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 .
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: “current topography data reception unit” and “determination unit” in claim 1 and “display control unit” in claims 4, 6 and 8.
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 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
[101 Analysis Step 1]
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of mater.
The claim 1 is directed to claim 9 is directed to a determination system of a work site (i.e. machine) and a determination method (i.e. process). Thus, claims 1 and 9 are one of four the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong I]
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A determination system of a work site, comprising a processor configured to function as:
a current topography data reception unit that receives current topography data of a work site where a bulldozer performs slot dozing; and
a determination unit that determines propriety of implementation of the slot dozing on a basis of an inclination angle of at least a part of an excavation lane of the slot dozing.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretations, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determines…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at and using the data collected to formulating a judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong II]
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A determination system of a work site, comprising a processor configured to function as:
a current topography data reception unit that receives current topography data of a work site where a bulldozer performs slot dozing; and
a determination unit that determines propriety of implementation of the slot dozing on a basis of an inclination angle of at least a part of an excavation lane of the slot dozing.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract into a practical applications.
Regarding the additional limitation of “receives current topography data of a work site where a bulldozer performs slot dozing” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processing circuitry of a computer system) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps can be performed via sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “processor”, “current topography data reception unit”, and “determination unit” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical filed, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2B]
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processing circuitry of a computer system to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receives,…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-9 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2020/0407950 A1 to Takaoka et. al. (Takaoka) in view of Pub No. US 2022/0396932 A1 to Fujio (Fujio).
In Reference to Claim 1
Takaoka teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A determination system of a work site, comprising a processor (26) configured to function as:
a current topography data reception unit (26) that receives current topography data of a work site where a bulldozer (100) performs slot dozing (see at least Takaoka Figs. 1-2 and 4 and paragraphs [0046]-[0049] “The automatic control of the work vehicle 1 in digging executed by the controller 26 will be described below. In the following description, for example, the work vehicle 1 travels back and forth on each slot in slot dozing to perform digging of each slot. FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating processing of automatic control according to a first embodiment”, “As illustrated in FIG. 4, in step S101, the controller 26 acquires current position data. At this time, the controller 26 acquires the current blade tip position Pb of the blade 18 as described above”, “In step S102, the controller 26 acquires design topography data. As illustrated in FIG. 5, the design topography data includes a height Zdesign of a final design topography 60 at a plurality of reference points Pn (n=0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , A) in the traveling direction of the work vehicle 1. The plurality of reference points Pn indicate a plurality of points at a predetermined interval along the traveling direction of the work vehicle 1. The plurality of reference points Pn are on a travel path of the blade 18. While the final design topography 60 has a shape that is flat and parallel to the horizontal direction in FIG. 5, the shape of the final design topography may be different” and “In step S103, the controller 26 acquires actual topography data. The controller 26 acquires the actual topography data by computation from work site topography data acquired from the storage device 28 and the vehicle body position data and traveling direction data acquired from the position sensor 31”); and
a determination unit (26) that determines propriety of implementation of the slot dozing on a basis of an inclination angle of at least a part of an excavation lane of the slot dozing (see at least Takaoka Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs [0040] and [0041] “The IMU 33 is an inertial measurement unit. The IMU 33 acquires vehicle body inclination angle data. The vehicle body inclination angle data includes an angle (pitch angle) with respect to the horizontal in the vehicle longitudinal direction and an angle (roll angle) with respect to the horizontal in the vehicle lateral direction. The controller 26 acquires the vehicle body inclination angle data from the IMU 33” and “The controller 26 calculates a blade tip position Pb from the lift cylinder length L, the vehicle body position data, and the vehicle body inclination angle data. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the controller 26 calculates the global coordinates of the GNSS receiver 32 based on the vehicle body position data. The controller 26 calculates the lift angle θ lift based on the lift cylinder length L. The controller 26 calculates the local coordinates of the blade tip position Pb with respect to the GNSS receiver 32 based on the lift angle θlift and vehicle body dimension data. The vehicle body dimension data is stored in the storage device 28 and indicates the position of the work implement 13 with respect to the GNSS receiver 32. The controller 26 calculates the global coordinates of the blade tip position Pb based on the global coordinates of the GNSS receiver 32, the local coordinates of the blade tip position Pb, and the vehicle body inclination angle data. The controller 26 acquires the global coordinates of the blade tip position Pb as blade tip position data”).
Takaoka teaches to determine inclination angle of at least a part of an excavation lane of the slot dozing however Takaoka do not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to a determination unit (26) that determines propriety of implementation of the slot dozing on a basis of an inclination angle of at least a part of an excavation lane of the slot dozing. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determines propriety of implementation of the slot dozing (working) on a basis of an inclination angle. For example, Fujio teaches to determines propriety of implementation of working on a basis of an inclination angle. Fujio further teaches that performing such step prevents the working machine from tipping over (see at least Fujio Figs. 1-13 and paragraphs 48, 57, 63-65 and 192). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takaoka of performing the step of determines propriety of implementation of the slot dozing on a basis of an inclination angle as taught by Fujio in order to prevent from the working machine from tipping over.
In Reference to Claim 2
The determination system of a work site according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the determination unit (26) changes a determination area for determining the inclination angle for each predetermined distance in a traveling direction of the excavation lane and determines propriety of implementation of slot dozing for each of the determination area (see at least Takaoka Figs. 5-6 and paragraphs 48-55) (see at least Fujio Fig. 3 and paragraphs 61 and 81).
In Reference to Claim 3
The determination system of a work site according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the inclination angle includes an inclination angle of at least a part of a traveling direction of the excavation lane (see at least Takaoka Figs. 5-6 and paragraphs 48-55) (see at least Fujio Fig. 3 and paragraphs 61 and 81).
In Reference to Claim 4
The determination system of a work site according to claim 3 (see rejection to claim 3 above), wherein the processor (26) is further configured to function as:
a display control unit (25) that causes a display device (25) to display a first predetermined area (forward location) in which an inclination angle in the traveling direction is equal to or larger than a threshold in the excavation lane in a first display mode (Fujio further teaches that the system can have a display unit which shows the location when the inclination angle in the traveling direction is equal to or larger than a threshold (192) and further Fujio teaches that providing such information provides encouragement to the operator to move the work machine to a different position from the inclined surface therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takaoka to include the display device to include the restriction area in which an inclination angle in the traveling direction is equal to or larger than a threshold as taught by Fujio in order to provide encouragement to the operator to move the work machine to a different position from the inclined surface (see at least Takaoka Figs. 2 and paragraph 33) (see at least Fujio Fig. 12 and paragraphs 164-166).
In Reference to Claim 5
The determination system of a work site according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the inclination angle includes an inclination angle of at least a part of a width direction of the excavation lane (Fujio teaches “For example, the controller 11 calculates a position of the center of gravity of the work machine 1 based on size information of the work machine 1, weight information of the work machine 1, a posture of the main body 2, a posture of the work unit 3, angle information of the swivel body 4, and load information. Specifically, the controller 11 calculates a position of the center of gravity of the work machine 1 based on the size information of the work machine 1, the weight information of the work machine 1, and detection results of the first to sixth detection units 12 to 17. The controller 11 then calculates the possibility of tipping-over of the work machine 1 based on the position of the center of gravity of the work machine 1. The controller 11 then restricts a motion of the work unit 3 based on a calculation result of the controller 11. As a result, the controller 11 can precisely restrict a motion of the work unit 3” therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the threshold of tipping over the side would also be included in order to prevent tipping over the side) (see at least Fujio Figs. 7-8 and paragraphs 111-115 and 119-127).
In Reference to Claim 6
The determination system of a work site according to claim 5 (see rejection to claim 5 above), wherein the processor (26) is further configured to function as:
a display control unit that causes a display device to display a second predetermined area in which an inclination angle in the width direction is equal to or larger than a threshold in the excavation lane in a second display mode (Fujio further teaches that the system can have a display unit which shows the location when the inclination angle in the traveling direction is equal to or larger than a threshold (192) and further Fujio teaches that providing such information provides encouragement to the operator to move the work machine to a different position from the inclined surface therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takaoka to include the display device to include the restriction area in which an inclination angle in the traveling direction is equal to or larger than a threshold as taught by Fujio in order to provide encouragement to the operator to move the work machine to a different position from the inclined surface (see at least Takaoka Figs. 2 and paragraph 33) (see at least Fujio Fig. 12 and paragraphs 164-166).
In Reference to Claim 7
The determination system of a work site according to claim 5 (see rejection to claim 5 above), wherein in a case where an inclination angle in the width direction is equal to or larger than a threshold, the determination unit determines that the slot dozing cannot be performed (see at least Fujio Figs. 1-13 and paragraphs 191 “The controller 11 of the work machine 1 of this embodiment may use a detection result of the seventh detection unit 18 to restrict a motion of the work machine 1. The detection result of the seventh detection unit 18 is stored in the storage unit 21. The seventh detection unit 18 can detect road surface conditions. Examples of the road surface conditions include an inclination angle of a road surface. The controller 11 specifies a road surface condition based on a detection result of the seventh detection unit 18 stored in the storage unit 21. Accordingly, based on the road surface condition specified by the controller 11, the controller 11 can restrict a motion of the work machine 1. As a result, tipping-over of the work machine 1 located on the inclined surface SL may be avoided”).
In Reference to Claim 8
The determination system of a work site according to claim 7 (see rejection to claim 7 above), wherein the processor is further configured to function as:
a display control unit (25) that causes a display device (25) to display unavailability display data indicating that the slot dozing is determined to be unable to be performed (Fujio further teaches that the system can have a display unit which shows the location when the inclination angle in the traveling direction is equal to or larger than a threshold (192) and further Fujio teaches that providing such information provides encouragement to the operator to move the work machine to a different position from the inclined surface therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takaoka to include the display device to include the restriction area in which an inclination angle in the traveling direction is equal to or larger than a threshold as taught by Fujio in order to provide encouragement to the operator to move the work machine to a different position from the inclined surface (see at least Takaoka Figs. 2 and paragraph 33) (see at least Fujio Fig. 12 and paragraphs 164-166).
In Reference to Claim 9
Takaoka teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A determination method of a work site, comprising:
receiving current topography data of a work site where a bulldozer performs slot dozing (see at least Takaoka Figs. 1-2 and 4 and paragraphs [0046]-[0049] “The automatic control of the work vehicle 1 in digging executed by the controller 26 will be described below. In the following description, for example, the work vehicle 1 travels back and forth on each slot in slot dozing to perform digging of each slot. FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating processing of automatic control according to a first embodiment”, “As illustrated in FIG. 4, in step S101, the controller 26 acquires current position data. At this time, the controller 26 acquires the current blade tip position Pb of the blade 18 as described above”, “In step S102, the controller 26 acquires design topography data. As illustrated in FIG. 5, the design topography data includes a height Zdesign of a final design topography 60 at a plurality of reference points Pn (n=0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , A) in the traveling direction of the work vehicle 1. The plurality of reference points Pn indicate a plurality of points at a predetermined interval along the traveling direction of the work vehicle 1. The plurality of reference points Pn are on a travel path of the blade 18. While the final design topography 60 has a shape that is flat and parallel to the horizontal direction in FIG. 5, the shape of the final design topography may be different” and “In step S103, the controller 26 acquires actual topography data. The controller 26 acquires the actual topography data by computation from work site topography data acquired from the storage device 28 and the vehicle body position data and traveling direction data acquired from the position sensor 31”); and
determining propriety of implementation of the slot dozing on a basis of an inclination angle of at least a part of an excavation lane of the slot dozing (see at least Takaoka Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs [0040] and [0041] “The IMU 33 is an inertial measurement unit. The IMU 33 acquires vehicle body inclination angle data. The vehicle body inclination angle data includes an angle (pitch angle) with respect to the horizontal in the vehicle longitudinal direction and an angle (roll angle) with respect to the horizontal in the vehicle lateral direction. The controller 26 acquires the vehicle body inclination angle data from the IMU 33” and “The controller 26 calculates a blade tip position Pb from the lift cylinder length L, the vehicle body position data, and the vehicle body inclination angle data. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the controller 26 calculates the global coordinates of the GNSS receiver 32 based on the vehicle body position data. The controller 26 calculates the lift angle θ lift based on the lift cylinder length L. The controller 26 calculates the local coordinates of the blade tip position Pb with respect to the GNSS receiver 32 based on the lift angle θ lift and vehicle body dimension data. The vehicle body dimension data is stored in the storage device 28 and indicates the position of the work implement 13 with respect to the GNSS receiver 32. The controller 26 calculates the global coordinates of the blade tip position Pb based on the global coordinates of the GNSS receiver 32, the local coordinates of the blade tip position Pb, and the vehicle body inclination angle data. The controller 26 acquires the global coordinates of the blade tip position Pb as blade tip position data”).
Takaoka teaches to determine inclination angle of at least a part of an excavation lane of the slot dozing however Takaoka do not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to determining propriety of implementation of the slot dozing on a basis of an inclination angle of at least a part of an excavation lane of the slot dozing. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determines propriety of implementation of the slot dozing (working) on a basis of an inclination angle. For example, Fujio teaches to determining propriety of implementation of working on a basis of an inclination angle. Fujio further teaches that performing such step prevents the working machine from tipping over (see at least Fujio Figs. 1-13 and paragraphs 48, 57, 63-65 and 192). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takaoka of performing the step of determining propriety of implementation of the slot dozing on a basis of an inclination angle as taught by Fujio in order to prevent from the working machine from tipping over.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2018/0202129 A1 to Fujii et. al. (Fujii) teaches to receives current topography data and determine the inclination angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights