DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 110-129 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 04/21/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(a) “a surface determination module configured to generate a digital modified ground surface representation,” as recited in claim 125.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 116, 120, 122, 125, and 129 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 116, the term “the lowest elevation” lacks antecedent basis.
(b) Regarding Claim 120, the term “the lowest elevation” lacks antecedent basis.
(c) Regarding Claim 122, the term “the gravitational pull” lacks antecedent basis.
(d) Regarding Claim 125, the term “the plurality of ground modifiers” lacks antecedent basis.
(e) Regarding Claim 129, the term “the receiver and the transmitter” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
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 110-112, 114, 119, 123-125, and 128 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0218304A1 (hereinafter Shike), in view of Gudat et al. EP0682786A1 (hereinafter, Gudat).
Regarding Claim 110, Shike describes a terrain modification tracking method (construction management system which includes managing terrain modification of a construction site, Shike, Paragraphs 0037-0039); wherein said method comprises the steps of:
-providing a plurality of ground modifiers each comprising an earthwork tool comprising a tool point (construction machines, such as, a bulldozer and an excavator having work members with blade edges, wherein the work members include a blade and a bucket, Shike, Paragraph 0039);
-repeatedly modifying a terrain having a ground surface using said earthwork tool of said plurality of ground modifiers, to repeatedly establishing a modified terrain comprising a modified ground surface (the bulldozer and excavator perform earth cutting, earth filling, and land preparation, and earth filling can be performed a plurality of times, Shike, Paragraphs 0039 and 0236);
-repeatedly tracking a tool point position of said tool point of each of said plurality of ground modifiers during said step of modifying said terrain, to establish real-time tool point position data of each of said plurality of ground modifiers (an absolute position of the blade edge is determined and calculated, that is construction result data is acquired based on the absolute position of the blade edge during work, and construction result data is transmitted in real time or periodically, Shike, Paragraphs 0041, 0069, and 0233-0234);
-repeatedly generate a digital modified ground surface representation based on said real-time tool point position data of each of said plurality of ground modifiers (current landform data is acquired from the trajectory of the blade edges of the bulldozer and excavator, Shike, Paragraphs 0067, 0090, and 0234-0237);
-repeatedly displaying at least a part of said generated digital modified ground surface representation on at least two displays (construction result data is output to multiple terminals and display devices wherein three-dimensionally display the construction result data, Shike, Paragraphs 0148-0149 and 0233-0235), ...
Shike does not specifically describe wherein at least one display of said at least two displays are associated with a ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers.
Gudat discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gudat describes an on-board computer and color graphic operator display provided on the geography-altering machine, wherein the actual site model and display are updated in real-time and the operator display shows the site model and machine position (Gudat, Paragraphs 0054 and 0061-0071).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the terrain modification tracking method of Shike to include wherein at least one display of said at least two displays are associated with a ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gudat.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the updated site representation on a display associated with the ground modifier would provide the operator with real-time information regarding the terrain modification progress (Gudat, Paragraphs 0054 and 0061-0071).
Regarding Claim 111, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110, wherein said step of repeatedly modifying said terrain comprises lifting ground material from one horizontal location to another horizontal location (the excavator excavates sediment and loads the sediment onto a transporter vehicle, Shike, Paragraphs 0039 and 0199).
Regarding Claim 112, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110, wherein said real-time tool point position data comprises a geographical location and an associated elevation of a tool point position, and wherein said real-time tool point position data is determined based on global position information and local position information; and wherein said local position information comprises sensor readings from one or more local positioning sensors, wherein said one or more local positioning sensors is positioned on said each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers (GPS provides global position information, machine-mounted detection sensors provide local blade-edge position information, and the global and local position information are used to determine an absolute blade-edge position including X, Y, and Z position data, Shike, Paragraphs 0041 and 0052-0068).
Regarding Claim 114, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110, wherein said step of repeatedly generating said digital modified ground surface representation is performed substantially during said step of repeatedly modifying said terrain (construction result data is acquired based on the absolute blade-edge position during work and transmitted in real-time or periodically, Shike, Paragraphs 0069 and 0233-0235).
Regarding Claim 119, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110, wherein said repeatedly generate a digital modified ground surface representation is performed on said each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers (each construction machine acquires current landform data using the blade edge and detects the current landform based on the trajectory of said blade edge, Shike, Paragraphs 0067, 0069, and 0090).
Regarding Claim 123, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110, wherein said digital modified ground surface representation comprises a plurality of grid points; and wherein said plurality of grid points each represents an area of said modified ground surface, and wherein said plurality of grid points comprises elevation data associated with a real-time tool point position data from at least two different ground modifiers of said plurality of ground modifiers (meshes are set in the current landform and the bulldozer and excavator each acquire X, Y, and Z position data of mesh points, Shike, Paragraph 0067).
Regarding Claim 124, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110.
Shike does not specifically describe the method to include wherein said displaying a part of said digital modified surface representation on a display associated with a ground modifier comprises displaying a part of said digital modified ground surface representation according to a geographical location of said ground modifier.
Gudat discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gudat describes an operator display on the geography-altering machine that displays the site model, current machine position, and terrain information corresponding to the machine position (Gudat, Paragraphs 0061-0071).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include wherein said displaying a part of said digital modified surface representation on a display associated with a ground modifier comprises displaying a part of said digital modified ground surface representation according to a geographical location of said ground modifier, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gudat.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying terrain information according to the geographical location of the ground modifier provides the operator with terrain information relevant to the current location of the machine (Gudat, Paragraphs 0061-0071).
Regarding Claim 125, Shike describes a terrain modification tracking system (construction management system manages current landform and construction result data for a plurality of construction machines, Shike, Paragraphs 0037-0041); wherein said terrain modification tracking system comprises:
-a plurality of ground modifiers, wherein said plurality of ground modifiers each comprises (construction machines include a bulldozer and an excavator, Shike, Paragraph 0039):
-a ground modification arrangement comprising an earthwork tool having a tool point (the bulldozer and excavator include a blade and bucket having blade edges, Shike, Paragraph 0039);
-a tool point localizing module(s) configured to repeatedly establish real-time tool point position data of a tool point position of said tool point (GPS and machine-mounted detection sensors determine absolute positions of the blade edges, Shike, Paragraphs 0041 and 0052-0068);
said terrain modification tracking system further comprises:
-a surface determination module configured to generate a digital modified ground surface representation based on said real-time tool point position data of each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers (current landform data is acquired based on the blade-edge positions of the construction machines, Shike, Paragraphs 0067, 0069, and 0090);
-a plurality of displays configured to display said digital modified ground surface representation (current landform and construction result data are output to multiple display devices, Shike, Paragraphs 0145-0149),
...
and wherein said system is configured to perform said method according to claim 110 (the construction management system tracks construction machine and blade-edge positions, generates current landform data, and displays construction result information, Shike, Paragraphs 0037-0041, 0067-0069, and 0233-0237).
Shike does not specifically describe wherein a first display of said plurality of displays is associated with a first ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers.
Gudat discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gudat describes an on-board computer and color graphic operator display provided on the geography-altering machine and displaying the updated site model (Gudat, Paragraphs 0054 and 0061-0071).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the terrain modification tracking system of Shike to include wherein a first display of said plurality of displays is associated with a first ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gudat.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the updated site representation on a display associated with the ground modifier would provide the operator with real-time information regarding the terrain modification progress (Gudat, Paragraphs 0054 and 0061-0071).
Regarding Claim 128, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking system of claim 125, wherein each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers comprises: a wheelbase; a ground modification arrangement; one or more local positioning sensors configured to provide local positioning information of a tool point position of each said ground modifier; and a global positioning arrangement configured to provide global positioning information of said ground modifier; and wherein said real-time tool point position data is based on local position information received from the local positioning arrangement and based on global position information received from the global positioning arrangement (construction machines include a crawler travel apparatus, a blade or bucket, machine-mounted sensors that determine local blade-edge position, and GPS receivers that determine global vehicle position, wherein the local blade-edge position and global vehicle position are used to determine the absolute blade-edge position, Shike, Paragraphs 0041 and 0048-0068).
Claim 113 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0218304A1 (hereinafter Shike), in view of Gudat et al. EP0682786A1 (hereinafter, Gudat), in further view of Omelchenko et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2009/0069987A1 (hereinafter, Omelchenko).
Regarding Claim 113, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 112, wherein said local positioning sensors comprises one or more inertial measuring units (the excavator includes an inertial measurement unit positioned on the vehicle, Shike, Paragraphs 0059 and 0065-0066) ...
Shike does not specifically describe one or more inertial measuring units positioned on each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers.
Omelchenko discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Omelchenko describes an inertial measurement unit mounted on a dozer blade (Omelchenko, Paragraphs 0003 and 0015).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include the one or more inertial measuring units positioned on each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Omelchenko.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because using an inertial measurement unit on a ground modifier provides additional position and orientation information for determining the position of the earthwork tool (Omelchenko, Paragraphs 0003 and 0015).
Claims 115, 117, 126, and 127 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0218304A1 (hereinafter Shike), in view of Gudat et al. EP0682786A1 (hereinafter, Gudat), in further view of Gudat et al. U.S. Patent 5,646,844 (hereinafter, Gudat ‘844).
Regarding Claim 115, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110, wherein said step of generating said digital modified ground surface representation comprises: generating individual digital modified ground surface representations based on real-time tool point position data for said each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers (each construction machine acquires current landform data based on the trajectory of its own blade edge, Shike, Paragraphs 0067, 0069, and 0090); ...
Shike does not specifically describe the method to include combining each of said individual digital modified ground surface representations into said digital modified ground surface representation.
Gudat ’844 discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gudat ’844 describes position information from multiple geography-altering machines being used to create a common dynamically updated site database representing the site alterations made by the machines (Gudat ’844, Col. 5, Line 66-Col. 6, Line 9; Col. 7, Lines 1-31).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include combining each of said individual digital modified ground surface representations into said digital modified ground surface representation, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gudat ’844.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because combining terrain information from multiple machines into a common site database provides an updated representation of the work performed by the multiple machines (Gudat ’844, Col. 5, Line 66-Col. 6, Line 9; Col. 7, Lines 1-31).
Regarding Claim 117, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 115.
Shike does not specifically describe the method to include wherein each of said individual digital modified ground surface representation, or each real-time tool point position data of each of said plurality of ground modifiers is distributed among each of said plurality of ground modifiers.
Gudat ’844 discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gudat ’844 describes real-time machine position information being shared among multiple machines, wherein each machine can maintain a site database updated with its own position information and position information from the other machines (Gudat ’844, Col. 6, Lines 1-9; Col. 7, Lines 31-50).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include wherein each of said individual digital modified ground surface representation, or each real-time tool point position data of each of said plurality of ground modifiers is distributed among each of said plurality of ground modifiers, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gudat ’844.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because distributing the real-time position information among the machines allows each machine to maintain an updated representation of the work performed on the site (Gudat ’844, Col. 6, Lines 1-9; Col. 7, Lines 31-50).
Regarding Claim 126, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking system of claim 125.
Shike does not specifically describe the system to include wherein said surface determination module comprises a tool point position combinator configured to combine real-time tool point position data of said plurality of ground modifiers into combined real-time tool point position data.
Gudat ’844 discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gudat ’844 describes position information from multiple machines being provided to a differencing algorithm that calculates the positions and paths of the machines and updates a common site database based on the multiple machine position information (Gudat ’844, Col. 7, Lines 1-31).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Shike to include wherein said surface determination module comprises a tool point position combinator configured to combine real-time tool point position data of said plurality of ground modifiers into combined real-time tool point position data, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gudat ’844.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because combining position information from multiple geography-altering machines allows a common site database to reflect the work performed by each machine (Gudat ’844, Col. 7, Lines 1-31).
Regarding Claim 127, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking system of claim 125.
Shike does not specifically describe the system to include wherein said system comprises a receiver configured to receive at least said real-time tool point position data and/or individual digital modified ground surface representations and/or said digital modified ground surface representation; and wherein said system further comprises a transmitter configured to transmit at least said digital modified ground surface representation and/or individual digital modified ground surface representations and/or real-time tool point position data; and wherein said plurality of ground modifiers comprises said receiver and said transmitter.
Gudat ’844 discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Gudat ’844 describes geography-altering machines transmitting real-time position information to other machines and receiving real-time position information from the other machines (Gudat ’844, Col. 5, Lines 53-68; Col. 7, Lines 31-50).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Shike to include wherein said system comprises a receiver configured to receive at least said real-time tool point position data and/or individual digital modified ground surface representations and/or said digital modified ground surface representation; and wherein said system further comprises a transmitter configured to transmit at least said digital modified ground surface representation and/or individual digital modified ground surface representations and/or real-time tool point position data; and wherein said plurality of ground modifiers comprises said receiver and said transmitter, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gudat ’844.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because transmitting and receiving real-time position information between the ground modifiers allows the machines to share updated work-site information (Gudat ’844, Col. 5, Lines 53-68; Col. 7, Lines 31-50).
Claims 120-122 and 129 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0218304A1 (hereinafter Shike), in view of Gudat et al. EP0682786A1 (hereinafter, Gudat), in further view of Montemerlo et al. U.S. Patent 8,565,958 (hereinafter, Montemerlo).
Regarding Claim 120, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110.
Shike does not specifically describe the method to include wherein said method comprises a step of comparing an elevation of each geographical location of said real-time tool point position data obtained from each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers to determine real-time tool point position data comprising the lowest elevation in each geographical location; wherein said digital modified ground surface representation is established based on said determined real-time tool point position data comprising the lowest elevation in each geographical location.
Montemerlo discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Montemerlo describes dividing a geographical surface into grid cells, associating location and elevation data with each cell, identifying the data point having the lowest elevation for each cell, and generating a three-dimensional map based on the lower elevation data (Montemerlo, Col. 8, Line 58-Col. 9, Line 43).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include wherein said method comprises a step of comparing an elevation of each geographical location of said real-time tool point position data obtained from each ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers to determine real-time tool point position data comprising the lowest elevation in each geographical location; wherein said digital modified ground surface representation is established based on said determined real-time tool point position data comprising the lowest elevation in each geographical location, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Montemerlo.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because selecting the lowest elevation data for each geographical location provides a representation corresponding to the underlying ground surface (Montemerlo, Col. 9, Lines 16-43).
Regarding Claim 121, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 110, wherein said step of repeatedly generating said digital modified ground surface representation comprises a step of updating said digital modified ground surface (current landform data is repeatedly updated using newly acquired construction result and blade-edge position data, Shike, Paragraphs 0083-0090 and 0233-0235); ...
Shike does not specifically describe wherein said digital modified ground surface representation is updated only at geographical locations represented in said digital modified ground surface representation having an elevation that is higher than an elevation of a corresponding geographical location of said real-time tool point position data based on which the digital modified ground surface representation is updated.
Montemerlo discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Montemerlo describes grouping multiple location and elevation data points corresponding to a geographical cell, identifying the lowest elevation for the cell, removing higher elevation data, and generating a three-dimensional map based on the lower elevation data (Montemerlo, Col. 9, Lines 16-43).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include wherein said digital modified ground surface representation is updated only at geographical locations represented in said digital modified ground surface representation having an elevation that is higher than an elevation of a corresponding geographical location of said real-time tool point position data based on which the digital modified ground surface representation is updated, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Montemerlo.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because retaining lower elevation data for a geographical location allows the generated surface representation to more closely represent the underlying ground surface (Montemerlo, Col. 9, Lines 16-43).
Regarding Claim 122, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 121, wherein said step of updating said digital modified ground surface representation ... and wherein said vertically downward direction is a direction having at least a directional component corresponding to the direction of the gravitational pull (the bulldozer and excavator perform earth cutting and excavation by moving their earthwork tools downward into the ground, Shike, Paragraphs 0039 and 0052-0067).
Shike does not specifically describe wherein said step of updating said digital modified ground surface representation is only carried out when said modified ground surface and/or said ground surface is modified in a vertically downward direction.
Montemerlo discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Montemerlo describes identifying the lowest elevation data for a geographical area and removing higher elevation data when generating the three-dimensional ground representation (Montemerlo, Col. 9, Lines 16-43).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include wherein said step of updating said digital modified ground surface representation is only carried out when said modified ground surface and/or said ground surface is modified in a vertically downward direction, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Montemerlo.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because updating the surface representation based on lower elevation data would provide a representation corresponding to the ground surface resulting from earth cutting or excavation (Montemerlo, Col. 9, Lines 16-43).
Regarding Claim 129, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking system of claim 125, wherein said terrain modification tracking system comprises ... and wherein said data server is configured to store said digital modified ground surface representation in a data log, and wherein said data server comprises a surface determination module, and wherein said surface determination module comprises said receiver and said transmitter (computer system includes current landform data acquisition and processing functions, storage for current landform and construction result data, and wired or wireless communication interfaces for receiving and transmitting data, Shike, Paragraphs 0073, 0080-0087, and 0240).
Shike does not specifically describe wherein said terrain modification tracking system comprises a data server connectable to a network.
Montemerlo discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Montemerlo describes a server having a processor and memory that exchanges information with different nodes of a network for receiving, processing, and transmitting data (Montemerlo, Col. 8, Lines 38-48).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Shike to include wherein said terrain modification tracking system comprises a data server connectable to a network, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Montemerlo.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the processing and storage functions on a network-connected server would allow the terrain data to be received, processed, stored, and transmitted over the network (Montemerlo, Col. 8, Lines 38-48).
Claims 116 and 118 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0218304A1 (hereinafter Shike), in view of Gudat et al. EP0682786A1 (hereinafter, Gudat), in further view of Gudat et al. U.S. Patent 5,646,844 (hereinafter, Gudat ‘844), in further view of Montemerlo et al. U.S. Patent 8,565,958 (hereinafter Montemerlo).
Regarding Claim 116, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 115.
Shike does not specifically describe the method to include wherein said combining each of said individual digital modified ground surface representations comprises: identifying overlapping surface regions across said individual digital modified ground surface representations; and selecting for each overlapping surface regions elevation data having the lowest elevation to be used for said generation of said digital modified ground surface representation.
Montemerlo discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Montemerlo describes grouping data points corresponding to the same geographical grid cell, identifying the data point having the lowest elevation for each cell, and generating a three-dimensional map based on the lower elevation data (Montemerlo, Col. 8, Line 58-Col. 9, Line 43).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include wherein said combining each of said individual digital modified ground surface representations comprises: identifying overlapping surface regions across said individual digital modified ground surface representations; and selecting for each overlapping surface regions elevation data having the lowest elevation to be used for said generation of said digital modified ground surface representation, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Montemerlo.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because selecting the lowest elevation data for an overlapping geographical region provides a representation corresponding to the underlying ground surface (Montemerlo, Col. 9, Lines 16-43).
Regarding Claim 118, Shike, as modified, describes the terrain modification tracking method of claim 117.
Shike does not specifically describe the method to include wherein said distribution of said individual digital modified ground surface representation or said distribution of each real-time tool point position data of each of said plurality of ground modifiers comprises only distributing individual digital modified ground surface representations or real-time tool point position data representing a bottom of cut for the ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers associated with the individual digital modified ground surface representation or the real-time tool point position data being distributed.
Montemerlo discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Montemerlo describes identifying the lowest elevation data associated with a geographical area, removing higher elevation data, and generating a three-dimensional ground map using the lower elevation data (Montemerlo, Col. 9, Lines 16-43).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shike to include wherein said distribution of said individual digital modified ground surface representation or said distribution of each real-time tool point position data of each of said plurality of ground modifiers comprises only distributing individual digital modified ground surface representations or real-time tool point position data representing a bottom of cut for the ground modifier of said plurality of ground modifiers associated with the individual digital modified ground surface representation or the real-time tool point position data being distributed, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Montemerlo.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because using the lowest elevation data for each geographical area provides ground-surface data while excluding higher elevation data (Montemerlo, Col. 9, Lines 16-43).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights