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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2026, 05/18/2026, and 06/18/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0072760 A1) hereinafter Liang.
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors, the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that [see Paragraph 0034 - discusses a memory and a processor], when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive an input from a camera, the camera configured to facilitate surveying a work site [see Paragraph 0081 - discusses imaging sensors record images that are stitched together to generate a representation of a current physical state of a work site (see Paragraph 0062 - a 3D start map)];
receive an external input indicating a desired location of a work machine on the work site [see Paragraph 0059 - discusses that a visual representation of a site is presented to an operator, a site boundary interface, and the site boundary interface prompts an operator to define the site boundary based on locations of vertices of the boundary, and the hole (desired location) is also defined by the operator];
determine ground conditions of the work site based on at least the input from the camera, the ground conditions indicating at least one of a surface condition or an obstacle [see Paragraph 0101 - discusses that from the images used to generate the 3D start map an obstacle analysis module detects features in the ground surface of the site, the features are determined in real-time during generation of the 3D start map];
determine a vehicle route from a current location of the work machine to the desired location based on the ground conditions [see Paragraph 0112 - discusses determining routes from a start point to an end point that are based on ground conditions ('both circumventing modifiable obstacles and traveling through modifiable obstacle")]; and
generate a route map of the vehicle route defining the vehicle route and the ground conditions [see Paragraph 0125 - discusses that a user interface is presented by the route generator (see Paragraph 0123 - discusses that the interface is of the 3D start map) to an operator, and allows the operator to approve routes or modify routes, and identify obstacles (see Paragraph 0103 - discusses that the obstacles are identified by the sensors and 3D start map and generates obstacles from the 3D start map, and see Paragraph 0110 - discusses that obstacles are labeled in the 3D start map)].
Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further discloses wherein the vehicle route is determined based on stability thresholds of the work machine relative to the ground conditions [see Paragraph 0107 - discusses determining a route based on threshold conditions to avoid high-centering or rolling the vehicle].
Regarding claim 3, Liang discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further discloses wherein the route map displays real time input from the camera that is modified to define the ground conditions [see Paragraph 0101 - discusses that the obstacle analysis module analyzes the 3D start map (determined from the images) to detect more severe features in the ground surface of the site and flag these variations as potential obstacles, in some implementations, the obstacle analysis module detects and flags severe features of the site in real-time during the generation of the 3D start map].
Regarding claim 4, Liang discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further discloses wherein the camera is mounted to the work machine [see Figure 2B below - depicts the imaging sensors mounted on the work machine].
PNG
media_image1.png
450
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2B of Liang
Regarding claim 5, Liang discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further discloses wherein determining the ground conditions comprises:
determining global positioning system coordinates of each of the ground conditions [see Paragraph 0061 - discusses that features in the work site (within site boundaries) positions are recorded by a position sensor (see Paragraph 0029 - discusses a GPS), the features refer to the ground surface height]; and
modifying the route map to highlight the ground conditions based on the global positioning system coordinates [see Paragraph 0062 - discusses generating the 3D start map, using the geospatial location, to represent the ground surface].
Claims 16 and 20 are analogous to claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang.
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Kean et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0302794 A1) hereinafter Kean.
Regarding claim 6, Liang discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Liang fails to disclose wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
determine a work machine load based at least in part on an input received from a sensor of the work machine, and
determine operating conditions of the work machine along the vehicle route based on at least the ground conditions and the work machine load.
Kean discloses wherein instructions cause one or more processors to:
determine a work machine load based at least in part on an input received from a sensor of the work machine [see Paragraph 0046 - discusses detecting a load using a sensor], and
determine operating conditions of the work machine along a vehicle route based on at least ground conditions and the work machine load [see Paragraph 0031 - discusses identifying ground conditions (objects) using a sensor, see Paragraphs 0039-0040 – discusses limiting the speed].
Kean suggests that by identifying objects while a vehicle is carrying a load ensure the carried load does not intersect with an obstacle [see Paragraphs 0039-0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processing circuitry as taught by Liang to determine a work machine load based at least in part on an input received from a sensor of the work machine and determine operating conditions of the work machine along a vehicle route based on at least ground conditions and the work machine load as taught by Kean in order to not intersect (not collide) with an obstacle while a load is being carried by limiting the operating conditions (limiting the speed) [Kean, see Paragraphs 0039-0040].
Regarding claim 7, Liang and Kean disclose the invention with respect to claim 6. Kean further discloses wherein the operating conditions comprise at least one of a boom height relative to a grade of the vehicle route or a work machine speed [see Paragraphs 0039-0040 - discusses speed].
Claims 8-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Sekiguchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0026657 A1) hereinafter Sekiguchi.
Regarding claim 8, Liang discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Liang fails to disclose a drone communicably coupled to the one or more processing circuits, wherein the drone comprises the camera.
Sekiguchi discloses a drone communicably coupled to the one or more processing circuits, wherein the drone comprises the camera [see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses a drone with a camera].
Sekiguchi suggests that using drones to survey reduces surveying time [see Paragraph 0103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the work vehicle as taught by Liang to include a drone with a camera as taught by Sekiguchi in order to reduce surveying time [Sekiguchi, see Paragraph 0103].
Regarding claim 9, Liang and Sekiguchi disclose the invention with respect to claim 8. Sekiguchi further discloses wherein the drone is configured to selectively coupled to the work machine [see Paragraph 0050 - where the hydraulic excavator 10 moves in a construction site with unevenness in a state where the drone 100 lands on the take-off and landing portion, it is desirable to mechanically engage or electromagnetically connect the drone 100 and the take-off and landing portion so that the drone 100 does not move away from the take-off and landing portion. In the present embodiment, a lock mechanism that applies a mechanical lock when the drone 100 lands on the take-off and landing portion is adopted].
Sekiguchi suggests it is desirable to mechanically engage or electromagnetically connect the drone and the take-off and landing portion so that the drone does not move away from the take-off and landing portion [see Paragraph 0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the drone and the work vehicle as taught by Liang and Sekiguchi to selectively couple the drone to the work machine as taught by Sekiguchi in order to prevent the drone from moving away from the take-off and landing portion [Sekiguchi, see Paragraph 0050].
Regarding claim 12, Liang and Sekiguchi disclose the invention with respect to claim 8. Sekiguchi further discloses wherein the drone is a first drone, the camera is a first camera, and the input is a first input [see Paragraph 0081 - discusses a first drone, see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses that the first drone includes a camera], further comprising a second drone comprising a second camera [see Paragraph 0081 - discusses a second drone, see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses that the second drone includes a camera], wherein the instructions cause one or more processors to determine the ground conditions of the work site based on at least the first input from the first camera and a second input from the second camera [see Paragraphs 0072, 0081, and 0084 - discusses that the first drone and second drone perform surveying to determine ground conditions before excavation].
Sekiguchi suggests that surveying time is shortened when using multiple drones [see Paragraph 0084].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the work vehicle as taught by Liang and the first drone and the first camera as taught by Sekiguchi to include a second drone with a second camera and determine the ground conditions of the work site based on at least a first input from the first camera and a second input from the second camera as taught by Sekiguchi in order to shorten surveying time by using multiple drones, each with cameras [Sekiguchi, see Paragraph 0084].
Regarding claim 13, Liang and Sekiguchi disclose the invention with respect to claim 8. Sekiguchi further discloses wherein the work machine comprises a drone bay configured to selectively secure the drone, and wherein the drone is configured to launch from the drone bay of the work machine to survey the work site and to land in the drone bay of the work machine [see Paragraph 0050 - discusses that an area on the excavator where the drone lands and takes off, the drone mechanically engages to the excavator and locks into place, and see Paragraph 0081 - discusses that the drone performs surveying].
Sekiguchi suggests that when a work vehicle travels in a work site with unevenness, it is desirable to mechanically engage or electromagnetically connect the drone and the take-off and landing portion so that the drone does not move away from the take-off and landing portion [see Paragraph 0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the work vehicle as taught by Liang to include a drone bay configured to selectively secure the drone, and wherein the drone is configured to launch from the drone bay of the work machine to survey the work site and to land in the drone bay of the work machine as taught by Sekiguchi in order to prevent the drone from moving when it is has landed [Sekiguchi, see Paragraph 0050].
Regarding claim 14, Liang and Sekiguchi disclose the invention with respect to claim 8. Sekiguchi further discloses wherein the camera is a downward facing camera [see Paragraph 0080 - discusses that the camera faces a lower surface].
Claims 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Sekiguchi in view of Clark et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2026/0013435 A1) hereinafter Clark.
Regarding claim 10, Liang and Sekiguchi disclose the invention with respect to claim 8.
However, the combination of Liang and Sekiguchi fails to disclose wherein the drone is coupled to the work machine via a tether.
Clark discloses wherein a drone is coupled to a work machine via a tether [see Paragraph 0044 - discusses a tether coupling a drone with the work machine].
Clark suggests using a tether to power the drone as compared to having to charge a drone if it were wireless [see Paragraph 0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the work vehicle as taught by Liang to include a drone that is coupled to a work machine via a tether as taught by Clark in order to power the drone continuously without having the drone take breaks to charge when a battery of the drone runs out/low [Clark, see Paragraph 0044].
Regarding claim 11, Liang and Sekiguchi disclose the invention with respect to claim 10.
However, the combination of Liang and Sekiguchi fails to disclose wherein the tether is configured to provide at least one of power or data to the drone [see Paragraph 0044 - discusses the tether provides power for the drone].
Clark suggests using a tether to power the drone as compared to having to charge a drone if it were wireless [see Paragraph 0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the work vehicle as taught by Liang to include a drone that is powered by the tether as taught by Clark in order to power the drone continuously without having the drone take breaks to charge when a battery of the drone runs out/low [Clark, see Paragraph 0044].
Claim 17 is analogous to claims 8 and 10 and is rejected as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Sekiguchi in view of Clark.
Regarding claim 18, Liang, Sekiguchi, and Clark disclose the invention with respect to claim 17. Liang further discloses wherein the drone comprises: a motor [see Paragraph 0052 - discusses a motor]; and one or more rotors, wherein the motor is configured to drive the one or more rotors to propel the drone [see Paragraph 0052 - discusses a plurality of propellers that float the drone in the air (rotor function) and generate thrust for the drone (propeller function)].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang.
Regarding claim 15, Liang discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further discloses the work machine and the camera [see Figure 2B below – depicts the imaging sensor and the work machine], wherein the work machine comprises a boom assembly [see Figure 2B below - depicts a boom assembly of the work machine], and
PNG
media_image1.png
450
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2B of Liang
Liang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the camera is coupled to the boom assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the imaging sensor as taught by Liang to be located on the boom assembly of the work machine, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Sekiguchi in view of Clark in view of Baur (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0141658 A1 A1) hereinafter Baur.
Regarding claim 19, Liang, Sekiguchi, and Clark disclose the invention with respect to claim 18.
However, the combination of Liang, Sekiguchi, and Clark fails to disclose wherein the user interface is configured to provide a command to the drone, the command indicative of a control of at least one of the motor or the one or more rotors.
Baur discloses wherein a user interface is configured to provide a command to the drone, the command indicative of a control of at least one of a motor or one or more rotors [see Paragraph 0019 - discusses that a touch screen in the vehicle controls the drone; ‘ a map display may be provided at a touch screen of the vehicle, and a user may touch a location near the vehicle,’, see Paragraph 0013 – discusses that the drone has rotors that are operable].
Baur suggests that by elevating a camera (attached to a drone) above a vehicle provides enhanced viewing and imaging of areas ahead of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0004]. Baur further suggests the operator controls the drone to fly to a location and capture image data of a location by using a touch screen in the vehicle [see Paragraph 0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the user interface as taught by Liang to provide a command to the drone, the command indicative of a control of at least one of a motor or one or more rotors as taught by Baur in order to provide an enhanced viewing and imaging of areas ahead of a vehicle [Baur, see Paragraph 0004] and for an operator to control a drone to fly to a specific location to capture image data of that location [Baur, see Paragraph 0019].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights