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 § 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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the implement" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 1, Examiner deems a work vehicle to perform self-driving, the work vehicle comprising: at least one sensor to sense a surrounding environment of the work vehicle and output sensor data; a controller configured or programmed to control the self-driving of the work vehicle based on the sensor data; and a link to attach an implement to the work vehicle; wherein when performing the self-driving of the work vehicle in a state where the implement is linked to the work vehicle, the controller is configured or programmed to: detect and classify an object based on the sensor data; determine a first influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the work vehicle and a second influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the implement, in accordance with a result of the classification of the object; and execute, in accordance with at least one of the first influence degree or the second influence degree, at least one of an operation of avoiding contact with the object or an operation of continuing the self-driving without executing the operation of avoiding to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a work vehicle specifically including to determine a first influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the work vehicle and a second influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the implement, in accordance with a result of the classification of the object; and execute, in accordance with at least one of the first influence degree or the second influence degree, at least one of an operation of avoiding contact with the object or an operation of continuing the self-driving without executing the operation of avoiding.
Claim(s) 2-8 depend(s) from claim(s) 1, (respectively,) and is/are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Regarding claim(s) 9, Examiner deems a control method for a work vehicle performing self-driving, the control method comprising: detecting and classifying an object based on sensor data output from at least one sensor included in the work vehicle; determining a first influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the work vehicle and a second influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the implement linked to the work vehicle, in accordance with a result of the classification of the object; and executing, in accordance with at least one of the first influence degree or the second influence degree, at least one of an operation of avoiding contact with the object or an operation of continuing the self-driving without executing the operation of avoiding to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a control method for a work vehicle specifically including determining a first influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the work vehicle and a second influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the implement linked to the work vehicle, in accordance with a result of the classification of the object; and executing, in accordance with at least one of the first influence degree or the second influence degree, at least one of an operation of avoiding contact with the object or an operation of continuing the self-driving without executing the operation of avoiding.
Regarding claim(s) 10, Examiner deems a work vehicle configured or programmed to execute an obstacle avoidance operation based on sensor data during self-traveling and to control the obstacle avoidance operation based on a result of classification of an object detected based on the sensor data and based on an influence degree when the object contacts each of the work vehicle and an implement linked to the work vehicle, the influence degree being in accordance with the result of the classification of the object to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a work vehicle specifically including to control the obstacle avoidance operation based on a result of classification of an object detected based on the sensor data and based on an influence degree when the object contacts each of the work vehicle and an implement linked to the work vehicle, the influence degree being in accordance with the result of the classification of the object.
Regarding claim(s) 11, Examiner deems a control system for a work vehicle to perform self-driving, the control system comprising: at least one sensor to sense a surrounding environment of the work vehicle and output sensor data; and a controller configured or programmed to control the self-driving of the work vehicle based on the sensor data; wherein when the work vehicle is performing the self-driving in a state where the implement is linked thereto, the controller is configured or programmed to: detect and classify an object based on the sensor data; determine a first influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the work vehicle and a second influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the implement, in accordance with a result of the classification of the object; and execute, in accordance with at least one of the first influence degree or the second influence degree, at least one of an operation of avoiding contact with the object or an operation of continuing the self-driving without executing the operation of avoiding to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a control system for a work vehicle specifically including to determine a first influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the work vehicle and a second influence degree indicating a magnitude of influence when the object contacts the implement, in accordance with a result of the classification of the object; and execute, in accordance with at least one of the first influence degree or the second influence degree, at least one of an operation of avoiding contact with the object or an operation of continuing the self-driving without executing the operation of avoiding.
Ekhe et al. (US PGPub. No. 2023/0389458) is deemed the closest prior art of record and teaches a work machine can include a control system and a work implement that includes a ground engagement tool. The control system includes an object detection system having a first detection system to detect objects located on a surface of a field, a second detection system to detect objects partially located beneath the surface, and a third detection system to locate objects buried beneath the surface. An obstacle map can be generated that includes characteristics regarding the detected objects, including location relative to the surface, size, and/or rigidity. An adjustable spotlight system can be coupled to the work machine that can selectively emit light toward a target object, including as the position of the work machine relative to the target object changes (Ekhe Abstract). Ekhe further teaches detecting objects and classifying them according to their type and according to the risk they pose to the implement if they were to make contact therewith, and automatically controlling the vehicle and/or the implement based thereon (Ekhe ¶0181, ¶0198, ¶0219, ¶0227). While Ekhe teaches determining a magnitude of influence of the object contacting the implement, no similar determination is made regarding the vehicle. Autonomous work vehicles are known that automatically avoid collisions with objects, but none that determine a magnitude of influence of the object contacting the vehicle in combination with determining a magnitude of influence of the object contacting the implement for informing collision avoidance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664