DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-17, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are Software per se , MPEP 2106.03(I).
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Another example of an intangible product that does not fall within a statutory category is a paradigm or business model for a marketing company. In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
Therefore, Claim 16 is non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1-5, 9-10, 14-16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara eta l. ( USP 2023/0367323) in view of Boone et al. ( USP 2025/0137790).
As Per Claim 1, Obara et al. (Obara) teaches, a computer system for controlling (via a control system 1 for hauling vehicles, Fig.1) one or more vehicles ( hauling vehicles 100, Fig.1) operating in a confined geographical area, (Fig.1) the computer system comprising processing circuitry (via “the control system 1 includes a controller 110 and a communication device 120 mounted on the hauling vehicle 100.”, [0017], Fig.2) configured to: receive travel mission data for at least one vehicle of a plurality of vehicles within the confined geographical area, the travel mission data comprising at least data about an intended route for completing a transport mission; ( via receiving sensors data from position sensor 130, speed sensor 140, acceleration sensor 150, load quality sensor 160 , through communication device 120 , and “control system 1, generating a control target , including a target route at the controller 110 of each hauling vehicle 100” [0028], also see [0021-0028, Figs. 3-6) based on the obtained road condition data ( via a position sensor 130, a speed sensor 140, an acceleration sensor 150, [0018]), determine a drivability impact for the at least one vehicle intended to perform the travel mission along the intended route, the drivability impact being indicative of an estimated decrease in any one of a vehicle traction control level ( via slippage index) and an energy efficiency level; in response to the determined drivability impact, adapt any one of a driving mode and load capacity for the travel mission for the at least one vehicle;
(via “controller generating a loading quantity on the hauling vehicle in each travel section”, [0007], using load quantity sensor 160, (Fig.2,[0018], [0024] [0045])
and control the at least one vehicle based on any one of the adapted driving mode and adapted load capacity for the travel mission., ([0024] [0045] [0047] , [0059]).
However, Obara does not explicitly teach, obtain real-time road condition data for the intended route.
In a related field of Art, Boone et al. (Boone) discloses, a V2X computing system 250 being equipped with software 160 ,wherein, obtain real-time road condition data for the intended route.( via “the V2X computing system server 150 can receive current road/traffic conditions data, i.e., can receive a real-time traffic feed or like sensor feed 53 providing the current road conditions at the geo-fenced area. In non-limiting embodiment, current road condition data can include road specification information such as: presence of current road hazards (presence of slicks/spills), road repairs, vehicle accidents, traffic bottlenecks, or cause of any abnormal traffic flows at the road upon which the vehicles travel. This current road/traffic conditions data can be received at the V2X computing system server 150 at any time (e.g., virtually continuously or periodically)”, [0038], Figs.1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Obara and Boone. before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Obara, to include the teachings (V2X computing server 150 and program 160) of Boone and configure with the system of Obara in order to V2X computing server obtaining real-time road condition data and providing these information to the control system of Obara to provide travel information on a travel route along which the hauling vehicles travels. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to provide loading quantity on the hauling vehicle in each travel section and slippage index indicating slipperiness of the travel path in each travel section based on real-time road condition data to guide vehicle operation (i.e., an added feature to enhance hauling vehicle maneuverability in terrain area).
As per Claim 2, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, wherein, based on the obtained real-time road condition data, the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a drivability impact for at least one additional vehicle among the plurality of vehicles, in response to the determined drivability impact for the at least one additional vehicle, adapt any one of a driving mode and load capacity for the travel mission for the at least one additional vehicle; and control the at least one vehicle and the at least one additional vehicle in accordance with respective adapted driving mode and adapted load capacity for the travel mission. (Obara : [0007]).
As per Claim 3, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, wherein the drivability impact being indicative of an estimated decrease in vehicle traction control level is any one of an increase in wheel slip and a decrease in a ratio between torque requirement and acceleration on a traction electric machine. ( Obara : Abstract, [0003],[0007], [0046], [0050]).
As per Claim 4, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, wherein the energy efficiency level is determined from energy consumption data for performing the transport mission.
( Obara: via “operation control system for mining machine suppresses the slippage of the mining machine traveling on the travel path at the mine, thus preventing deterioration of the fuel consumption of the mining machine and also suppressing wearing of the tires”, [0003]).
As per Claim 5, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adapt the driving mode by adapting a traction force distribution between a front axle and a rear axle. (Obara:[0007], [0046], [0047]).
As per Claim 9 Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine at least one vehicle pathway characteristic for the intended route for the transport mission based on topology data. (Obara : (via “The control system generates the control target based on map information, which includes information on a travel path along which the hauling vehicle travels and information on a plurality of travel sections obtained by dividing the travel path; a loading quantity on the hauling vehicle in each travel section; and a slippage index indicating slipperiness of the travel path in each travel section. If the slippage index of at least one of the travel sections is less than a predetermined threshold, the control system sets a larger turning radius of a turning route included in the target route for the travel section than for a case where the slippage index is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold. [0007]).
As per Claim 10, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, wherein the travel mission data further comprises data indicative of at least a destination location and a destination time (Obara: [0039]).
As per Claim 14, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, a vehicle ( via hauling vehicle 100) comprising a computer system (via controller 110) of claim 1. (Obara: via “the control system 1 includes a controller 110 and a communication device 120 mounted on the hauling vehicle 100”, [0017], Figs. 1-2).
As Per Claim 15, Obara et al. (Obara) teaches, a computer-implemented method ( via a control system 1 for hauling vehicles, Fig.1) for controlling one or more vehicles ( via hauling vehicles 100, Fig.1) operating in a confined geographical area (Fig.1), ( via “the control system 1 includes a controller 110 and a communication device 120 mounted on the hauling vehicle 100.”, [0017], Fig.2) the method comprising: receiving, by a processing circuitry of a computer system, travel mission data for at least one vehicle of a plurality of vehicles within the confined geographical area, the travel mission data comprising at least data about an intended route for completing a transport mission; ( via receiving sensors data from position sensor 130, speed sensor 140, acceleration sensor 150, load quality sensor 160 , through communication device 120 , and “control system 1, generating a control target , including a target route at the controller 110 of each hauling vehicle 100” [0028], also see [0021-0028, Figs. 3-6) obtaining, by the processing circuitry of the computer system; based on the obtained road condition data, ( via a position sensor 130, a speed sensor 140, an acceleration sensor 150, [0018]) determining, by the processing circuitry of the computer system, a drivability impact for at least one vehicle intended to perform the travel mission along the intended route, the drivability impact being indicative of a decrease in any one of a vehicle traction control level ( via slippage index) and an energy efficiency level; in response to the determined drivability impact, adapting, by the processing circuitry of the computer system, any one of a driving mode and load capacity for the travel mission for the at least one vehicle; (via “controller generating a loading quantity on the hauling vehicle in each travel section”, [0007], using load quantity sensor 160, (Fig.2,[0018], [0024] [0045]); and controlling, by the processing circuitry of the computer system, the at least one vehicle based on any one of the adapted driving mode and load capacity for the travel mission. ([0024] [0045] [0047] , [0059]).
However, Obara does not explicitly teach, obtaining, real-time road condition data for the intended route.
In a related field of Art, Boone et al. (Boone) discloses, a V2X computing system 250 being equipped with software 160 ,wherein, obtain real-time road condition data for the intended route.( via “the V2X computing system server 150 can receive current road/traffic conditions data, i.e., can receive a real-time traffic feed or like sensor feed 53 providing the current road conditions at the geo-fenced area. In non-limiting embodiment, current road condition data can include road specification information such as: presence of current road hazards (presence of slicks/spills), road repairs, vehicle accidents, traffic bottlenecks, or cause of any abnormal traffic flows at the road upon which the vehicles travel. This current road/traffic conditions data can be received at the V2X computing system server 150 at any time (e.g., virtually continuously or periodically)”, [0038], Figs.1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Obara and Boone. before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Obara, to include the teachings (V2X computing server 150 and program 160) of Boone and configure with the system of Obara in order to V2X computing server obtaining real-time road condition data and providing these information to the control system of Obara to provide travel information on a travel route along which the hauling vehicles travels. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to provide loading quantity on the hauling vehicle in each travel section and slippage index indicating slipperiness of the travel path in each travel section based on real-time road condition data to guide vehicle operation (i.e., an added feature to enhance hauling vehicle maneuverability in terrain area).
As per Claim 16, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, a computer program product comprising program code ( Obara: via “the controller 110 has a slippage index estimation section 111, a memory section 112, a control target generation section 113, a control command generation section 114, and an input/output section 115. Although not shown, the controller 110 may include a microcontroller or firmware including one or more processing devices such as a CPU and one or more storage devices such as ROM and RAM. For instance, the sections of the controller 110 shown in FIG. 2 represent the functions of the controller 110 that are implemented by executing a program stored in the storage device by the processing device”, [0019]) for performing when executed by processing circuitry, the method of claim 15.
As per Claim 17, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, (Obara: via “the controller 110 has a slippage index estimation section 111, a memory section 112, a control target generation section 113, a control command generation section 114, and an input/output section 115. Although not shown, the controller 110 may include a microcontroller or firmware including one or more processing devices such as a CPU and one or more storage devices such as ROM and RAM. For instance, the sections of the controller 110 shown in FIG. 2 represent the functions of the controller 110 that are implemented by executing a program stored in the storage device by the processing device”, [0019]) cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 15.
6. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara eta l. ( USP 2023/0367323) in view of Boone et al. ( USP 2025/0137790) in view of Check et al. (6,591,179).
As per Claim 6, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Obara in view of Boone does not explicitly teach, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adapt the traction force distribution between the front axle and rear axle by controlling a differential lock device.
In a related field of Art, Check et al. ( Check) teaches, method and system for progressive engagement of all-wheel drive, vehicle 110 being equipped with DSp170, an Anti-lock brake system 180, a traction control system TCS 182, a vehicle stability control system VSE 184, wherein, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adapt the traction force distribution between the front axle and rear axle by controlling a differential lock device. ( vai col1., lines 11-24, 49-59, col.2, line 44- col.3 line 15, col.4, liens 3-8, Fig.1) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Obara and Boone and Check before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Obara, to include the teachings (the DSP 170, 180, 182, 184) of Check and configure with the system of Obara in order to control traction force distribution in front and rear axle through differential lock. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to control vehicle operation for varying road condition and driver demand (i.e., an added feature to enhance vehicle maneuverability).
Claim 8 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara et al. ( USP 2023/0367323) in view of Boone et al. ( USP 2025/0137790) in view of Abdel-Rahman et al. (USP 2017/0349213).
As per Claim 7, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone does not explicitly teach, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adapt the driving mode by adapting a maximum steering angle of a steering device for one or more wheels.
In a related field of Art, Abdel-Rahman et al. ( Abdel-Rahman) teaches, a vehicle 12 being equipped with control module 58 that includes target steering angle module 114, and “If the possible steering angle maximizes the cost for that period, the target steering angle module 114 sets the target steering angle for that period equal to the possible steering angle”, [0064], Figs.1-2), [0026],[0057], [0061-0063],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Obara and Boone and Abdel-Rahman before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Obara, to include the teachings (the target steering angle module 114 and control module 58) of Abdel-Rahman and configure with the system of Obara in order to achieve a vehicle turning radius being offset from the outer lane boundary of the route and then adjusting the possible steering angle incrementally to perform vehicle wheel control. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to control vehicle trajectory with lane boundary (i.e., an added feature to enhance hauling vehicle maneuverability in terrain area).
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara eta l. ( USP 2023/0367323) in view of Boone et al. ( USP 2025/0137790) in view of Arai ( USP 2017/0341650).
As per Claim 11, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone does not explicitly teach, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the decrease in any one of the vehicle traction control level and the energy efficiency level based on a comparison with a nominal value associated with normal driving conditions. (Arai : [0006], [0007], [0008], [0021], [0025], [0062], [0148]).
In a related field of art, Arai teaches, a drive torque control device computing drive torque, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the decrease in any one of the vehicle traction control level and the energy efficiency level based on a comparison with a nominal value associated with normal driving conditions. (Arai : [0006], [0007], [0008], [0021], [0025], [0062], [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Obara and Boone and Arai before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Obara, to include the teachings (drive torque device 40 , 34, 38, 33, 31, 32 ) of Aria and configure with the system of Obara in order to control traction force to enhance energy efficiency.
9. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara eta l. ( USP 2023/0367323) in view of Boone et al. ( USP 2025/0137790) in view of Ready-Campbell et al. (USP 2021/0148086).
As per Claim 12, Obara as modified by Boone teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Obara in view of Boone teaches, wherein the plurality of vehicles (Fig.1)comprises a first vehicle ( via vehicle 100 at the left hand side , Fig,1)) and a second vehicle ( via vehicle 100 at the right hand side , Fig.1), the at least one vehicle being the second vehicle ( via vehicles 100 at right hand side being the second vehicle).
However, Obara in view of Boone does not explicitly teach, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the first vehicle according to a first route so that the first vehicle is controlled to establish a first track along the road surface of the first route, and further configured to control the second vehicle so as to follow the first track of the first vehicle.
In an analogous art, Ready-Campbell teaches, an earth shaping system 100 (Fig.1) comprising a fleet of vehicle ( Hauling vehicle), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the first vehicle according to a first route so that the first vehicle is controlled to establish a first track along the road surface of the first route, and further configured to control the second vehicle so as to follow the first track of the first vehicle (via “The fleet operations engine 450 is implemented by a software within a central computer 120b or an on-unit computer 120a or and is executed by providing inputs to the controller 150 to control the control inputs of the vehicle 115”, [0142]), ..”The hauling engine 820 generates instructions that may be used to supplement an existing target tool path including additional instructions for moving earth from a dig location to a fill location.”, [0143] and first vehicle ( 912b) and second vehicle (912c) following the first track of the first vehicle , See Fig.11A. [00142], [00144-00146]. Also see Figs.1, 8-11A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Obara and Boone and Ready-Campbell. before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Obara, to include the teachings earth shaping system (controller , software , fleet operation engine 450) of Ready-Campbell and configure with the system of Obara in order to first hauling vehicle establishing a first track along the first route and the second vehicles is following the first track. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to provide precise instruction to the fleet vehicle to follow the lead vehicle to destination (i.e., an added feature to enhance hauling vehicle maneuverability in terrain area).
As per Claim 13, Obara as modified by Boone and Ready-Campbell teaches the limitation of Claim 12. However, Obara in view of Boone and Ready-Campbell teaches, wherein a lateral offset of a corresponding track for the second vehicle is adjusted in response to any one of the first track of the first vehicle (Ready-Campbell: Fig.11A. [00142], [00144-00146]), and real- time road condition data for the first vehicle ( Boone : [0038], Figs.1-2).
(See claim 12 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights