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 .
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.
Claims 21, 24, 27, 30, 32-34, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClure (US 2002/0072850).
As per Claim 21:
McClure discloses all of the following limitations:
“A control system that controls a steering mechanism of a work vehicle, the control system comprising: a controller that controls the steering mechanism of the work vehicle, wherein the controller includes: a vehicle data input that receives data on a position and/or an azimuth of the work vehicle, and a steering controller that specifies deviation of the work vehicle from a prescribed travel path by comparing the prescribed travel path with the data and controls the steering mechanism of the work vehicle such that the work vehicle returns to the prescribed travel path based on an amount of the deviation.”
McClure Paragraphs [0033]-[0037] relate to Figures 4-7 and disclose a system in which a vehicle has a control system that controls a steering mechanism of a work vehicle and identifies the current location and heading (i.e. azimuth) of a vehicle as well as the prescribed travel path of said vehicle and determines a deviation, both in location and angle, between the two. The vehicle then applies a corrective steering amount based on said deviation.
With regards to Claim 24, McClure discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the prescribed travel path is a straight path.”
McClure Figure 4 discloses a straight path for the prescribed path.
As per Claim 27: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 21 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 30, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 27 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 32, McClure discloses all of the limitations of Claim 27 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising: a detector that detects information on the position and/or the azimuth of the work vehicle.”
McClure Figure 1 discloses a GPS receiver used for position and azimuth determination.
With regards to Claim 33, McClure discloses all of the limitations of Claim 32 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the detector includes a GNSS receiver that senses the position and the azimuth of the work vehicle.”
McClure Figure 1 discloses a GPS (which represents a GNSS) receiver used for position and azimuth determination.
With regards to Claim 34, McClure discloses all of the limitations of Claim 27 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising: a work implement.”
McClure Paragraph [0011] discloses a work vehicle for soil working therefore necessitating some form of work implement.
As per Claim 36: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 21 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 39, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 24 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
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.
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.
Claims 22-23, 28-29, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Dias (US 2016/0357186).
With regards to Claim 22, McClure discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21 but does not disclose the following limitations that Dias does disclose:
“an operation portion; and a sensor that generates an operation signal when the sensor senses an operation onto the operation portion by an operator and provides the operation signal to the controller, wherein the steering controller controls the steering mechanism of the work vehicle while the operation signal from the sensor is not inputted to the controller.”
Dias [Abstract] discloses using a sensor ( a camera) that will generate a signal when a driver does not have their hands on the steering mechanism of a vehicle. Only when such a signal is received can autonomously control of said vehicle be exercised.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by McClure with the sensor that detects whether a driver has their hands on the steering mechanism disclosed by Dias. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed towards autonomously controlled vehicles (see Paragraph [0001] of Dias and the [Abstract] of McClure) and doing so would cause the vehicle to be safer back preventing conflict between the driver’s controls and the autonomous controls.
With regards to Claim 23, McClure in view of Dias discloses all of the limitations of Claim 22 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the operation portion includes a steering wheel and/or a steering lever.”
Dias [Abstract] discloses a steering wheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by McClure with the steering wheel disclosed by Dias. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed towards autonomously controlled vehicles (see Paragraph [0001] of Dias and the [Abstract] of McClure) and doing so would cause the vehicle to be more user-friendly by providing a well-known steering mechanism.
With regards to Claim 28, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 22 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 29, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 23 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 37, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 22 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 38, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 23 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 25-26, 31, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Rao (US 5,684,696).
With regards to Claim 25, McClure discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21 but does not disclose the following limitations that Rao does disclose:
“wherein the prescribed travel path is an arc path.”
Rao Column 11 Lines 1-12 discloses prescribed paths that are arcs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by McClure with the arc paths disclosed by Rao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed towards autonomous vehicles (see [Abstract] of both McClure and Rao) and doing so would make the system more flexible for accounting for all shapes of prescribed paths.
With regards to Claim 26, McClure discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21 but does not disclose the following limitations that Rao does disclose:
“wherein the steering controller controls the steering mechanism of the work vehicle such that the work vehicle returns to the prescribed travel path when the deviation not smaller than a threshold value is produced.”
Rao Column 35 Lines 20-31 discloses a threshold for use for planning whether a correction to a path is required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by McClure with the threshold disclosed by Rao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed towards autonomous vehicles (see [Abstract] of both McClure and Rao) and doing so would make the system more flexible avoiding disruption of a path unnecessarily.
With regards to Claim 31, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 25 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 40, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 25 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Hennessey (US 2012/0179322).
With regards to Claim 35, McClure discloses all of the limitations of Claim 27 but does not disclose the following limitations that Hennessey does disclose:
“wherein the steering mechanism includes a drive apparatus that rotationally drives a pair of a first tow apparatus and a second tow apparatus located on left and right sides, and the drive apparatus controls a rotation speed of the first tow apparatus and a rotation speed of the second tow apparatus independently of each other.”
Hennessy [Abstract] discloses setting speeds for right and left tracks for the purposes of autonomous navigation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by McClure with the two apparatuses disclosed by Hennessey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed towards autonomously moving vehicles (see McClure [Abstract] and Hennessey Paragraph [0001]) and doing would make the system more versatile by allowing it to apply to more categories of vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/JOAN T GOODBODY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667