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 .
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are filed as other than black and white line drawings. It is not clear to the examiner if applicant’s intention was to file colored photographs or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, the applicant claims “an absolute pose” of a platform. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Is the applicant referring to position, location, orientation, elevation or any combination thereof and how is obtained. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as the absolute pose determined using an on-board GPS and inertial measurement unit (IMU).
With respect to claim 6, the applicant claims “guidance for navigation of the second platform to the first platform for unloading or loading”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation, i.e. is loading the first platform onto the second platform or vice versa or loading material or loading data. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “guidance for navigation of the second platform to the first platform”.
With respect to claim 7, the applicant claims “the absolute pose of the second platform is known from an on-board GPS and inertial measurement unit (IMU)”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation, i.e. it is not clear how it is known without any determination or calculation. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “the absolute pose of the second platform is determined or calculated from an on-board GPS and inertial measurement unit (IMU)”.
With respect to claims 8 and 16, the applicant claims a grain truck. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Is it a truck used for loading grains or is it a harvester or a planter. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a general truck.
With respect to claim 13, the applicant claims “a relative position based guidance line”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation, i.e. it is not clear how to perform or achieve navigation or guidance as claimed. Are the relative position and guidance line determined and calculated and compared to each other so that the position follows the line or is it performed in a different manner. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “a relative position based guidance line is generated based on the relative position of the second vehicle to the first vehicle” as recited in claim 14.
With respect to claim 15, the applicant claims “wherein the second vehicle does not include a GPS and IMU sensor suite”. Said negative limitation tends to define the invention in terms of what it was not, rather than pointing out the invention. Accordingly, said negative limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is an attempt to claim the invention by excluding what the inventors did not invent rather than distinctly and particularly pointing out what they did invent. In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953).
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining a location of the first platform via the second platform by detecting one or more tags on the first platform and determining the pose of the first platform relative to the second platform.
The limitations of “determining a location of the first platform via the second platform by detecting one or more tags on the first platform and determining the pose of the first platform relative to the second platform”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (Claims 9-16). That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but the “a processor” language, determining in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating a location and a pose using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 9-16 recite one additional element, using a processor to perform the determining steps. The processor is 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. With respect to the additional elements of a first platform/vehicle, a second platform/vehicle, and a sensor/transmitter, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. The sensor/transmitter is 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. The “a first platform/vehicle, a second platform/vehicle” elements are also recited at a high level of generality and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 field, 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 a 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.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the recited steps amounts to no 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. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “sensor/transmitter” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle (Paragraphs 0004-0005). The “a first platform/vehicle, a second platform/vehicle” elements are not indicative of an inventive concept because they generally append a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry and specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception see MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hennage et al US 2026/0120478 A1 (hence Hennage).
In re claims 1, 9, and 17, Hennage discloses a working vehicle such as a tractor and to a traveling management system for the working vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
(a) a first platform equipped with one or more tags (Fig.1A, #2, #12A, and Paragraph 0040 “the working device 2 is provided with a plurality of marker bundles 12”);
and (b) a second platform (Fig.1A, #1 and Paragraph 0031 “working vehicle”) having a known absolute pose (Paragraphs 0074-0075 “positioning satellite” and “an inertial measurement unit ”) and at least one sensor for detecting the one or more tags (Fig.1A, #16A, #16B, and Paragraph 0043 “ the first camera 16A and the second camera 16B are provided at a rear portion of the tractor 1 to detect the plurality of marker bundles 12”), wherein the relative positioning system is configured to determine a location of the first platform via the second platform by detecting the one or more tags on the first platform (Paragraphs 0102 “the status calculator device 62 determines the position and/or attitude (posture/orientation) of the working device 2 as the status of the working device 2”, and determining the pose of the first platform relative to the second platform (Paragraphs 0121-0122 “wherein the traveling machine body 3 is the position of the traveling machine body 3, and the status calculator device 62 calculates the equipment position, which is the position of the working device 2, based on the vehicle position calculated at the detected position and on the status of the working device 2”)
In re claims 2, 10, and 20, Hennage teaches the following:
wherein the one or more tags are visual fiducials (Fig.4, and Paragraph 0042)
In re claims 3, and 11, Hennage teaches the following:
wherein the at least one sensor is a camera (Paragraph 0043 “a first camera 16A”)
In re claims 6 and 19, Hennage teaches the following:
generating guidance for navigation of the second platform to the first platform for unloading or loading (Paragraph 0097)
In re claims 7 and 15, Hennage teaches the following:
wherein the absolute pose of the second platform is known from an on-board GPS and inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Paragraphs 0074-0075)
In re claim 12, Hennage teaches the following:
an automatic steering unit in communication with the processor (Paragraph 0069 “the tractor 1 is provided with a steering device 11” and Paragraph 0088 “The controller 60 may control automatic traveling (automatic traveling control)”)
In re claim 13, Hennage teaches the following:
wherein the first vehicle is capable of navigating along GPS based guidance lines Paragraph 0089 “at least the vehicle position of the traveling machine body 3 (the position detected by the positioning device 40) and the predetermined traveling route (the traveling route) match each other, that is, so that the traveling machine body 3 and the traveling route match each other” and switching to a relative position based guidance line (Paragraph 0099 and 0119 “the position of the working device 2 can be ascertained without a positioning device that detects its position based on signals from a positioning satellite on the working device 2.”)
In re claim 14, Hennage teaches the following:
wherein a relative position based guidance line is generated based on the relative position of the second vehicle to the first vehicle Paragraphs 0102 “the status calculator device 62 determines the position and/or attitude (posture/orientation) of the working device 2 as the status of the working device 2”, and determining the pose of the first platform relative to the second platform (Paragraphs 0121-0122 “wherein the traveling machine body 3 is the position of the traveling machine body 3, and the status calculator device 62 calculates the equipment position, which is the position of the working device 2, based on the vehicle position calculated at the detected position and on the status of the working device 2”)
In re claim 18, Hennage teaches the following:
wherein the absolute pose of the first platform is determined by (a) locating the first platform in a relative reference frame via an on-board GPS and inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Paragraphs 0074-0075)
and (b) converting the location of the first platform into the navigational reference frame (Paragraphs 0102 “the status calculator device 62 determines the position and/or attitude (posture/orientation) of the working device 2 as the status of the working device 2”, and determining the pose of the first platform relative to the second platform (Paragraphs 0121-0122 “wherein the traveling machine body 3 is the position of the traveling machine body 3, and the status calculator device 62 calculates the equipment position, which is the position of the working device 2, based on the vehicle position calculated at the detected position and on the status of the working device 2”)
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennage in view of Estep et al US 2022/0107635 A (hence Estep).
In re claims 4 and 5, Hennage discloses a marker and a camera as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the one or more tags are ultra-wide band (UWB) receivers
the at least one sensor is a UWB transmitter
Nevertheless, Estep discloses system and methods for determining relative pose of materials handling vehicles in an industrial environment may include utilizing UWB antenna array systems respective mounted on the materials handling vehicles to send mutually received information to determine the relative pose between the vehicles (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the one or more tags are ultra-wide band (UWB) receivers (Paragraph 0005)
the at least one sensor is a UWB transmitter (Paragraph 0005)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Hennage reference to include ultra-wide band (UWB) receivers and transmitters, as taught by Estep, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for sensing and determining a relative pose and field enforcement based on sensing and determining relative poses of materials handling vehicles using ultra-wideband (UWB) radio technology and overlapping fields (Estep, Paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennage in view of Bonefas US 2014/0350801 A1 (hence Bonefas).
In re claims 8 and 16, Hennage discloses the claimed invention as recited but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the first platform is a grain truck and the second platform is a grain cart
Nevertheless, Bonefas discloses a method and stereo vision system for facilitating the unloading of material from a vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the first platform is a grain truck and the second platform is a grain cart (Paragraph 0031)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Hennage reference to include a truck and a grain cart, as taught by Bonefas, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to manage the unloading of agricultural material (e.g., grain) from the transferring vehicle 91 (e.g., combine) to a receiving vehicle 79 (e.g., grain cart or wagon) (Bonefas, Paragraph 0031).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gorman et al US 2025/0333931 A1 discloses A loading system is constructed to load a hauling machine by a loading machine. The system includes a fiducial marker affixed to the hauling machine. A set of sensors of diverse sensory modalities is deployed on the loading machine that generate respective signals indicative of the fiducial marker in the corresponding sensor modalities. A processor on the loading machine determines a machine orientation in space of the hauling machine through machine perception applied to the signals. Loading the hauling machine by the loading machine is guided according to the machine orientation.
Berry et al US 11,401,684 B2 discloses a loading machine for loading material to a material receptacle and, more particularly, to a perception-based system to assist in aligning the loading machine relative to the material receptacle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights