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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that Rao (US 5,684,969) does not teach the limitations previously contained in Claim 26 and currently amended into the independent claims. Specifically, the applicant argues that Rao teaches a system in which a vehicle is stopped when a deviation is not smaller than a threshold value. This argument is not persuasive as Rao teaches, in Column 35 Lines 20-31, a threshold over which a path must be pre-planned (i.e. “not much smaller” which insinuates a minimum size for the threshold for the system to determine a replanning is required), which meets the language of the limitation. The fact that Rao goes further to state that if the vehicle is too far from the desired path (as referenced by the applicant from Column 59 Lines 25-32) does not change the fact that a path is replanned initially based on a deviation not smaller than a threshold demonstrated in Column 35. Essentially, a second threshold exists in Rao that causes the vehicle to stop for safety but this does not impact the replanning behavior concerning the smaller threshold.
The applicant has argued that the currently cited references do not teach the newly added limitations of new Claim 41. This argument is not persuasive as Dias both a steering lever (Paragraph [0106]) and a lever sensor in a camera that is used to make a determination of the use of the steering implement. Further explanation is provided in the rejection section of this action.
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 24, 25, 27, 30-34, 36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Rao (US 5,684,696).
Claims 22-23, 28-29, 37-38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Rao in view of Dias (US 2016/0357186).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Rao in view of Hennessey (US 2012/0179322).
Priority Date
The priority date for this application is 09/30/2019.
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.
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.
Claims 21, 24, 25, 27, 30-34, 36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Rao (US 5,684,696).
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.
McClure does not disclose the following limitations that Rao teaches:
“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 24, McClure in view of Rao 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.
With regards to Claim 25, McClure in view of Rao discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21 and further teaches the following limitations:
“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.
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 31, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 25 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 32, McClure in view of Rao 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 in view of Rao 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 in view of Rao 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.
With regards to Claim 40, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 25 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 22-23, 28-29, 37-38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Rao in view of Dias (US 2016/0357186).
With regards to Claim 22, McClure in view of Rao 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 in view of Rao 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 Rao 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 in view of Rao 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.
With regards to Claim 41, McClure in view of Rao teaches all of the limitations of Claim 22 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the operation portion includes a steering lever, the sensor includes a lever sensor that generates the operation signal when the lever sensor senses the operation onto the steering lever by the operator and provides the operation signal to the controller, the steering controller controls the steering mechanism of the work vehicle while the operation signal from the lever sensor is not inputted to the controller, and the steering controller stops the control of the steering mechanism of the work vehicle while the operation signal from the lever sensor is inputted to the controller.”
Dias Paragraph [0106] teaches a steering lever as a steering control device. [Abstract] teaches a sensor (camera) that determines whether the steering control device is being operated by the driver. The determination of whether the steering control device is being operated is used to control whether an autonomous system can operate the vehicle or not.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Rao in view of Hennessey (US 2012/0179322).
With regards to Claim 35, McClure in view of Rao 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 in view of Rao 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights