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 .
This is a final office action on the merits. Claims 11-21 are currently pending and are addressed below.
The examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendment reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and applicant’s arguments, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 11-21 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishijima Seiichiro et al. (WO2016002246A1), hereinafter referred to Seiichiro, in view of, De Nale Saverio et al. (US20180054954A1), hereinafter referred to as Saverio.
Regarding claim 11, Seiichiro discloses: a method for inverting driving instructions of a working machine (see at least Seiichiro, pg.96, which discloses a method for modifying driving instructions of a work machine based on conditions) comprising:
entering and initiating a driving instruction (see at least Seiichiro, pg.95, par.2 and 5 which discloses running a travel route based on the current position and a predetermined travel route, a driving structure may be initiated autonomously or manually by an operator, this means entering and initiating a driving instruction)
associating position data of the working machine with the driving instruction (see at least Seiichiro, pg.95, par.6-8, which discloses trajectory control based on the current, start, and position of a traveling route, this means associating position data of the working machine with the driving instruction)
cancelling the entered driving instruction is entered and terminating the driving instruction (see at least Seiichiro, pg.95, par.6-8, pg.114, par.8, pg.117, par.3-4 which discloses an instance where the trajectory control is stopped/canceled/reverted which terminates the initial driving instruction, this means cancelling the entered driving instruction is entered to terminate the driving instruction)
associating position data of the working machine with the cancellation of the driving (see at least pg.117, par.3-4 which discloses the work completion/incompletion recording unit that refers to the travel stop position of the working machine at the current position at which the driving instruction is terminated)
defining a corridor based on the position data of the working machine associated with the driving instruction (see at least Seiichiro, pg.117, par.4; pg.118, par.1-3 which discloses defining an area based on the position data associated with the driving instruction in which the corresponding point is determined at the time of the termination)
inverting the driving instruction in such manner that the driving instruction is initiated and cancelled in the reverse sequence when the working machine travels along the corridor in the reverse direction (see at least Seiichiro, pg.111, par.6; pg.118, par.7; pg.122, par.8 which discloses configuring the driving instruction is initiated in the reverse sequence when the working machine travels along the trajectory in the reverse direction; the working machine traveling in the reverse direction )
Seiichiro is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determining based on an associated position data, a specific point along the corridor at which the driving instruction was cancelled (see at least Saverio, ¶¶ [0007],-[0008], which discloses determining based on associated position data involving a predetermined location of a vehicle within the geographic area; [0036]-[0037], which discloses special event triggers including a change in direction of the vehicle, or time based trigger, hitch command, changing an operating speed, engaging or disengaging an instruction, this means determining based on an associated position data, a specific point along the corridor at which the driving instruction was cancelled)
and resuming execution of the driving instruction from the specific point in reverse sequence when the working machine travels along the corridor in the reverse direction (see at least Saverio, ¶¶ [0007]-[0008], [0025]-[0026], which discloses events occurring in reverse sequence or as the vehicle begins to traverse in the reverse direction; [0036]-[0037], which discloses recorded events associated with geographic positions occur as the vehicle encounters a specific trigger within a predetermined location; special event triggers including a change in direction of the vehicle, or time based trigger, hitch command, changing an operating speed, engaging or disengaging an instruction, this means resuming execution of the driving instruction from the specific point in reverse sequence when the working machine travels along the corridor in the reverse direction)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Seiichiro to include: determining based on an associated position data, a specific point along the corridor at which the driving instruction was cancelled and resuming execution of the driving instruction from the specific point in reverse sequence when the working machine travels along the corridor in the reverse direction as taught by Saverio. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement of precision to the base invention of Seiichiro that automates repetitive vehicle operations during a reverse traversal and ensures that the correct operations are performed at the designated geographic locations.
Regarding claim 12, Seiichiro discloses: the method according to claim 11, comprising: the working machine again traveling along the corridor and carrying out the driving instruction in the original sequence or in the reverse sequence depending on the direction of the working machine again travels in the corridor (see at least Seiichiro, pg.110, par.2 which discloses the work machine traveling along a trajectory in the original, or reverse sequence and carrying out the instruction, this is detected by motion data; pg.118, par.7; pg.122, par.8 which discloses configuring the driving instruction is initiated in the reverse sequence when the working machine travels along the trajectory in the reverse direction; the working machine traveling in the reverse direction )
Regarding claim 13, Seiichiro discloses: the method according to claim 11, comprising: defining a tolerance range for the corridor associated with the driving instruction, wherein the tolerance range, besides a deviation of the starting angle of the working machine, allows for a partial and/or complete deviation of a trajectory in relation to the corridor (see at least Seiichiro, pg.114, par.2-3 which discloses a tolerance range related to an adjacent linear route equal to or larger than a predetermined value which allows for deviation of a trajectory in relation to a work target region)
Regarding claim 14, Seiichiro discloses: the method according to claim 11, comprising: checking a current and/or planned trajectory in relation to the travel along the corridor and predictively initiating the driving instruction (see at least Seiichiro, pg.95, par.2 and 5 which discloses determining and running a travel route based on the current position and a predetermined travel route, a driving structure may be initiated autonomously or manually by an operator, this means entering and initiating a driving instruction, this means checking a current and/or planned trajectory in relation to the travel along the corridor and predictively initiating the driving instruction)
Regarding claim 15, Seiichiro discloses: the method according to claim 11, comprising inverting the driving instruction in response to an entry by an operator (see at least Seiichiro, pg.106, par.9 which discloses inverting driving instruction in response to an operator input)
Regarding claim 16, Seiichiro discloses: the method according to claim 11, comprising: receiving an entered driving instruction; and querying the user as to whether the driving instruction should be inverted (see at least Seiichiro, pg.106, par.9 which discloses inverting driving instruction in response to an operator input, pg.113. par.4-7)
Regarding claim 17, Seiichiro discloses: the method according to claim 11, comprising: cancelling an entered driving instruction and querying the user as to whether the driving instruction should be inverted (see at least Seiichiro, pg.106, par.9; pg.113. par.4-7)
Regarding claim 18, Seiichiro discloses: the method according to claim 11, comprising adapting drive-dynamical parameters of the working machine based on the driving instruction (see at least Seiichiro, pg.109-110 which discloses an example of adapting drive-dynamical parameters of the working machine based on the driving instruction)
Regarding claim 19, a non-transitory computer-readable computer program product containing commands which, when the program is run on a computer, enable it to carry out the method according to claim 11 (see at least Seiichiro, pg.97, par.4-5 which discloses a computer executed to carry out instructions to perform the method)
Regarding claim 20, Seiichiro discloses: a device for data processing, comprising a processor configured to carry out the method according to claim 11 (see at least Seiichiro, pg.94; pg.97, par.4-5 which discloses a computer executed to carry out instructions to perform the method)
Regarding claim 21, Seiichiro discloses: a working machine comprising: a drivetrain; a drive-dynamical parameter system configured to adapt drive dynamical parameters; and a device comprising a processor configured to carry out the method according to claim 11 (see at least Seiichiro, pg.94, discloses a working machine; pg.97, par.4-5)
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights