Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: the claim appears to have a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recite “at least wiper coupled” it is believed applicant intended to recite –at least one wiper coupled—
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 ends “forward of at least one of the one or more tractive elements and along.” It is unclear what part or axes the wiper is be along.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruver et. al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0219713).
Regarding claim 1, Gruver discloses an autonomous vehicle system, comprising: a vehicle comprising: a base assembly comprising a front surface, a rear surface opposite the front surface, and side surfaces extending between the front surface and the rear surface; one or more tractive elements coupled to the base assembly; (Fig 1A; ¶39)
a sensor system coupled to the base assembly and configured to detect one or more objects located in an area near the vehicle, wherein the sensor system comprises: (¶40-42)
a first sensor oriented parallel with at least one of the front surface, the rear surface, or the side surfaces; and (Fig 1A; ¶41; Gruver discloses sensor unit 104 flush mounted at the front side of vehicle 100, sensor unit 106 at the back side, sensor unit 108 at the right side and sensor unit 110 at the left side)
a second sensor oriented non-parallel with the front surface, the rear surface, and the side surfaces; and (Fig 1A; ¶41; Gruver discloses sensor unit 102 mounted vertically on top of vehicle 100)
a control system configured to: receive a communication regarding the detection of the one or more objects from the sensor system; (¶168)
generate one or more controls for at least one of the base assembly or the one or more tractive elements; and operate the at least one of the base assembly or the one or more tractive elements based on the one or more controls. (¶169-173)
Regarding claim 4, Gruver further discloses wherein one of the first sensor or the second sensor is a short-range sensor, and the other of the first sensor or the second sensor is a long-range sensor. (¶33-35)
Regarding claim 6, Gruver further discloses wherein the long-range sensor is a LIDAR sensor. (¶33-35)
Regarding claim 7, Gruver further discloses wherein the long-range sensors are configured to generate a point map to map an environment surrounding the vehicle. (¶47-48)
Regarding claim 8, Gruver further discloses wherein the control system is configured to receive a pre-generated map of the environment and compare the pre-generated map to the point map. (¶47-48)
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.
Claims 2-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver as applied to claims 1, and 4 above, and further in view of Helsel et. al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0258979).
Regarding claim 2, Helsel teaches wherein the vehicle further comprises a lift assembly. (abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with wherein the vehicle further comprises a lift assembly as taught by Helsel with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, Helsel teaches wherein the control system is further configured to generate one or more controls for the lift assembly and send the one or more controls to the lift assembly. (¶43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with wherein the control system is further configured to generate one or more controls for the lift assembly and send the one or more controls to the lift assembly as taught by Helsel with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, Helsel further teaches wherein the short-range sensor is at least one of a light curtain sensor or an ultrasonic sensor. (¶69)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with wherein the short-range sensor is at least one of a light curtain sensor or an ultrasonic sensor as taught by Helsel with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becker (US Patent Publication 2016/032783).
Regarding claim 9, Becker teaches wherein the first sensor is oriented parallel with the front surface and is laterally offset from a centerline of the vehicle extending from the front surface to the rear surface. (Fig 2A; ¶85)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with wherein the first sensor is oriented parallel with the front surface and is laterally offset from a centerline of the vehicle extending from the front surface to the rear surface as taught by Becker with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, Becker teaches wherein the base assembly further comprises an angled surface between the front surface and a first side surface, and wherein the second sensor is oriented parallel with the angled surface. (116A/116B; Fig 1C-1D; ¶69)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with wherein the base assembly further comprises an angled surface between the front surface and a first side surface, and wherein the second sensor is oriented parallel with the angled surface as taught by Becker with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, Becker teaches a third sensor opposite the second sensor and oriented parallel with an angled surface between a second side surface and the rear surface. (116A/116B; Fig 1C-1D; ¶69)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with a third sensor opposite the second sensor and oriented parallel with an angled surface between a second side surface and the rear surface as taught by Becker with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
.
Claims 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver et. al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0219713) in view of Becker (US Patent Publication 2016/0327383).
Regarding claim 12, Gruver further discloses a method, comprising: (¶6)
generating, by one or more processing circuits, a map of an area around a vehicle based on first sensor data from a first long-range sensor coupled to the vehicle; (¶89)
operating, by the one or more processing circuits, the vehicle along a path through the area based on the map; (¶124)
determining, by the one or more processing circuits, an obstacle is on the path based on second sensor data from a first short-range sensor coupled to the vehicle, (¶143-145)
operating, by the one or more processing circuits, the vehicle to avoid the obstacle. (¶146)
Gruver appears to be silent as to wherein the first long-range sensor is oriented at a 45-degree offset relative to the first short-range sensor.
Becker however teaches wherein the first long-range sensor is oriented at a 45-degree offset relative to the first short-range sensor. (¶Fig 1C-1D; ¶69)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with wherein the first long-range sensor is oriented at a 45-degree offset relative to the first short-range sensor as taught by Becker with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, Gruver further discloses further comprising generating, by the one or more processing circuits, a point map mapping an environment surrounding the vehicle based on the first sensor data. (¶47-48)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver in view of Becker as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Helsel et. al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0258979).
Regarding claim 13, Gruver further discloses wherein the vehicle comprises: a base assembly comprising a front surface, a rear surface opposite the front surface, and side surfaces extending between the front surface and the rear surface; (Fig 1A; ¶39)
one or more tractive elements coupled to the base assembly; (¶169)
the first short-range sensor oriented parallel with at least one of the front surface, the rear surface, or the side surfaces; and the first long-range sensor oriented non-parallel with the front surface, the rear surface, and the side surfaces. (Fig 1A; ¶41)
Helsel teaches a lift assembly coupled to the base assembly. (abstract; ¶43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with a lift assembly coupled to the base assembly as taught by Helsel with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver et. al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0219713) in view of Becker (US Patent Publication 2016/032783) and in further view of Helsel et. al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0258979).
Regarding claim 16, Gruver further discloses an autonomous vehicle, comprising: a base assembly;
a first short-range sensor coupled to a perimeter of the base assembly; (Fig 1A; ¶41)
a first long-range sensor coupled to the perimeter of the base assembly
a control system communicatively coupled to the first short-range sensor and the first long-range sensor, the control system configured to receive an indication of a detection of an object and generate one or more controls for the autonomous vehicle. (¶168-173)
Regarding claim 17, Helsel teaches wherein the first short-range sensor is at least one of a light curtain sensor or an ultrasonic sensor. (¶69)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with wherein the short-range sensor is at least one of a light curtain sensor or an ultrasonic sensor as taught by Helsel with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver in view of Becker as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gutowitz (US Patent Publication 2017/0355295).
Regarding claim 15, Gutowitz teaches coupling, by the one or more processing circuits, the vehicle to a second vehicle, such that movement of the vehicle and the second vehicle is coordinated. (Fig 8A-8D; ¶73-75)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with coupling, by the one or more processing circuits, the vehicle to a second vehicle, such that movement of the vehicle and the second vehicle is coordinated as taught by Gutowitz with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver in view of Becker and Helsel as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Won (US Patent Publication 2012/0261204).
Regarding claim 18, Won discloses at least [a] wiper coupled to the base assembly and extending at least partially from the base assembly down towards a ground surface. (¶73)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with at least [a] wiper coupled to the base assembly and extending at least partially from the base assembly down towards a ground surface as taught by Won with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 19, Won teaches wherein the wiper is positioned on a longitudinal axis extending through the one or more tractive elements and the wiper longitudinally forward of at least one of the one or more tractive elements and along. (¶73)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with at least wherein the wiper is positioned on a longitudinal axis extending through the one or more tractive elements and the wiper longitudinally forward of at least one of the one or more tractive elements and along as taught by Won with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver in view of Becker and Helsel as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Whiteman (US Patent Publication 2019/0330822).
Regarding claim 20, Whiteman teaches a ground speed sensor coupled to the base assembly and oriented downward towards a ground surface. (¶72)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Gruver with a ground speed sensor coupled to the base assembly and oriented downward towards a ground surface as taught by Whiteman with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights