DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to application filed on 1/17/2025. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not narrative in form as it is a run-on sentence. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a straight posture with respect to the traveling body”. While the scope of the claim(s) is/are reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending to “the straight posture with respect to the traveling body”, since the term has been previously recited.
Claim 6 appears to have two periods, with the first period after the “and” in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaszlics et al. (US 20260077854 A1) in view of Voroviev (US 20240087278 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jaszlics teaches A working vehicle comprising:
a traveling body (“tug airplane 7”, Fig. 13) including a coupler to which a working device (“glider 2”, Fig. 13) is connected (“One or more unmanned gliders (or UAVs) 2 are towed by the tug 7 by means of a tow rope, cable or rod 5 (hereinafter referred to as the tow rope).”, [0040]);
a first camera (“camera 3”, Fig. 13, “FIG. 13 shows the binocular control system configured to view the glider 2 by the cameras 3, 20 mounted on the tug 7.”, [0065]) attached to the traveling body;
a second camera (“camera 20”, Fig. 13, “FIG. 13 shows the binocular control system configured to view the glider 2 by the cameras 3, 20 mounted on the tug 7.”, [0065]) attached to the traveling body;
a first marker (“fiducial 72”, Fig. 13) attached to the working device;
a second marker (“fiducial 73”, Fig. 13) attached to the working device;
a controller (“controller 12”, Fig. 8) configured or programmed to determine a status of the working device based on detection data detected by the first camera and/or the second camera (“FIG. 10 shows an embodiment of the present control system for a glider 2 with fiducial marks 71-73 towed by a tug aircraft 7 having the system components previously described to maintain the desired flight characteristics of the glider 2 as provided by the controller 12. Here again, the autopilot commands generated by this automated control system change the state vector of the glider 2, thereby forming a continuously operating, closed-loop control system.”, [0064]); wherein
the first camera faces a rearward direction and a first outward direction of the working vehicle (see Fig. 13);
the second camera faces the rearward direction and a second outward direction of the working vehicle opposite to the first outward direction of the working vehicle (see Fig. 13);
However, Vorobiev teaches
an innermost portion of the first marker is located outside of the first camera in a left-right direction of the working vehicle when the working device has a straight posture with respect to the traveling body (see Fig. 5 and [0032] citation below); and
an innermost portion of the second marker is located outside of the second camera in the left-right direction of the working vehicle when the working device has the straight posture with respect to the traveling body (“FIG. 5 shows an application of method 400 for determining marker position and attitude in which the markers are located on a construction machine. Bulldozer 500 has blade 504 that can be used for grading and other surface modification operations. Markers 502a and 502b are placed on blade 504 in field of view 506 of a stereo camera 508 located on bulldozer 500. The position and attitude of blade 504 in the local coordinate system of the stereo camera 102 can be determined based on the positions and attitudes of markers 502a and 502b that are located on the blade 504 using the techniques described above.”, [0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jaszlics with the teachings of Vorobiev such that the first and second markers of Jaszlics are located outside the first and second cameras, respectively, as suggested by Vorobiev, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would achieve the predictable result of sensing the markers with the cameras while the working vehicle operates. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Further, the examiner notes that in the embodiment of Fig. 13 in combination with Fig. 24, Jaszlics teaches first and second markers located at points b and a, respectively, of “glider 2” (Fig. 24, corresponds to Applicant’s “working device”) and first and second cameras located at common points on the “tug airplane 7” (Fig. 24, corresponds to Applicant’s “traveling body”) (“Each intersection of the sight lines from a and b to a common point on the tug defines a distance from the glider; three or more intersections will define the distance and relative attitude of the tug. To perform the necessary computations, each of the measured points of the tug must be in the field of view of the visual sensors (for example, IR or daylight digital cameras). The position and attitude of both cameras must be known, as well as the vertical and horizontal field of view of each camera and the horizontal and vertical pixel count.”, [0070]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this embodiment would result in innermost portions of the first and second markers being located outside of the first and second cameras, respectively, as claimed.
Further, before the effective filing date, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the placement of the cameras and markers of Jaszlics because Applicant has not disclosed that locating the innermost portions of the first and second markers outside of the first and second cameras, respectively provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem [0064-0065]. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to preform equally well with the innermost portions of the first and second markers being aligned or inside of the first and second cameras because the cameras’ FOVs would still capture the markers.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Jaszlics to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev teaches The working vehicle according to claim 1, and Jaszlics further teaches wherein
a first inner edge of a first angle of view of the first camera extends in an inward direction (see Fig. 13); and a
second inner edge of a second angle of view of the second camera extends in an inward direction (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev teaches The working vehicle according to claim 2, and Jaszlics further teaches
the first inner edge of the first angle of view of the first camera intersects the second inner edge of the second angle of view of the second camera at an intersection point that is located forward of the first marker and the second marker in a front-rear direction of the working vehicle when the working device has a straight posture with respect to the traveling body (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 9, Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev teaches The working vehicle according to claim 1, and Jaszlics further teaches wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to perform object detection and/or autonomous navigation based on detection data from the first camera and the second camera (“This invention provides an automated control system for a glider towed by a tug. A sensor system (e.g., cameras mounted on at least one of the aircraft) is used to determine the relative position and velocity of the glider. A controller determines corrections to the flight characteristics of the glider in response to this data from the sensor system to maintain the glider on the surface of a limit sphere extending behind the tug with a predetermined radius based on the length of the tow cable.”, [0005]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaszlics et al. (US 20260077854 A1) in view of Voroviev (US 20240087278 A1) in view of Smith et al. (WO 2022051329 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev teaches The working vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
However, Smith teaches
the first marker includes a plurality of first markers located side by side on a first marker bundle; and
the second marker includes a plurality of second markers located side by side on a second marker bundle (“An alternative to a single high contrast rectangle for use as the tag 3810 is the use of a visual marker/fiducial embedded within the bounded (e.g. rectangular) area 3850 of the tag 3810. Examples of this type of marker 3900 are depicted in Fig. 39. The advantage offered by this visual marker is more robust detection and homography estimation in degraded environments or when a portion of the tag is occluded…As shown the marker 3900 can comprise a matrix of 2D ID (barcode) patterns 3910, which provide specific information on the identity, characteristics and/or positioning of the glad hand, as well as other relevant information — such as the identity of the trailer, its extents and characteristics.”, [0282], Fig. 39).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev with the teachings of Smith such that the first and second markers of Jaszlics include a plurality of first markers placed side by side on markers bundles, as suggested by Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be for “robust detection and homography estimation in degraded environments or when a portion of the tag is occluded” [00281], as taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 7, Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev and Smith teaches The working vehicle according to claim 6, and Smith further teaches wherein
each of the plurality of first markers have a same length in a width direction and a same length in a vertical direction (see Fig. 39); and
a distance between the plurality of first markers is less than a distance between the plurality of first markers and a side of the first marker bundle (“An alternative to a single high contrast rectangle for use as the tag 3810 is the use of a visual marker/fiducial embedded within the bounded (e.g. rectangular) area 3850 of the tag 3810.”, [00281], Fig. 38).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev with the teachings of Smith such that the first markers of the first marker bundle of Jaszlics have equivalent widths and lengths with spacing less than a distance to the sides of the bundle, as suggested by Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to place the marker bundle within a “bounded…area” and for “robust detection and homography estimation in degraded environments or when a portion of the tag is occluded” [00281], as taught by Smith.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-5, 8 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no prior art alone or in combination that discloses or teaches all the limitations of Applicant's claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record includes the following:
Regarding claim 4, Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev teaches The working vehicle according to claim 1, and Jaszlics further teaches wherein
when the working device has the straight posture with respect to the traveling body, the first marker is located within a first angle of view of the first camera (see Fig. 13);
when the working device has the straight posture with respect to the traveling body, the second marker is located within a second angle of view of the second camera (see Fig. 13);
Regarding claim 5, Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev teaches The working vehicle according to claim 1, and Jaszlics further teaches wherein
when the working device has the straight posture with respect to the traveling body, the first marker is located within a first angle of view of the first camera (see Fig. 13)
when the working device has the straight posture with respect to the traveling body, the second marker is located within the second angle of view of the second camera (see Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 8, Jaszlics in view of Vorobiev and Smith teaches teaches The working vehicle according to claim 6, and Jaszlics further teaches wherein
when the working device has the straight posture with respect to the traveling body, the first marker bundle is located within a first angle of view of the first camera (see Fig. 13);
when the working device has the straight posture with respect to the traveling body, the second marker bundle is located within a second angle of view of the second camera (see Fig. 13);
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights