378 A2, for the predictable result of allowing the system to monitor and respond to road surface changes over time.
Regarding Claim 43 as best understood, US 2019/0301880 A1 discloses the medium of Claim 36, described in detail above, but does not disclose the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel are integrated over time relative to the one or more geographic locations to determine changes in road surface conditions over time.
EP 1 302 378 A2 discloses a method for judging road surface conditions wherein indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel are integrated over time relative to one or more geographic locations to determine changes in road surface conditions over time (see paragraph [0003], “slip rates of the wheels…integrated by a specified period of time…road surface conditions are estimated”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the medium of US 2019/0301880 A1 wherein the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions associated with at least one wheel are integrated over time relative to the one or more geographic locations to determine changes in road surface conditions over time, as disclosed by EP 1 302 378 A2, for the predictable result of allowing the medium to monitor and respond to road surface changes over time.
Claim(s) 37, 44 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WERNER et al. (US 2019/0301880 A1) in view of RUYBAL et al. (US 2020/0398844 A1).
Regarding Claim 37, WERNER et al. discloses the system of Claim 29, described in detail above, but does not disclose the wheel slip conditions are detected by the plurality of harvesting vehicles based on analysis of at least one image captured by the harvesting vehicles, the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions, and the location information is determined by the harvesting vehicles based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions.
RUYBAL et al. discloses a vehicle control system wherein wheel slip conditions are detected by a vehicle based on analysis of at least one image captured by the vehicle (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”), indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”), and the location information is determined by the vehicle based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of WERNER et al. wherein the wheel slip conditions are detected by the plurality of harvesting vehicles based on analysis of at least one image captured by the harvesting vehicles, the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions, and the location information is determined by the harvesting vehicles based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions, as disclosed by RUYBAL et al., since the simple substitution of one known wheel slip determining means for an equivalent other yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 44 as best understood, WERNER et al. discloses the medium of Claim 36, described in detail above, but does not disclose the wheel slip conditions are detected by the plurality of harvesting vehicles based on analysis of at least one image captured by the harvesting vehicles, the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions, and the location information is determined by the harvesting vehicles based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions.
RUYBAL et al. discloses a vehicle control system wherein wheel slip conditions are detected by a vehicle based on analysis of at least one image captured by the vehicle (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”), indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”), and the location information is determined by the vehicle based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the medium of WERNER et al. wherein the wheel slip conditions are detected by the plurality of harvesting vehicles based on analysis of at least one image captured by the harvesting vehicles, the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions, and the location information is determined by the harvesting vehicles based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions, as disclosed by RUYBAL et al., since the simple substitution of one known wheel slip determining means for an equivalent other yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 48, WERNER et al. discloses the method of Claim 45, described in detail above, but does not disclose the wheel slip conditions are detected by the plurality of harvesting vehicles based on analysis of at least one image captured by the harvesting vehicles, the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions, and the location information is determined by the harvesting vehicles based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions.
RUYBAL et al. discloses a vehicle control system wherein wheel slip conditions are detected by a vehicle based on analysis of at least one image captured by the vehicle (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”), indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”), and the location information is determined by the vehicle based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions (paragraph [0101], “using cameras for terrain detection and/or determine wheel slip”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of WERNER et al. wherein the wheel slip conditions are detected by the plurality of harvesting vehicles based on analysis of at least one image captured by the harvesting vehicles, the indicators of detected wheel slip conditions include at least location information associated with the detected wheel slip conditions, and the location information is determined by the harvesting vehicles based on the at least one image used in detecting the wheel slip conditions, as disclosed by RUYBAL et al., since the simple substitution of one known wheel slip determining means for an equivalent other yields predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AIKIN (US 2018/0283895 A1) discloses a navigation method which correlates environmental data relative to a particular location (see Fig. 2).
PARALIKAR et al. (US 2018/0222502 A1) discloses a vehicle control system that identifies wheel slip along a route (see paragraph [0021]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655