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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 6/28/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2022-103774 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second switches must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant’s specification recites “first switch R1” and “second switch R2” in paragraph [0107]. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “the controller is configured or programmed to” should read “the controller is further configured or programmed to”. 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 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a first switch” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear on what and where the “first switch” is. The drawings fail to provide a location and diagram of the first switch.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and inherits the deficiency above. Therefore, claim 3 is also rejected on similar grounds to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a second switch” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear on what and where the “second switch” is. The drawings fail to provide a location and diagram of the second switch.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0302772 A1; hereinafter Anderson) in view of Okubo et al. (CN114559954A; see reference N on PTO-892; hereinafter Okubo).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses:
A work vehicle (vehicle 100 with lifting system, see at least [0025]) comprising:
a fuel cell module including a fuel cell stack (fuel cell 156, see at least [0020] and [0029]);
a motor connected to the fuel cell module (fuel cell stack used to drive electric motors, see at least [0020] and Fig. 1B);
a travel device to be driven by the motor (electric motor for vehicle drive system of vehicle, see at least [0020]; motors to propel vehicle, see at least [0027]);
a controller configured or programmed to control the motor (vehicle may include motor controller, see at least [0029]); and
a positioning system (sensor includes global positioning system (GPS), see at least [0034]);
Anderson does not disclose:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: change a manner of stopping the motor when a travel stop command is issued during driving of the motor, depending on whether a position of the work vehicle identified by the positioning system is within a field or not; and make a time from when the travel stop command is issued until the motor stops shorter when the position of the work vehicle is within the field than when the position of the work vehicle is outside the field.
However, Okubo teaches:
change a manner of stopping the motor when a travel stop command is issued during driving of the motor, depending on whether a position of the work vehicle identified by the positioning system is within a field or not; and make a time from when the travel stop command is issued until the motor stops shorter when the position of the work vehicle is within the field than when the position of the work vehicle is outside the field (automatic travel control unit sets sensing position to the outer periphery travel which is the travel path that surrounds the inner side of the field and set the deceleration to be greater than a deceleration when the sensing position is outside the peripheral travel path, see at least [0010]) *Examiner sets forth a greater deceleration causes a vehicle to stop in a shorter amount of time
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle disclosed by Anderson by adding the deceleration taught by Okubo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make an emergency stop and improve work efficiency (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Anderson and Okubo teaches the elements above but Anderson does not disclose:
the positioning system includes a GNSS receiver.
However, Okubo teaches:
the positioning system includes a GNSS receiver (positioning unit includes Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), see at least [00109])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle and GPS disclosed by Anderson by adding the GNSS taught by Okubo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calculate a position of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Anderson and Okubo teaches the elements above but Anderson does not disclose:
a storage to store an environmental map of an area including one or more fields; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether the position of the work vehicle is within the field or outside the field based on the position identified by the positioning system and the environmental map.
However, Okubo teaches:
a storage to store an environmental map of an area including one or more fields (map information storage unit 552 stores map information indicating shape of work place, see at least [00169]); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether the position of the work vehicle is within the field or outside the field based on the position identified by the positioning system and the environmental map (vehicle automatically travels while performing work on the work site based on the acquired map position and machine position, see at least [00215]) *Examiner sets forth working on a work site indicates the vehicle is inside the field
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle, field, and boundary disclosed by Anderson by adding the map information taught by Okubo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine a travel route for an autonomous driving (see [00204]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Anderson and Okubo teaches the elements above and Anderson further discloses:
the controller is configured or programmed to perform automatic travel control of the work vehicle based on an estimated position of the work vehicle (performing actions based on signals wherein the signals may correspond to a geographic location, see at least [0046]-[0048] and Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Anderson and Okubo teaches the elements above but Anderson does not disclose:
when the travel stop command is issued during the automatic travel control, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the motor at different timings depending on whether the position of the work vehicle is within the field or not
However, Okubo teaches:
when the travel stop command is issued during the automatic travel control, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the motor at different timings depending on whether the position of the work vehicle is within the field or not (automatic travel control unit sets sensing position to the outer periphery travel which is the travel path that surrounds the inner side of the field and set the deceleration to be greater than a deceleration when the sensing position is outside the peripheral travel path, see at least [0010]) *Examiner sets forth a greater deceleration causes a vehicle to stop in a shorter amount of time
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle disclosed by Anderson by adding the deceleration taught by Okubo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make an emergency stop and improve work efficiency (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Anderson and Okubo teaches the elements above and Anderson further discloses:
the work vehicle is an agricultural machine (autonomous vehicle for agricultural purpose, see at least [0018])
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Okubo as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kurosawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0166584 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Anderson and Okubo teaches the elements above but Anderson does not disclose:
a first switch provided on a current path between the fuel cell module and the motor; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in response to the travel stop command issued during driving of the motor: determine whether the position of the work vehicle identified by the positioning system is within the field or outside the field; when the position of the work vehicle is within the field, stop the motor by turning off the first switch; and when the position of the work vehicle is outside the field, maintain driving of the motor for a certain time after receiving the travel stop command, and then stop the motor.
However, Okubo teaches:
determine whether the position of the work vehicle identified by the positioning system is within the field or outside the field (automatic travel control unit sets sensing position to the outer periphery travel which is the travel path that surrounds the inner side of the field and set the deceleration to be greater than a deceleration when the sensing position is outside the peripheral travel path, see at least [0010]) *Examiner sets forth a greater deceleration causes a vehicle to stop in a shorter amount of time
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle disclosed by Anderson by adding the deceleration taught by Okubo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make an emergency stop and improve work efficiency (see [0010]).
Furthermore, Kurosawa teaches:
a first switch provided on a current path between the fuel cell module and the motor (see switch SW2 in Fig. 2 between the fuel cell 25 and driver motor 43);
when the position of the work vehicle is within the field, stop the motor by turning off the first switch (in order to bring motorcycle 10 to stop condition, set switch SW2 to OFF position to stop power supply from fuel cell to drive motor 43, see at least [0047]); and when the position of the work vehicle is outside the field, maintain driving of the motor for a certain time after receiving the travel stop command, and then stop the motor (for deceleration, motorcycle reduces its speed in response to the operation amounts of the brake levers, see at least [0046]) *Examiner sets forth a reduction in speed until speed reaches zero is stopping after a certain time
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle disclosed by Anderson and the deceleration taught by Okubo based on location by adding the switches taught by Kurosawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to allow replacement of the tank while inhibiting release of unreacted hydrogen gas from the fuel cell system” (see [0010]) and in emergency options to stop or turn off vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Anderson, Okubo, and Kurosawa teaches the elements above but Anderson does not disclose:
a battery connected to the fuel cell module and the motor, and a second switch provided on a current path between the battery and the motor; wherein when the position of the work vehicle is within the field, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the motor by turning off the first switch and the second switch in response to the travel stop command.
However, Kurosawa teaches:
a battery connected to the fuel cell module and the motor (see secondary batter 26 connected to drive motor 43 in Fig. 2), and a second switch provided on a current path between the battery and the motor (main switch SW is connected to all lines, see at least Fig. 2); wherein when the position of the work vehicle is within the field, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the motor by turning off the first switch and the second switch in response to the travel stop command (to bring motorcycle to stop condition, main switch SW is set to OFF and switch SW2 is set to OFF position, see at least [0047])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle disclosed by Anderson and the deceleration taught by Okubo based on location by adding the switches taught by Kurosawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to allow replacement of the tank while inhibiting release of unreacted hydrogen gas from the fuel cell system” (see [0010]) and in emergency options to stop or turn off vehicle.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Okubo as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0096569 A1; hereinafter Tanaka).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Anderson and Okubo teaches the elements above and Anderson further discloses:
the positioning system includes: an external sensor to output sensor data indicating a distribution of objects existing around the work vehicle (sensors include ultrasonic sensors that measure distance from vehicle to objects and cameras for recording images of surroundings of vehicle, see at least [0033])
Anderson does not explicitly disclose:
a self-position estimator to estimate the position of the work vehicle by matching the sensor data with the environmental map
However, Tanaka teaches:
a self-position estimator to estimate the position of the work vehicle by matching the sensor data with the environmental map (first position calculation unit matches the detection data of the non-contact sensor with the map data to calculate a first position and direction of the work machine, see at least [0100])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle and sensors disclosed by Anderson and the GNSS and map taught by Okubo by adding the position calculation using map and sensor data taught by Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to suppress the deterioration in the estimation accuracy of the position of the work machine” (see [0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Diaz (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0360697 A1) teaches an agricultural machine that stores geographical information such as maps including a field boundary and identifying machine position corresponding to the field boundaries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662