DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-13, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claims 1-7, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase et al. (USP 2021/0100156) in view of Vorobiev et al. (USP 2021/0230842) in view of Ferrari et al. (EP-3871481 A1).
As Per Claim 1, Iwase et al. ( Iwase) teaches, a sensing system (a tractor 1 (Fig.17) being equipped with control unit 18), Figs. 2. 23) comprising : a first range sensor mounted on a work vehicle; ( Front lidar 101), and a processor (via controller 18). Fig. 2, 17, 23, [0013]).
However, Iwase does not explicitly teach, a second range sensor mounted on an implement connected to the work vehicle; a marker located in a sensing range of the first range sensor; estimate a pose of the second range sensor relative to the first range sensor based on first sensor data generated by the first range sensor sensing a region including the marker; and output data indicating the estimated pose.
In an analogous art, Vorobiev et al. (Vorobiev) teaches, system and method for controlling an implement on a work machine using machine vision, wherein,
a marker mounted on an implement connected to the work vehicle; ( via Earth working machine 470 being equipped with blade 475,marker 451 and 452 being mounted on implement (blade) 475), a marker located in a sensing range of the first range sensor; ( via marker 451, 452 being mounted on implement and work machine being equipped with GNSS receiver 415, 3D camera 405, IMU 450 and implement 475 being in the range of the camera 405,[0029-0030], Fig.4); estimate a pose of the second range relative to the first range based on first sensor data generated by the first range sensor sensing a region including the marker; ([0029-0031], range 460, 461, 462), [0026]) and output data indicating the estimated pose.( via computer 800 being equipped with input/output device 840 ,[0051]).
In an analogous art. Ferrari et al. ( Ferrari) teaches, wherein, a second range sensor mounted on and connected to the work vehicle; ( via an agricultural vehicle provided with a front and a rear 3D imaging device, wherein, agricultural vehicle 1, being provided with rear Lidar 6 and front Lidar 5, (front Lidar being mounted on hood 7), [0010]),see [0009-0015], Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Iwase and Vorobiev and Ferrari before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Iwase to include the teachings (implement being equipped with marker and IMU 450, camera 405 (LIDAR), computer, output device 840) of Vorobeiv and Front LIDAR 5 of Ferrari and configure with the system of Iwase and mount the front LIDAR 5 as the second sensor on the implement ((blade 475 , rigidly fixed top surface of the blade 475) between mark 415 and 452 ( at the center) ) and configure with the Front LIDAR 101/ (camera 405) and using IMU to estimate the position and orientation of second sensor (LIDAR 5) with respect to first sensor (LIDAR 101/camera 405) and creating range and outputting data to the output device. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate determining the position and orientation of the implement, scanning a field ahead (Fah) that is ground area in front of the vehicle and facilitating maneuverability of the work machine in the work area (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the vehicle).
As per Claim 2, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, wherein the second range sensor (Ferrari : LIDAR 5, [0000-0013], Fig.1) includes a mounting structure ( implement 475, ) to mount the second range sensor ( LIDAR 5) on the implement (475), and is external to the implement. ( Vorobiev : Fig.4, [0029-0031]).
(See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 3, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, wherein the marker (451, 452) is attached to the second range sensor (LIADR 5) (Vorobiev : Fig.4, [0029-0030]). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 4, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, wherein the processor (Vorobiev : computing system 800) is configured or programmed to estimate the pose of the second range sensor relative to the first range sensor based on the first sensor data, and information indicating a relationship in position and orientation between the second range sensor and the marker. (Vorobiev : [0051], Fig.8). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 5, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches,
wherein the processor ( Vorobiev : computing system 800) is configured or programmed to convert second sensor data output from the second range sensor (Ferrari : LIDAR 5, [0000-0013]) into data represented by a coordinate system fixed to the work vehicle based on the estimated pose, and output the data. (Vorobiev : [0051], Fig.8). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 6, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, wherein the first range sensor includes a first LiDAR sensor to output the first sensor data; (Iwase : LIDAR 101, Fig.2,17, 23, [0013]) the second range sensor includes a second LiDAR sensor ( Ferrari : LIDAR 5, Fig.1) to output second sensor data; the marker (Vorobiev : Marker 451,452, Fig.4) includes one or more reflective portions having a higher reflectance with respect to light emitted from the first LiDAR sensor than that of the other portion of the marker; and the processor is configured or programmed to estimate the pose of the second range sensor relative to the first range sensor based on a position and/or shape of the one or more reflective portions ( Vorobiev : ([0029-0031], range 460, 461, 462), [0026], [0051], Fig.4). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 7, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 6. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to convert the second sensor data into data represented by a coordinate system fixed to the work vehicle based on the estimated pose,( Vorobiev : via computing system 800, [0051]) and generate and output point cloud data based on the first sensor data and the converted second sensor data. (Ferrari : [0009-0013]). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 9, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, wherein the first range sensor includes an image sensor to output image data as the first sensor data; (Iwase : [0113], Figs.17,2, 23) and the processor (Vorobiev : computing system 800) is configured or programmed to estimate the pose of the second range sensor relative to the first range sensor based on a luminance distribution or color distribution of a region corresponding to the marker in an image indicated by the first sensor data. (Vorobiev : [0030-0036], Fig.4). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 11, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, wherein the implement (Vorobiev : Implement 475, Fig.4) is connected to a front portion of the work vehicle; and the first range sensor ( Vorobiev : camera 405/ Iwase : LIDAR 101) is configured to sense at least an area in front of the work vehicle (vehicle 470) . (Vorobiev : [0029-0030], [Fig.4, Iwase : [0113], Figs.17,2, 23). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 12, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, an agricultural machine ( via vehicle 1, Fig.1) comprising the sensing system according to claim 1. (Iwase : via vehicle 1, Figs.17, 2, 23), also see Vorobiev : [0029-0030], Fig.4).
As per Claim 13, Iwase as modified by Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Iwase in view of Vorobiev and Ferrari teaches, a sensing device that is used as the second range sensor ( Ferrari : via LIDAR 5) in the sensing system according to claim 1; the sensing device comprising: a mounting structure to mount the sensing device on the implement; wherein the sensing device is external to the implement ( Vorobiev : ([0029-0031], range 460, 461, 462), [0026, Figs. 4,2]). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 8 and 10 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights