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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 6/25/2026. Applicant has not requested domestic benefit nor foreign priority and thus this filing date is the effective filing date. Claims 10-11 and 15-16 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see page 7 of 12, filed 6/25/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of record have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-10 of 12, filed 6/25/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that the amendments of record as currently presented provide the claims with a practical application and thus the 101 rejection of record should be withdrawn, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that the specific devices recited in claims 10-11 are electronic communication devices capable of sending and receiving electromagnetically propagating signals, however the Examiner notes that, as recited, these are merely generic components capable of insignificant extra-solution activity that is data transmission, used to execute the abstract ideas listed in detail below.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-12 of 12, filed 6/25/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has alleged that the references of record, neither individually or in combination, teach the amended claims as currently presented, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, regarding claim 10, the Applicant has argued that Shatters does not teach the angle of articulation based on propagating times, however the Examiner notes that the Carlson reference teaches the specific concept of propagation times between devices.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 as currently presented states “…first, second, and third known fixed locations…the first, second, and third known locations…the known locations…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…first, second, and third known fixed locations…the first, second, and third known fixed locations…the known fixed locations…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 10 as currently presented states “…a front body section…a rear body section…the first body section…the second body section…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a front body section…a rear body section…the front body section…the rear body section…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 11 as currently presented states “…a variable articulation angle…the articulation angle…the articulation angle…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a variable articulation angle…the variable articulation angle…the variable articulation angle…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 15 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 11 as currently presented states “…the work vehicle coordinate system…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a work vehicle coordinate system…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 15 as currently presented states “…the work vehicle…the articulated work vehicle…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…the work vehicle…the work vehicle…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Independent claim 10 is directed towards a method. Therefore, independent claims 10-11 and dependent claims 15-16 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 10 recites:
A method of determining an articulation angle of a front body section with respect to a rear body section of an articulated work vehicle comprising:
positioning first, second, and third electronic communication devices at respective first, second, and third known fixed locations on the rear body section of the articulated work vehicle;
positioning a fourth electronic communication device on the front body section of the articulated work vehicle;
sending respective first, second, and third electromagnetically propagating polling signals from the fourth electronic communication device to the respective first, second, and third electronic communication devices;
receiving respective first, second, and third electromagnetically propagating response signals by the fourth electronic communication device from the respective first, second, and third electronic communication devices;
determining respective first, second, and third variable distances from the fourth electronic communication device to the respective first, second, and third electronic communication devices based on respective calculated electromagnetic signal propagation times between the fourth electronic communication device and the respective first, second, and third electronic communication devices;
calculating a location of the fourth electronic communication device based on the first, second, and third known locations, respectively, of the first, second, and third electronic communication devices, and based on the first, second, and third variable distances; and
calculating the articulation angle between the first body section and the second body section of the articulated work vehicle based on the calculated location of the fourth electronic communication device with respect to the known locations of the first, second, and third electronic communication devices.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept, as well as a mathematical concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process. For example, “determining an articulation angle…” and “determining respective first, second, and third variable distances…” may be interpreted as mentally determining an angle and determining a distance from an origin to a destination, “calculated electromagnetic signal propagation times…”, “calculating a location…” and “calculating the articulation angle…” may be interpreted as calculating a time, calculating a location, and calculating an angle, all of which can be done mentally or with pen and paper. Therefore, the claims are directed towards reciting an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application.”
In the present case, the additional elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of determining an articulation angle of a front body section with respect to a rear body section of an articulated work vehicle comprising:
positioning first, second, and third electronic communication devices at respective first, second, and third known fixed locations on the rear body section of the articulated work vehicle;
positioning a fourth electronic communication device on the front body section of the articulated work vehicle;
sending respective first, second, and third electromagnetically propagating polling signals from the fourth electronic communication device to the respective first, second, and third electronic communication devices;
receiving respective first, second, and third electromagnetically propagating response signals by the fourth electronic communication device from the respective first, second, and third electronic communication devices;
determining respective first, second, and third variable distances from the fourth electronic communication device to the respective first, second, and third electronic communication devices based on respective calculated electromagnetic signal propagation times between the fourth electronic communication device and the respective first, second, and third electronic communication devices;
calculating a location of the fourth electronic communication device based on the first, second, and third known locations, respectively, of the first, second, and third electronic communication devices, and based on the first, second, and third variable distances; and
calculating the articulation angle between the first body section and the second body section of the articulated work vehicle based on the calculated location of the fourth electronic communication device with respect to the known locations of the first, second, and third electronic communication devices.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of “a front body section…”, “a rear body section…”, “an articulated work vehicle…”, “first, second, and third electronic communication devices…”, and “a fourth electronic communication device…” are merely generic components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The Examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process.
The limitations of “sending…propagating polling signals…” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity that is data output, which does not add any meaningful limits on the claim. The limitations of “receiving…propagating response signals…” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity that is data gathering, which does not add any meaningful limits on the claim. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed, the additional elements of “a front body section…”, “a rear body section…”, “an articulated work vehicle…”, “first, second, and third electronic communication devices…”, and “a fourth electronic communication device…” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). In addition, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “sending…” and “receiving…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the communication devices (tags and anchors) are all conventional components mounted on the vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 10, deviating in the description of other/additional various generic components found on the work machine, and is therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 15-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 15-16 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claim 16 (and analogous claim 15) recites additional limitations which elaborate upon the mental process and mathematical concepts as described in claim 10 (and claim 11, respectively), as well as an additional generic component of the work machine.
Therefore, dependent claims 15-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 10-11.
Therefore, claims 10-11 and 15-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatters et al. (US-2023/0350412; hereinafter Shatters; already of record) in view of Kean et al. (US-2018/0206072; hereinafter Kean; already of record) and Carlson (US-2017/0108452; already of record).
Regarding claim 11, Shatters discloses a work vehicle (see Shatters at least Abs) comprising:
a front body section and a rear body section (see Shatters at least Fig 1 and [0020] "In the illustrated example, mobile equipment 110 comprises a rear portion 120 and a front portion 130 that comprises a worktool 132..."), the rear body section housing a power generation system, the front and rear body sections supporting ground engagement units that move the work vehicle with respect to a terrain of a worksite in response to power provided by the power generation system (see Shatters at least Fig 1 and [0021] “...Combustion engine 162 may be connected to a torque converter 166 that transmits power from combustion engine 162 to transmission 168. With respect to an articulated mobile equipment 110, ECU 140 may also control rotation of front portion 130 around axis A.”), the front body section articulated with respect to the rear body section at a variable articulation angle to enable steering of the work vehicle by changing the articulation angle (see Shatters at least Fig 1, [0020] "In the illustrated example, mobile equipment 110 comprises a rear portion 120 and a front portion 130 that comprises a worktool 132. Front portion 130 may be articulated with respect to rear portion 120, such that front portion 130 is capable of rotating within a range of degrees, relative to rear portion 120, around an axis A..." and [0022] "Sensor(s) 152 may include any type of sensor or sensor array capable of measuring values of one or more parameters of one or more subsystems of mobile equipment 110. Examples of such parameters include, without limitation, engine speed, machine speed, location of mobile equipment 110 (e.g., coordinates acquired via a global navigation satellite system (GNSS), such as the Global Positioning System (GPS)), pressure of a fluid (e.g., fuel, oil, coolant, etc.), flow rate of a fluid, temperature of a fluid, contamination level of a fluid, viscosity of a fluid, electric current, electric voltage, fluid consumption rates, loading level, transmission output ratio, slip, grade, traction, mileage, time or mileage until or since scheduled maintenance, angle of articulation between rear portion 120 and front portion 130, and/or the like.");
at least one working element movably coupled to the front body section of the work vehicle (see Shatters at least [0020] "In the illustrated example, mobile equipment 110 comprises a rear portion 120 and a front portion 130 that comprises a worktool 132...");
at least first, second, third, and fourth electronic communication devices, positioned at respective first, second, third, and fourth known locations on the rear body section of the work vehicle (see Shatters at least Fig 1 and [0021] "Mobile equipment 110 may comprise an electronic control unit (ECU) 140 that is communicatively coupled to one or a plurality of sensors 152A-E (which may be collectively referred to herein as sensor(s) 152) and/or subsystems of mobile equipment 110. ECU 140 may collect data from sensor(s) 152 and/or subsystems and process the collected data..." – “devices” 152A, 152B, 152D, 152E located on the rear part of machine);
at least a fifth electronic communication device positioned on a known location on the front body section of the work vehicle (see Shatters at least Fig 1 and [0021] "Mobile equipment 110 may comprise an electronic control unit (ECU) 140 that is communicatively coupled to one or a plurality of sensors 152A-E (which may be collectively referred to herein as sensor(s) 152) and/or subsystems of mobile equipment 110. ECU 140 may collect data from sensor(s) 152 and/or subsystems and process the collected data..." – “device” 152C located on the front part of machine), the fifth electronic communication device configured to:
…
…
…
…
calculate the articulation angle of the vehicle (see Shatters at least [0022] "Sensor(s) 152 may include any type of sensor or sensor array capable of measuring values of one or more parameters of one or more subsystems of mobile equipment 110. Examples of such parameters include, without limitation ... angle of articulation between rear portion 120 and front portion 130, and/or the like.") …
However, Shatters does not explicitly disclose the following:
…poll the … electronic communication devices via respective electromagnetically propagating polling signals…
…receive a respective response from each of the … communication devices via respective electromagnetically propagating response signals…
…determine respective … variable distances from the … electronic communication device to the respective … electronic communication devices based on respective calculated electromagnetic signal propagation times between the … electronic communication device and the respective … electronic communication devices…
…calculate a variable location of the … electronic communication device in the work vehicle coordinate system based on the … known locations and based on the … variable distances…
…the calculated variable location of the … electronic communication device with respect to the respective … known locations of the respective … electronic communication devices.
Kean, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…poll the … electronic communication devices via respective electromagnetically propagating polling signals (see Kean at least [0017] "...In some embodiments, ultra-wideband RF signals generated by the second RF device 115 are transmitted to the first RF device 110 and trigger the first RF device 110 to generate an ultra-wideband RF signal for reception at the second RF device 115. In this way, the first RF device 110 and the second RF device 115 communicate with each other via ultra-wideband RF signals while the electronic control unit 105 may communicate via other wireless or wired signals..." and [0020] "...In addition to the second RF device 115, multiple additional transceivers 210 may also be positioned at multiple locations on the work vehicle 200 and are operated similar to the second RF device 115 to determine the position of the first RF device 110 relative to the work vehicle 200...")…
…receive a respective response from each of the … communication devices via respective electromagnetically propagating response signals (see Kean at least [0017] "...In some embodiments, ultra-wideband RF signals generated by the second RF device 115 are transmitted to the first RF device 110 and trigger the first RF device 110 to generate an ultra-wideband RF signal for reception at the second RF device 115. In this way, the first RF device 110 and the second RF device 115 communicate with each other via ultra-wideband RF signals while the electronic control unit 105 may communicate via other wireless or wired signals..." and [0020] "...In addition to the second RF device 115, multiple additional transceivers 210 may also be positioned at multiple locations on the work vehicle 200 and are operated similar to the second RF device 115 to determine the position of the first RF device 110 relative to the work vehicle 200...")…
…determine respective … variable distances from the … electronic communication device to the respective … electronic communication devices (see Kean at least [0025] "...The local reference frame provides a mechanism to define a position of the first RF device 110 locally (i.e., without GPS) as a coordinate system fixed with respect to the second RF device 115. For example, the local reference frame may have an origin at the second RF device 115, at the electronic control unit 105, at a fixed location on the work vehicle 200, or at a fixed location in the local area...") based on [times] (see Kean at least [0020] "...In addition to the second RF device 115, multiple additional transceivers 210 may also be positioned at multiple locations on the work vehicle 200 and are operated similar to the second RF device 115 to determine the position of the first RF device 110 relative to the work vehicle 200..." and [0023] "...For example, the ultra-wideband position tracking system 100 may incorporate time of flight (i.e. time of arrival) calculations to determine a distance between the first RF device 110 and the second RF device 115. Multiple time of flight determinations between multiple RF devices acting as the second RF device 115 and multiple RF devices acting as the first RF device 110 may establish a 3-dimensional location determination within the local area and a determination of the orientation of the implement 205. In this first example, the electronic control unit 105, the first RF device 110, and the second RF device 115 are time synchronized to allow for calculation of times of flight. In another example, the ultra-wideband position tracking system 100 may incorporate time difference of arrival calculations. In this second example, the transmitters are time synchronized, but not necessarily the first RF device 110 and the electronic control unit 105...")…
…calculate a variable location of the … electronic communication device in the work vehicle coordinate system based on the … known locations and based on the … variable distances (see Kean at least [0025] "...The local reference frame provides a mechanism to define a position of the first RF device 110 locally (i.e., without GPS) as a coordinate system fixed with respect to the second RF device 115. For example, the local reference frame may have an origin at the second RF device 115, at the electronic control unit 105, at a fixed location on the work vehicle 200, or at a fixed location in the local area...")…
…the calculated variable location of the … electronic communication device with respect to the respective … known locations of the respective … electronic communication devices (see Kean at least [0025] "...The local reference frame provides a mechanism to define a position of the first RF device 110 locally (i.e., without GPS) as a coordinate system fixed with respect to the second RF device 115. For example, the local reference frame may have an origin at the second RF device 115, at the electronic control unit 105, at a fixed location on the work vehicle 200, or at a fixed location in the local area...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle including communication devices such as disclosed by Shatters with positional determinations of devices such as taught by Kean with a reasonable expectation of success so as to achieve high accuracy vehicle monitoring and controls (see Kean at least [0003]).
However, neither Shatters nor Kean explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…respective calculated electromagnetic signal propagation times between the … electronic communication device and the respective … electronic communication devices…
Carlson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…respective calculated electromagnetic signal propagation times between the … electronic communication device and the respective … electronic communication devices (see Carlson at least [0021] "...The first wireless sensor mote may record the time the return packet was received, and may determine the propagation time based on the timing of the received packet relative to the time at which the first packet was sent and based on the known, fixed amount of time of the delay...")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculation of distances as taught by Shatters in view of Kean with the consideration of a propagation time such as taught by Carlson with a reasonable expectation of success so as to determine how much of a delay can be expected between two communication devices depending on local characteristics (see Carlson at least [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Shatters in view of Kean and Carlson teach the analogous material of that in claim 11 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatters in view of Kean and Carlson as applied to claims 11 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Ryerson et al. (US-2011/0035109; hereinafter Ryerson).
Regarding claim 15, Shatters in view of Kean and Carlson teach the work vehicle of claim 11 wherein:
…
the work vehicle further includes a sixth electronic communication device positioned at a second location on the front body section (see Kean at least Fig 2 and [0020] "...In the example illustrated, the work vehicle 200 is equipped with the first RF device 110 and the second RF device 115. The first RF device 110 is positioned to move along with the implement 205. In some embodiments, the first RF device 110 is fixed to the implement by mounting directly to the implement 205. The second RF device 115 may be fixed to the work vehicle by mounting to a fixed position on the work vehicle 200. In addition to the second RF device 115, multiple additional transceivers 210 may also be positioned at multiple locations on the work vehicle 200 and are operated similar to the second RF device 115 to determine the position of the first RF device 110 relative to the work vehicle 200. As shown in the example of FIG. 2, the multiple additional transceivers 210 are mounted at locations around the first RF device 110 and on opposite sides of the first RF device 110 to improve the ability of the ultra-wideband position tracking system 100 to precisely determine the location of the first RF device 110 (e.g., through triangulation).");
the sixth electronic communication device sends respective electromagnetically propagating polling signals to the first, second, third, and fourth electronic communication devices and receives respective electromagnetically propagating response signals from the first, second, third, and fourth electronic communication devices (see Kean at least [0017] "...In some embodiments, ultra-wideband RF signals generated by the second RF device 115 are transmitted to the first RF device 110 and trigger the first RF device 110 to generate an ultra-wideband RF signal for reception at the second RF device 115. In this way, the first RF device 110 and the second RF device 115 communicate with each other via ultra-wideband RF signals while the electronic control unit 105 may communicate via other wireless or wired signals..." and [0020] "...In addition to the second RF device 115, multiple additional transceivers 210 may also be positioned at multiple locations on the work vehicle 200 and are operated similar to the second RF device 115 to determine the position of the first RF device 110 relative to the work vehicle 200...");
the sixth electronic communication device determines a position of the second location of the sixth electronic communication device on the front body section of the articulated work vehicle (see Kean at least [0025] "...The local reference frame provides a mechanism to define a position of the first RF device 110 locally (i.e., without GPS) as a coordinate system fixed with respect to the second RF device 115. For example, the local reference frame may have an origin at the second RF device 115, at the electronic control unit 105, at a fixed location on the work vehicle 200, or at a fixed location in the local area...");
…
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the work vehicle including communication devices such as further disclosed by Shatters with positional determinations of devices such as taught by Kean with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 11.
However, while Shatters discloses the detection of a variety of articulation angles, neither Shatters nor Kean nor Carlson explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the articulation angle is a first articulation angle…
…a second articulation angle of the front body section with respect to the rear body section is determined based on the second location…
…the first articulation angle and the second articulation angle are averaged to determine an average articulation angle.
Ryerson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the articulation angle is a first articulation angle (see Ryerson at least Fig 3, [0028] "The control system 100 is configured to control machine articulation based upon operator control of front wheel steering..." and [0036] "For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3, during front wheel steering, each of the front wheels 58,60 has a separate turning radius, left front wheel 60 having a turning radius R.sub.1 and right front wheel 58 having a turning radius R.sub.2 from origin O. Steering angle .theta. may be based upon either a steering angle for the right front wheel 60 or left front wheel 58. However, in one embodiment, a centerline steering angle .theta..sub.c may be calculated by controller 102 that is an average of right and left steering angles in the event that some variation or error exists based upon, for example, wheel misalignment or sensor errors.")…
…a second articulation angle of the front body section with respect to the rear body section is determined based on the second location (see Ryerson at least Fig 3, [0028] "The control system 100 is configured to control machine articulation based upon operator control of front wheel steering..." and [0036] "For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3, during front wheel steering, each of the front wheels 58,60 has a separate turning radius, left front wheel 60 having a turning radius R.sub.1 and right front wheel 58 having a turning radius R.sub.2 from origin O. Steering angle .theta. may be based upon either a steering angle for the right front wheel 60 or left front wheel 58. However, in one embodiment, a centerline steering angle .theta..sub.c may be calculated by controller 102 that is an average of right and left steering angles in the event that some variation or error exists based upon, for example, wheel misalignment or sensor errors.")…
…the first articulation angle and the second articulation angle are averaged to determine an average articulation angle (see Ryerson at least Fig 3, [0026] "FIG. 3 is a top view of a motor grader 10 with the front frame 12 rotated at a articulation angle +.alpha. defined by the intersection of longitudinal axis 48 of front frame 12 and longitudinal axis 68 of the rear frame 14, the intersection corresponding with the position of articulation joint 62. In this illustration a positive .alpha. is indicative of a left articulation from the perspective of an operator facing forward, while a negative .alpha. (not shown) would be indicative of a right articulation. A front wheel steering angle +.theta. is defined between a longitudinal axis 76 parallel to the longitudinal axis 48 of front frame 12, and a longitudinal axis 78 of the front wheels 58, 60, the angle .theta. having an origin at a pivot point 80 of the front wheels 58, 60. This is demonstrated in connection with left front wheel 60, but equally applies to right front wheel 58." [0028] "The control system 100 is configured to control machine articulation based upon operator control of front wheel steering..." and [0036] "For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3, during front wheel steering, each of the front wheels 58,60 has a separate turning radius, left front wheel 60 having a turning radius R.sub.1 and right front wheel 58 having a turning radius R.sub.2 from origin O. Steering angle .theta. may be based upon either a steering angle for the right front wheel 60 or left front wheel 58. However, in one embodiment, a centerline steering angle .theta..sub.c may be calculated by controller 102 that is an average of right and left steering angles in the event that some variation or error exists based upon, for example, wheel misalignment or sensor errors.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the calculation of distances as taught by Shatters in view of Kean with articulation angle determinations such as taught by Ryerson with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately controlling the work vehicle (see Ryerson at least [0009]).
Regarding claim 16, Shatters in view of Kean and Carlson and Ryerson teach the analogous material of that in claim 15 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lang (US-2022/0244342) teaches a system which utilizes ultra-wideband signals to measure distances between components, such as electronic devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights