CONTROL METHOD, CONTROL PROGRAM, AND CONTROL SYSTEM

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 . Response to Arguments Object to Specification is withdrawn in view of amendments. Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/07/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11, and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or moot in view of new ground of rejection provided below which was necessitated based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Independent claims are rejected over Maley in view of Matsuzaki. Claim Objections Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 should read “causing the work vehicle to execute the second treating process when the detection target is located inside the work region and located inside the vehicle control range.” instead of “causing the work vehicle to execute the second treating process when the detection target is located inside the work region and located inside the vehicle control range, the second treating process.” . Claim 6 should not depend on claim 2 since claim 2 is cancelled. 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maley (US 20220170242 A1) in view of Matsuzaki (WO2023127353A1). Regarding Claim 1, Maley teaches the control method comprising: causing a work vehicle to execute treating processes different from each other depending on whether a detection target detected by a detector during an autonomous travel of the work vehicle in a work region is located inside or outside the work region (See at least Para [0063] “In some examples, the camera 146 may be configured to identify a type of object, such as a person. As discussed above, the collision avoidance system 104 may determine that the object 106 is within the working area 108 based at least in part on comparing position coordinates of the object 106 with that of the working area 108 (i.e., the position coordinates associated with the working area 108 ). Based on this comparison, the collision avoidance system 104 may determine that the object 106 is within, or is outside of, the working area 108 …”, Para [0064] “In the example of FIG. 2, when the object 106 is disposed within the working area 108 , the alert system 112 may trigger an alert 114 to notify the operator as the presence and/or location of the object 106 . The alert 114 may be an audible alert and/or a visual alert…”, Para [0065] As discussed above, and shown in FIG. 2, the FOV 148 of the camera 146 may extend beyond the working area 108 . In instances where the object(s) 106 are detected outside the working area 108 , but still detected by the camera 146 , the alert system 112 may output a prewarning that indicates the presence of the object 106 . In some examples, the prewarning may include an audible alert that has a lower sound volume than the alert(s) 114 and/or may include a visual alert that is of a different color than the alert(s) 114 . However, in examples were the pre-warnings are emitted, the operator may still operate the work implement 122 within the working area 108.”, Para [0015] “…Objects that are within the working area may cause alerts to be issued and/or movement of the machine, or a work implement connected to the machine, to be controlled. Some examples of the systems and methods described herein may suppress alerts associated with detected object(s) unless the objects are within the working area. That is, object(s) may be detected outside of the working area, within a field of view of the sensor, but alert(s) are issued for those object(s) that are detected within the working area.”) by: … causing the work vehicle to execute a second treating process including a process of notifying the detection information to the operation terminal and a travel control process of controlling travel of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel when the detection target is located inside the work region (See at least Para [0043] “The alert system 112 may be configured to activate device(s) upon receipt of one or more object signals indicative of the object(s) 106 in the working area 108 . In some examples, the alert(s) 114 may be audible (e.g., series of beeps), visual (e.g., lights), haptic (e.g., vibrational), etc. The alert(s) 114 may be visually output on a display of the machine 102, which may include a user interface (UI) in which the operator may interface with for controlling one or more operation(s) of the machine 102 …”, Para [0070] “Camera(s) 146 of the machine 102 (or as otherwise placed about the working area 300 and/or environment 100 ) may detect the first object 304 , the second object 306 , and/or the third object 308 . For example, the camera(s) 146 may be located on sides, a top, a back, and/or a front of the machine 102 . When the object detection controller 152 , via the image data 150 from the camera(s) 146 , detects an object inside the working area 108 and/or within a path of the work implement 122 , an alert 114 may be issued…”). Although Maley teaches notifying an operation terminal of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region (See at least Para Para [0065] As discussed above, and shown in FIG. 2, the FOV 148 of the camera 146 may extend beyond the working area 108 . In instances where the object(s) 106 are detected outside the working area 108 , but still detected by the camera 146 , the alert system 112 may output a prewarning that indicates the presence of the object 106 . In some examples, the prewarning may include an audible alert that has a lower sound volume than the alert(s) 114 and/or may include a visual alert that is of a different color than the alert(s) 114 . However, in examples were the pre-warnings are emitted, the operator may still operate the work implement 122 within the working area 108.”, Para [0015] “…Objects that are within the working area may cause alerts to be issued and/or movement of the machine, or a work implement connected to the machine, to be controlled. Some examples of the systems and methods described herein may suppress alerts associated with detected object(s) unless the objects are within the working area. That is, object(s) may be detected outside of the working area, within a field of view of the sensor, but alert(s) are issued for those object(s) that are detected within the working area.”), however, he does not explicitly spell out … causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region; and Matsuzaki teaches … causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region (See at least Page 15 Para “The work vehicle 100 according to the present embodiment can automatically travel not only inside the field but also outside the field. Outside the field, the control device 180 detects objects (for example, other vehicles, pedestrians, etc.) that are relatively distant from the work vehicle 100 based on data output from the camera 120 or the LiDAR sensor 140.”, Page 20 Para 2 “…A user of the remote monitoring center can monitor the automatic running of the work vehicle 100 and remotely control the work vehicle 100 using the remote controller 500 while watching the image displayed on the display 430…”, Fig. 1); and Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsuzaki with Maley and include the feature of causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region, thereby provide faster performance by reducing data amount (See at least Page 21 Para 1 “…According to this configuration, by performing preprocessing to reduce the data amount of sensing data corresponding to an area with little change in the video, the sensing data can be efficiently compressed on the communication device side, and the video stream can be processed. It is possible to reduce the amount of data.”). 8. Regarding Claim 3, modified Maley teaches all the elements of claim 1. Maley further teaches wherein causing the work vehicle to execute treating processes that are different from each other further depends on whether the detection target is located inside a vehicle control range set, with the work vehicle as a reference, or located outside the vehicle control range when the detection target is located inside the work region (See at least Para [0007] “According to a first aspect, a machine may include a work implement, one or more sensors, one or more cameras, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more sensors, first data indicating a first position of the work implement within an environment. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more sensors, second data indicating a second position of the work implement within the environment different from the first position. The operations may include defining, based at least in part on the first position and the second position, a working area of the work implement within the environment. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more cameras, image data depicting at least a portion of the environment and at least a portion an object disposed within a field of view of the one or more cameras. The operations may include determining, based at least in part on the image data, that the object is disposed at a location outside of the working area. The operations may include based at least in part on determining that the object is disposed at the location outside of the working area, refraining from causing output of an alert indicating the presence of the object within the working area”, discloses objects being present or not in a working area which is construed as objects being present or not in a vehicle control range which is a specific region or working area). 9. Regarding Claim 7, modified Maley teaches all the elements of claim 1. Maley further teaches notifying an operation terminal, of detection information indicating that the detection target is detected when the detection target is located outside the work region and located inside the periphery of the work region (See at least Para [0048] “As shown, the FOV 148 of the camera 146 may extend beyond the working area 108 in one or more coordinate directions. When the first object 106(1) is within the working area 108, alert(s) 114 may be output indicating the presence of the first object 106(1). Moreover, the movement controller 154 may prevent the operator advancing the work implement 122 in a direction 166 and/or within a certain threshold distance or proximity 168 of the first object 106(1). Comparatively, for the second object 106(2), no alert 114 may be issued given that the second object 106(2) is located outside of the working area 108. In other words, because the second object 106(2) is located beyond the first boundary 128, and therefore outside the working area 108, the work implement 122 may not contact the second object 106(2). As such, even though the second object 106(2) may be detected by the object detection controller 152, because the second object 106(2) is outside of the working area 108, no alert 114 may be issued. This filtering of alerts 114 may serve to limit the amount of alert(s) 114 generated by the alert system 112. For example, the alert system 112 may generate alerts 114 corresponding to objects 106 detected by the object detection controller 152 and identified as being disposed within the working area 108, but may suppress (or in some instances, not generate) alerts 114 corresponding to objects 106 detected by the object detection controller 152 and identified as being disposed outside of the working area 108.”); and not notifying the operation terminal of the detection information when the detection target is located outside the work region and located outside the periphery of the work region (See at least Para [0048] “As shown, the FOV 148 of the camera 146 may extend beyond the working area 108 in one or more coordinate directions. When the first object 106(1) is within the working area 108, alert(s) 114 may be output indicating the presence of the first object 106(1). Moreover, the movement controller 154 may prevent the operator advancing the work implement 122 in a direction 166 and/or within a certain threshold distance or proximity 168 of the first object 106(1). Comparatively, for the second object 106(2), no alert 114 may be issued given that the second object 106(2) is located outside of the working area 108. In other words, because the second object 106(2) is located beyond the first boundary 128, and therefore outside the working area 108, the work implement 122 may not contact the second object 106(2). As such, even though the second object 106(2) may be detected by the object detection controller 152, because the second object 106(2) is outside of the working area 108, no alert 114 may be issued. This filtering of alerts 114 may serve to limit the amount of alert(s) 114 generated by the alert system 112. For example, the alert system 112 may generate alerts 114 corresponding to objects 106 detected by the object detection controller 152 and identified as being disposed within the working area 108, but may suppress (or in some instances, not generate) alerts 114 corresponding to objects 106 detected by the object detection controller 152 and identified as being disposed outside of the working area 108.”). 10. Regarding Claim 11, Maley teaches control method comprising: … causing the work vehicle to execute a second treating process including a process of notifying the detection information to the operation terminal and a travel control process of controlling travel of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel when the detection target is located inside the work region (See at least Para [0043] “The alert system 112 may be configured to activate device(s) upon receipt of one or more object signals indicative of the object(s) 106 in the working area 108 . In some examples, the alert(s) 114 may be audible (e.g., series of beeps), visual (e.g., lights), haptic (e.g., vibrational), etc. The alert(s) 114 may be visually output on a display of the machine 102, which may include a user interface (UI) in which the operator may interface with for controlling one or more operation(s) of the machine 102 …”, Para [0070] “Camera(s) 146 of the machine 102 (or as otherwise placed about the working area 300 and/or environment 100 ) may detect the first object 304 , the second object 306 , and/or the third object 308 . For example, the camera(s) 146 may be located on sides, a top, a back, and/or a front of the machine 102 . When the object detection controller 152 , via the image data 150 from the camera(s) 146 , detects an object inside the working area 108 and/or within a path of the work implement 122 , an alert 114 may be issued…”). causing the work vehicle to execute treating processes different from each other depending on whether the detection target is located inside or outside a vehicle control range set , with the work vehicle as a reference, when the detection target is located inside the work region (See at least Para [0063] “In some examples, the camera 146 may be configured to identify a type of object, such as a person. As discussed above, the collision avoidance system 104 may determine that the object 106 is within the working area 108 based at least in part on comparing position coordinates of the object 106 with that of the working area 108 (i.e., the position coordinates associated with the working area 108 ). Based on this comparison, the collision avoidance system 104 may determine that the object 106 is within, or is outside of, the working area 108 …”, Para [0064] “In the example of FIG. 2, when the object 106 is disposed within the working area 108 , the alert system 112 may trigger an alert 114 to notify the operator as the presence and/or location of the object 106 . The alert 114 may be an audible alert and/or a visual alert…”, Para [0065] As discussed above, and shown in FIG. 2, the FOV 148 of the camera 146 may extend beyond the working area 108 . In instances where the object(s) 106 are detected outside the working area 108 , but still detected by the camera 146 , the alert system 112 may output a prewarning that indicates the presence of the object 106 . In some examples, the prewarning may include an audible alert that has a lower sound volume than the alert(s) 114 and/or may include a visual alert that is of a different color than the alert(s) 114 . However, in examples were the pre-warnings are emitted, the operator may still operate the work implement 122 within the working area 108.”, Para [0015] “…Objects that are within the working area may cause alerts to be issued and/or movement of the machine, or a work implement connected to the machine, to be controlled. Some examples of the systems and methods described herein may suppress alerts associated with detected object(s) unless the objects are within the working area. That is, object(s) may be detected outside of the working area, within a field of view of the sensor, but alert(s) are issued for those object(s) that are detected within the working area.”) Although Maley teaches notifying an operation terminal of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region (See at least Para Para [0065] As discussed above, and shown in FIG. 2, the FOV 148 of the camera 146 may extend beyond the working area 108 . In instances where the object(s) 106 are detected outside the working area 108 , but still detected by the camera 146 , the alert system 112 may output a prewarning that indicates the presence of the object 106 . In some examples, the prewarning may include an audible alert that has a lower sound volume than the alert(s) 114 and/or may include a visual alert that is of a different color than the alert(s) 114 . However, in examples were the pre-warnings are emitted, the operator may still operate the work implement 122 within the working area 108.”, Para [0015] “…Objects that are within the working area may cause alerts to be issued and/or movement of the machine, or a work implement connected to the machine, to be controlled. Some examples of the systems and methods described herein may suppress alerts associated with detected object(s) unless the objects are within the working area. That is, object(s) may be detected outside of the working area, within a field of view of the sensor, but alert(s) are issued for those object(s) that are detected within the working area.”), however, he does not explicitly spell out … causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region; and Matsuzaki teaches … causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region (See at least Page 15 Para “The work vehicle 100 according to the present embodiment can automatically travel not only inside the field but also outside the field. Outside the field, the control device 180 detects objects (for example, other vehicles, pedestrians, etc.) that are relatively distant from the work vehicle 100 based on data output from the camera 120 or the LiDAR sensor 140.”, Page 20 Para 2 “…A user of the remote monitoring center can monitor the automatic running of the work vehicle 100 and remotely control the work vehicle 100 using the remote controller 500 while watching the image displayed on the display 430…”, Fig. 1); and Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsuzaki with Maley and include the feature of causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region, thereby provide faster performance by reducing data amount (See at least Page 21 Para 1 “…According to this configuration, by performing preprocessing to reduce the data amount of sensing data corresponding to an area with little change in the video, the sensing data can be efficiently compressed on the communication device side, and the video stream can be processed. It is possible to reduce the amount of data.”) 11. Regarding Claim 13, Maley teaches a control system, comprising: at least one processor (See at least Para [0009] “… The machine may further include one or more processors operably connected to the camera and the sensor, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations…”); and at least one memory in communication with the at least one processor and storing processor-executable code, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (See at least Para [0009] “… The machine may further include one or more processors operably connected to the camera and the sensor, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations…”) including: causing a work vehicle to execute treating processes different from each other depending on whether a detection target detected by a detector during an autonomous travel of the work vehicle in a work region is located inside or outside the work region (See at least Para [0007] “According to a first aspect, a machine may include a work implement, one or more sensors, one or more cameras, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more sensors, first data indicating a first position of the work implement within an environment. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more sensors, second data indicating a second position of the work implement within the environment different from the first position. The operations may include defining, based at least in part on the first position and the second position, a working area of the work implement within the environment. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more cameras, image data depicting at least a portion of the environment and at least a portion an object disposed within a field of view of the one or more cameras. The operations may include determining, based at least in part on the image data, that the object is disposed at a location outside of the working area. The operations may include based at least in part on determining that the object is disposed at the location outside of the working area, refraining from causing output of an alert indicating the presence of the object within the working area”, Para [0015] “…Objects that are within the working area may cause alerts to be issued and/or movement of the machine, or a work implement connected to the machine, to be controlled. Some examples of the systems and methods described herein may suppress alerts associated with detected object(s) unless the objects are within the working area. That is, object(s) may be detected outside of the working area, within a field of view of the sensor, but alert(s) are issued for those object(s) that are detected within the working area.”) by: … causing the work vehicle to execute a second treating process including a process of notifying the detection information to the operation terminal and a travel control process of controlling travel of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel when the detection target is located inside the work region (See at least Para [0043] “The alert system 112 may be configured to activate device(s) upon receipt of one or more object signals indicative of the object(s) 106 in the working area 108 . In some examples, the alert(s) 114 may be audible (e.g., series of beeps), visual (e.g., lights), haptic (e.g., vibrational), etc. The alert(s) 114 may be visually output on a display of the machine 102, which may include a user interface (UI) in which the operator may interface with for controlling one or more operation(s) of the machine 102 …”, Para [0070] “Camera(s) 146 of the machine 102 (or as otherwise placed about the working area 300 and/or environment 100 ) may detect the first object 304 , the second object 306 , and/or the third object 308 . For example, the camera(s) 146 may be located on sides, a top, a back, and/or a front of the machine 102 . When the object detection controller 152 , via the image data 150 from the camera(s) 146 , detects an object inside the working area 108 and/or within a path of the work implement 122 , an alert 114 may be issued…”). Although Maley teaches notifying an operation terminal of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region (See at least Para Para [0065] As discussed above, and shown in FIG. 2, the FOV 148 of the camera 146 may extend beyond the working area 108 . In instances where the object(s) 106 are detected outside the working area 108 , but still detected by the camera 146 , the alert system 112 may output a prewarning that indicates the presence of the object 106 . In some examples, the prewarning may include an audible alert that has a lower sound volume than the alert(s) 114 and/or may include a visual alert that is of a different color than the alert(s) 114 . However, in examples were the pre-warnings are emitted, the operator may still operate the work implement 122 within the working area 108.”, Para [0015] “…Objects that are within the working area may cause alerts to be issued and/or movement of the machine, or a work implement connected to the machine, to be controlled. Some examples of the systems and methods described herein may suppress alerts associated with detected object(s) unless the objects are within the working area. That is, object(s) may be detected outside of the working area, within a field of view of the sensor, but alert(s) are issued for those object(s) that are detected within the working area.”), however, he does not explicitly spell out … causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region; and Matsuzaki teaches … causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region (See at least Page 15 Para “The work vehicle 100 according to the present embodiment can automatically travel not only inside the field but also outside the field. Outside the field, the control device 180 detects objects (for example, other vehicles, pedestrians, etc.) that are relatively distant from the work vehicle 100 based on data output from the camera 120 or the LiDAR sensor 140.”, Page 20 Para 2 “…A user of the remote monitoring center can monitor the automatic running of the work vehicle 100 and remotely control the work vehicle 100 using the remote controller 500 while watching the image displayed on the display 430…”, Fig. 1); and Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsuzaki with Maley and include the feature of causing the work vehicle to execute only a first treating process of notifying an operation terminal, which is an external device of the work vehicle and is capable of displaying a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, of detection information indicating that the detection target has been detected when the detection target is located outside the work region, thereby provide faster performance by reducing data amount (See at least Page 21 Para 1 “…According to this configuration, by performing preprocessing to reduce the data amount of sensing data corresponding to an area with little change in the video, the sensing data can be efficiently compressed on the communication device side, and the video stream can be processed. It is possible to reduce the amount of data.”) 12. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maley (US 20220170242 A1) in view of Matsuzaki (WO2023127353A1), and further in view of Oba (US 20230017970 A1). 13. Regarding Claim 4, modified Maley teaches all the elements of claim 3. However, Maley further teaches wherein causing the work vehicle to execute treating processes different from each other comprises: causing the work vehicle to execute the second treating process when the detection target is located inside the work region Para [0070] “Camera(s) 146 of the machine 102 (or as otherwise placed about the working area 300 and/or environment 100 ) may detect the first object 304 , the second object 306 , and/or the third object 308 . For example, the camera(s) 146 may be located on sides, a top, a back, and/or a front of the machine 102 . When the object detection controller 152 , via the image data 150 from the camera(s) 146 , detects an object inside the working area 108 and/or within a path of the work implement 122 , an alert 114 may be issued…”)… However, Maley does not explicitly spell out … and located inside the vehicle control range, … Oba teaches … and the detection target is located inside the vehicle control range (See at least Para [0116] “Note that FIG. 3 depicts an example of each of imaging ranges of the imaging devices Cam1, Cam2, Cam3, and Cam4. An imaging range “a” indicates an image range of the imaging device Cam1 provided on the front nose, imaging ranges “b” and “c” indicate imaging ranges of the imaging devices Cam2 and Cam3 provided on the corresponding side mirrors, and an imaging range “d” indicates an imaging range of the imaging device Cam4 provided on the rear bumper or the back door. For example, a bird's eye view image of the vehicle 10 viewed from the above, and further, an entire circumferential and three-dimensional display image surrounding vehicle peripheral portions by using curved planes and the like are obtained by overlapping image data captured by the imaging devices Cam1, Cam2, Cam3, and Cam4.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Oba with Maley and include the feature of detection target being located inside the vehicle control range, thereby ensure efficiency in service management (See at least Para [0551] In the present disclosure, various use modes of the remote controller, the remote operator, and the like have been described to explain a direct operation of display data of the user. However, when offerability of services is efficiently managed, various types of use modes, such as a members-only concierge service using a voice call for exchange and recognition of these services, and an operation combined with automatic voice recognition or combined with artificial intelligence, are established.”). 14. Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maley (US 20220170242 A1) in view of Matsuzaki (WO2023127353A1), and further in view of Yoon (KR20170007924A). 15. Regarding Claim 6, Maley teaches all the elements of claim 2. Maley further teaches wherein the second treating process further includes decelerating the work vehicle, causing the work vehicle to stop autonomously traveling, and causing the work vehicle to issue an alarm (See at least Para [0043] “The alert system 112 may be configured to activate device(s) upon receipt of one or more object signals indicative of the object(s) 106 in the working area 108. In some examples, the alert(s) 114 may be audible (e.g., series of beeps), visual (e.g., lights), haptic (e.g., vibrational), etc. The alert(s) 114 may be visually output on a display of the machine 102,..”, Para [0044] “In some examples, based on detecting the object(s) 106 within the working area 108, movement of the machine 102 and/or the work implement 122 may be restricted or otherwise controlled. For example, after detecting the object(s) 106, if the work implement 122 comes within a certain threshold distance of the object(s) 106, the operator may be prohibited from advancing the work implement 122 closer to the object(s) 106. For example, the collision avoidance system 104 may use the position 138 of the object(s) 106 to allow the operator to move the work implement 122 within a certain threshold distance of the object(s) 106. In some examples, the collision avoidance system 104 may continuously determine locations of the object(s) 106 via the image data 150 and locations of the work implement 122 via the sensor data 134. If the location of the work implement 122 advances towards the object(s) 106 and comes within the certain threshold distance, the collision avoidance system 104 may halt movement of the work implement 122 and/or cause the alert system 112 to output an alert 114...”). 18. Regarding Claim 8, modified Maley teaches all the elements of claim 1. Although Maley teaches working area may, in some examples, be mapped or recorded in two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) space around the machine 102 by the working area controller (See at least Para [0031] “The working area 108 may, in some examples, be mapped or recorded in two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) space around the machine 102 by the working area controller 144. For example, the working area controller 144 may generate the working area 108 in a local coordinate system around the machine 102. However, in some examples, the working area controller 144 may generate the working area 108 is global position system (GPS) coordinate. As the machine 102 operates within the working area 108, the position controller 136 may continuously determine the position 138 of the machine 102, the boom 118, the stick 120, and/or the work implement 122. The positions 138 may be compared or transcribed within the working area 108 to determine the relative location of the machine 102, the boom 118, the stick 120, and/or the work implement 122 within the working area 108.”, Para [0037] “The collision avoidance system 104 may be configured to prevent collisions between the machine 102 and the object(s) 106 in the environment 100. To detect the object(s) 106, the collision avoidance system 104 may include one or more camera(s) 146 mounted onto a body (e.g., the frame 116) of the machine 102. In some instances, the machine 102 may include any number of camera(s) 146, such as one, two, or three cameras. In a two-camera embodiment, a first camera may be disposed on a right-side 160 of the machine 102 and a second camera may be disposed on a rear-side 162 of the machine 102. In a three-camera embodiment, a third camera may be disposed on a left-side 164 of the machine 102. However, the camera(s) 146 may additionally or alternatively mount to the boom 118, stick 120, and/or other portions of the machine 102.”, Para [0043] “The alert system 112 may be configured to activate device(s) upon receipt of one or more object signals indicative of the object(s) 106 in the working area 108. In some examples, the alert(s) 114 may be audible (e.g., series of beeps), visual (e.g., lights), haptic (e.g., vibrational), etc. The alert(s) 114 may be visually output on a display of the machine 102,…”), he does not explicitly spell out causing a map screen displayed on an operation terminal to display at least one of a position of the detection target and a captured image capturing the detection target, wherein the operation terminal is configured to display a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel.. Yoon teaches causing a map screen displayed on an operation terminal to display at least one of a position of the detection target and a captured image capturing the detection target, wherein the operation terminal is configured to display a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel (See at least Para [0025] “Here, as the information associated with the travel environment information is autonomous navigation map, the shape information of the structure to be displayed on the autonomous navigation map, the position coordinates of the structure, the shape information of the road is displayed on the autonomous navigation map, the position of the road coordinates, including the curvature and inclination angle of the road of the road.”); and Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Maley with the teachings of Yoon and include the feature of causing a map screen being displayed on an operation terminal, that can display a travel status of the work vehicle during the autonomous travel, to display at least one of a position of the detection target and a captured image capturing the detection target, thereby provide enhanced safety by preparing the work vehicle for upcoming collision. 16. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maley (US 20220170242 A1) in view of Matsuzaki (WO2023127353A1), and further in view of Yankun et al. (US 20130070095 A1) (Hereinafter Yankun). 17. Regarding Claim 5, Maley teaches all the elements of claim 4. However, Maley does not explicitly spell out causing the work vehicle to stop autonomously traveling when no predetermined operation is accepted from a user of the operation in response to the detection information notified to the operation terminal through the first treating process. Yankun teaches the control method according to claim 4, further comprising causing the work vehicle to stop autonomously traveling when no predetermined operation is accepted from a user of the operation in response to the detection information notified to the operation terminal through the first treating process (See at least Para [0020] “If an obstacle is detected, the obstacle detection system 106 may signal that an obstacle was detected. The signal indicating detection of an obstacle may be communicated to an appropriate function configured to take a desired action. For example, the indication of an obstacle may be used to automatically (that is, without user action) bring the vehicle to a stop. The indication of an obstacle may also be annunciated to the user or driver, with or without the display of the image of the area captured by the camera 106…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Maley with the teachings of Yoon and include the feature of causing the work vehicle to stop autonomously traveling when no predetermined operation is accepted from a user of the operation in response to the detection information notified to the operation terminal through the first treating process, thereby provide safety around the operating area of the work vehicle. 18. Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maley (US 20220170242 A1) in view of Matsuzaki (WO2023127353A1), and further in view of Tschanz et al. (US 20210302958 A1) (Hereinafter Tschanz). 19. Regarding Claim 9, Maley teaches all the elements of claim 1. Maley further teaches … causing the work vehicle to execute the treating process according to a position of the detection target when the second monitoring mode is selected (See at least Para [0007] “According to a first aspect, a machine may include a work implement, one or more sensors, one or more cameras, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more sensors, first data indicating a first position of the work implement within an environment. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more sensors, second data indicating a second position of the work implement within the environment different from the first position. The operations may include defining, based at least in part on the first position and the second position, a working area of the work implement within the environment. The operations may include receiving, from the one or more cameras, image data depicting at least a portion of the environment and at least a portion an object disposed within a field of view of the one or more cameras. The operations may include determining, based at least in part on the image data, that the object is disposed at a location outside of the working area. The operations may include based at least in part on determining that the object is disposed at the location outside of the working area, refraining from causing output of an alert indicating the presence of the object within the working area”, Para [0015] “…Objects that are within the working area may cause alerts to be issued and/or movement of the machine, or a work implement connected to the machine, to be controlled. Some examples of the systems and methods described herein may suppress alerts associated with detected object(s) unless the objects are within the working area. That is, object(s) may be detected outside of the working area, within a field of view of the sensor, but alert(s) are issued for those object(s) that are detected within the working area.”). However, Maley does not explicitly spell out the control method according to claim 1, further comprising: accepting an operation of selecting: a first monitoring mode to permit the work vehicle to autonomously travel on condition that a user is present within a predetermined distance from the work vehicle, or a second monitoring mode to permit the work vehicle to autonomously travel even when a user is not present within the predetermined distance from the work vehicle; and … Tschanz teaches the control method according to claim 1, further comprising: accepting an operation of selecting: a first monitoring mode to permit the work vehicle to autonomously travel on condition that a user is present within a predetermined distance from the work vehicle, or a second monitoring mode to permit the work vehicle to autonomously travel even when a user is not present within the predetermined distance from the work vehicle (See at least Para [0114] “The first mode of operations can be a mode in which no operator is present in the autonomous vehicle (e.g., autonomous vehicle 102 in FIG. 1). The second mode of operations can be a mode in which an operator is present in the autonomous vehicle (e.g., autonomous vehicle 102 in FIG. 1”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Maley with the teachings of Yoon and include the feature of two different monitoring mode depending on the presence and absence of a user, thereby provide both safety of user, and safety of surrounding of the work vehicle (See at least Para [0068] “The autonomous vehicle technology described herein can help improve the safety of passengers of an autonomous vehicle, improve the safety of the surroundings of the autonomous vehicle, improve the experience of the rider and/or operator of the autonomous vehicle, as well as provide other improvements as described herein…”). 20. Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maley (US 20220170242 A1) in view of Matsuzaki (WO2023127353A1), Yankun et al. (US 20130070095 A1) (Hereinafter Yankun), and further in view of Ramos Cantor et al. (US 20220382297 A1) (Hereinafter Ramos Cantor). 21. Regarding Claim 10, Maley teaches all the elements of claim 1. Maley does not explicitly spell out causing a first work vehicle to stop autonomously traveling and causing a second work vehicle during the autonomous travel in a second work region to stop autonomously traveling when the detection target is detected by a detector while the first work vehicle is autonomously traveling in a first work region. Yankun teaches causing a first work vehicle to stop autonomously traveling … while the first work vehicle is autonomously traveling in a first work region (See at least Para [0020] “If an obstacle is detected, the obstacle detection system 106 may signal that an obstacle was detected. The signal indicating detection of an obstacle may be communicated to an appropriate function configured to take a desired action. For example, the indication of an obstacle may be used to automatically (that is, without user action) bring the vehicle to a stop. The indication of an obstacle may also be annunciated to the user or driver, with or without the display of the image of the area captured by the camera 106…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yankun with Maley and include the feature of causing a first work vehicle to stop autonomously traveling when the detection target is detected by a detector while the first work vehicle is autonomously traveling in a first work region, thereby provide safety. However, neither Maley nor Yankun explicitly spell out … and causing a second work vehicle during the autonomous travel in a second work region to stop autonomously traveling … Ramos Cantor teaches … and causing a second work vehicle during the autonomous travel in a second work region to stop autonomously traveling (See at least Para [0091] “In response to the receipt of the confirmation 430 by the second controller 108, the second controller 108 sends a command 432 tothe second automated guided vehicle 104 to stop the second automated guided vehicle 104. Upon receipt of the command 432 to stop the second automated guided vehicle 104, the second automated guided vehicle 104 stops.”)… Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ramos Cantor with Maley and include the feature of causing a second work vehicle during the autonomous travel in a second work region to stop autonomously traveling, thereby provide enhanced safety (See at least Para [0005] “… A sensor used for person safety and navigation may comprise a laser scanner, and logical functionality to detect obstacles and their distances. A sensor used for person safety can also be used for navigation and/or localization…”). Conclusion 22. 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 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. 23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHEDA HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-5310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am- 5:00 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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. /SHAHEDA HOQUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658