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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/243,196 filed on 06/19/2025.
• Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 19/243,196 filed on 06/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026, 06/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The abstract has more than 150 words.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: updater in claims 1-15.
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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 16 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a machine, claim 14 is directed towards a method.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claims 1, 16 recite “an updater configured or programmed to perform an update process to update environmental map information based on a first portion of the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors during work performed by the working machine relating to an area having been worked by the working machine”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of performed “by an updater”. That is, other than reciting “by an updater” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by an updater” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected by a sensor during work and deciding how to revise a paper map of the worksite. The mere nominal recitation of by an updater does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims 1, 16 recite a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of “one or more sensors provided in or on the working machine to sense a surrounding area of the working machine to obtain a sensing result”, which involves obtaining data of an area having been worked which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “by an updater” describes a generic work vehicle and a generic processor or controller that automatically performs the otherwise mental update process and merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims 2-15 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 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claims 1 and 16.
Dependent claim 14 is eligible because the claim limitation of “control travel of the working machine based on the position of the working machine estimated by the position estimator” is not an abstract idea of mental process. The examiner understands that the " control travel of the working machine based on the position of the working machine estimated by the position estimator " is a transformation of a particular article to a different state, as described in paragraph [0087], " The automatic operation controller 20 b is configured or programmed to control the equipment and devices included in the working machine 1 so that the traveling vehicle body 3 travels along a scheduled traveling route L defined in advance based on the estimated position EP and the scheduled traveling route L… the automatic operation controller 20 b is configured or programmed to control a steering angle and a traveling speed (vehicle speed) of the traveling vehicle body 3 as the automatic driving control".
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-5, 13-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettersson (US20160312446A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16:
Pettersson teaches:
An assist system for a working machine configured to perform work while traveling, the assist system comprising: (Pettersson, para [08], “an improved bulldozer which is capable to derive terrain information while applying a bulldozing process in order to provide precise orientation and localisation in the terrain.”)
one or more sensors provided in or on the working machine to sense a surrounding area of the working machine to obtain a sensing result; (Pettersson, para [144], “a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10 and with field of view 7″ camera 2″ has a view of the terrain section already bulldozed 10′”)
and an updater configured or programmed to perform an update process to update environmental map information based on a first portion of the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors during work performed by the working machine relating to an area having been worked by the working machine. (Pettersson, para [144], “a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. … with field of view 7″ camera 2″ has a view of the terrain section already bulldozed 10′”, para [141], “gathering scaled terrain information and simultaneously generating a map of the terrain ”, and para [140], “the terrain data (point cloud), which is based on the captured images”) Examiner note: Pettersson discloses a controlling and processing unit (updater) that generates scaled terrain information (updating environmental map information) while concurrently moving the bulldozer in the terrain and generating image data of terrain sections (update process based on sensing results during earth-moving/shaping work)
Regarding claim 2:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 1, further comprising a position estimator configured or programmed to estimate a position of the working machine based on the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors and based on the environmental map information updated by the updater; (Pettersson, para [28], “the position data relates to the actual (relative) position of the bulldozer in the terrain. Each of the captured terrain sections is related to a respective position of the bulldozer as a pose of the camera for capturing that respective image is known and relative positions of the bulldozer are derivable from the image series. In other words, the terrain data may comprise position information regarding the position of the bulldozer and positions of the captured terrain sections”, para [141], “gathering scaled terrain information and simultaneously generating a map of the terrain”)
wherein the position estimator is configured or programmed to estimate the position based on a second portion of the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors during work performed by the working machine relating to an area having not been worked by the working machine. (Pettersson, para [144], “a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10”, and para [28], “and relative positions of the bulldozer are derivable from the image series”)
Regarding claim 3:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 1, wherein the updater is configured or programmed to perform the update process based on a third portion of the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors during work performed by the working machine relating to an area on an opposite side of a working device of the working machine from an area ahead of the working device in a direction of travel. (Pettersson, para [144], “a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10 and with field of view 7″ camera 2″ has a view of the terrain section already bulldozed 10′”, and para [140], “the terrain data (point cloud), which is based on the captured images”)
Regarding claim 4:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 3, further comprising a position estimator configured or programmed to estimate a position of the working machine based on the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors and based on the environmental map information updated by the updater; (Pettersson, para [28], “the position data relates to the actual (relative) position of the bulldozer in the terrain. Each of the captured terrain sections is related to a respective position of the bulldozer as a pose of the camera for capturing that respective image is known and relative positions of the bulldozer are derivable from the image series. In other words, the terrain data may comprise position information regarding the position of the bulldozer and positions of the captured terrain sections”, para [141], “gathering scaled terrain information and simultaneously generating a map of the terrain”)
wherein the position estimator is configured or programmed to estimate the position based on a fourth portion of the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors during work performed by the working machine relating to the area ahead of the working device in the direction of travel. (Pettersson, para [144], “a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10 ”, and para [140], “the terrain data (point cloud), which is based on the captured images”)
Regarding claim 5:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 1, wherein the updater is configured or programmed to perform the update process according to at least one of the working device attached to the working machine or work performed by the working device. (Pettersson, para [144], “FIG. 1c shows a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10 and with field of view 7″ camera 2″ has a view of the terrain section already bulldozed 10′. Together with information about the distance travelled by the bulldozer, control unit 3 can calculate the earth volume that has been moved and/or check if the bulldozing step has been fulfilled within the scope of a given construction tolerance. The second camera 2″ can also be used to give an immediate update to the map or 3D model that is built up by the control system of the bulldozer and optionally with help of other working machines allocated in the terrain. This functionality is particularly applicable when bulldozer 1 is actually bulldozing in the forward direction”, and para [109], “the position of the blade”)
Regarding claim 13:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Nakano teaches:
The assist system according to claim 1, further comprising: a position estimator configured or programmed to estimate a position of the working machine based on the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors and based on the environmental map information updated by the updater; (Pettersson, para [28], “the position data relates to the actual (relative) position of the bulldozer in the terrain. Each of the captured terrain sections is related to a respective position of the bulldozer as a pose of the camera for capturing that respective image is known and relative positions of the bulldozer are derivable from the image series. In other words, the terrain data may comprise position information regarding the position of the bulldozer and positions of the captured terrain sections”, para [141], “gathering scaled terrain information and simultaneously generating a map of the terrain”)
wherein the one or more sensors include one or more ranging sensors to measure a distance to at least a portion of surroundings of the working machine; (Pettersson, para [36], “a sensor unit of the bulldozer providing information about a distance covered by moving the bulldozer…a range camera”)
and the position estimator is configured or programmed to estimate the position based on one or more ranging signals from the one or more ranging sensors, based on the environmental map information updated by the updater, and based on a simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm. (Pettersson, para [28], “the position data relates to the actual (relative) position of the bulldozer in the terrain. Each of the captured terrain sections is related to a respective position of the bulldozer as a pose of the camera for capturing that respective image is known and relative positions of the bulldozer are derivable from the image series. In other words, the terrain data may comprise position information regarding the position of the bulldozer and positions of the captured terrain sections”, para [141], “gathering scaled terrain information and simultaneously generating a map of the terrain”, and para [46], “the simultaneous localisation and mapping (SLAM) algorithm”)
Regarding claim 14:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 1, further comprising: a position estimator configured or programmed to estimate a position of the working machine based on the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors and based on the environmental map information updated by the updater; (Pettersson, para [28], “the position data relates to the actual (relative) position of the bulldozer in the terrain. Each of the captured terrain sections is related to a respective position of the bulldozer as a pose of the camera for capturing that respective image is known and relative positions of the bulldozer are derivable from the image series. In other words, the terrain data may comprise position information regarding the position of the bulldozer and positions of the captured terrain sections”, para [141], “gathering scaled terrain information and simultaneously generating a map of the terrain”)
and a controller configured or programmed to control travel of the working machine based on the position of the working machine estimated by the position estimator.( Pettersson, para [69], “ the bulldozer and/or the blade of the bulldozer is moved, particularly automatically moved, based on the terrain data”, para [28], “the terrain data may comprise position information regarding the position of the bulldozer and positions of the captured terrain sections””)
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US20160312446A1) in view of Fujimoto (US20070208505A1).
Regarding claim 6:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 5, wherein the updater is configured or programmed to: perform the update process in a case that the working device performs work that is capable of changing a shape of a worksite; (Pettersson, para [144], “ control unit 3 can calculate the earth volume that has been moved and/or check if the bulldozing step has been fulfilled within the scope of a given construction tolerance. The second camera 2″ can also be used to give an immediate update to the map or 3D model that is built up by the control system of the bulldozer”)
in a case that the working device performs work that does not change the shape of the worksite. (Pettersson, para [130], “when the bulldozer stops moving”) Examiner note: the bulldozer will not change the shape of the worksite when the bulldozer stops moving.
Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Fujimoto teaches:
and not perform the update process (Fujimoto, para [04], “a vehicle driver usually takes a main road such as an expressway or a state road and then takes a narrow road near the destination. In this case, a map data of the navigation system only needs the latest information about the main road with respect to area sections or zones (e.g., meshes) up to the destination, and does not need information about narrow roads around the main road. By delivering a map updating data without such unnecessary information, the amount of map updating data, communication cost and delivery time can be reduced.”)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Fujimoto in order to include not perform the update process when the working device performs work that does not change the shape of the worksite. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the amount of map updating data, communication cost and delivery time can be reduced.” ( Fujimoto, Description)
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US20160312446A1) in view of Li (WO2023093230A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 1, wherein the updater is configured or programmed to perform the update process including: a first process to determine a portion of the environmental map information that relates to an area to be worked by the working machine; (Pettersson, para [144], “FIG. 1c shows a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10”, and para [140], “the terrain data (point cloud), which is based on the captured images”)
for the portion determined in the first process based on the sensing result. (Pettersson, para [144], “FIG. 1c shows a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10”)
Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Li teaches:
and a second process to re-register data (Li, para [23], “re-registers the sensor data”)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Li in order to include a second process to re-register data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid unnecessary updates when the work being done does not change the site.
Regarding claim 8:
Pettersson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 7, wherein the updater is configured or programmed to perform the first process (Pettersson, para [144], “FIG. 1c shows a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10”, and para [140], “the terrain data (point cloud), which is based on the captured images”)
whether a working device of the working machine is in a working state in which the working device performs work (Pettersson, para [144], “when bulldozer 1 is actually bulldozing in the forward direction”)
or in a non-working state in which the working device does not perform work.( Pettersson, para [130], “when the bulldozer stops moving”)
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US20160312446A1) in view of Li (WO2023093230A1), further in view of Fujimoto (US20070208505A1).
Regarding claim 9:
Pettersson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 8, wherein the updater is configured or programmed to perform the first process when the working device is in the working state, (Pettersson, para [144], “FIG. 1c shows a bulldozer having two cameras 2, 2″ aligned against each other, i.e. one to the front and one to the back of the bulldozer. With field of view 7 camera 2 has a view of the terrain section to be bulldozed 10”, and para [140], “the terrain data (point cloud), which is based on the captured images”, para [144], “when bulldozer 1 is actually bulldozing in the forward direction”)
when the working device is in the non-working state. (Pettersson, para [130], “when the bulldozer stops moving”)
Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Fujimoto teaches:
and not perform the first process (Fujimoto, para [04], “a vehicle driver usually takes a main road such as an expressway or a state road and then takes a narrow road near the destination. In this case, a map data of the navigation system only needs the latest information about the main road with respect to area sections or zones (e.g., meshes) up to the destination, and does not need information about narrow roads around the main road. By delivering a map updating data without such unnecessary information, the amount of map updating data, communication cost and delivery time can be reduced.”)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Fujimoto in order to include not perform the first process when the working device is in the non-working state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the amount of map updating data, communication cost and delivery time can be reduced.” ( Fujimoto, Description)
Claim(s) 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US20160312446A1) in view of Li (WO2023093230A1), further in view of Nakano (US20160062361A1).
Regarding claim 10:
Pettersson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Nakano teaches:
perform the first process including deleting data from the portion of the environmental map information that relates to the area to be worked by the working machine; (Nakano, para [20], “the map generation unit deletes data of the environment map for an area that has already been passed”)
for the portion of the environmental map information in which data deletion was performed in the first process. (Nakano, para [20], “the map generation unit deletes data of the environment map for an area that has already been passed”)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Nakano in order to perform the first process including deleting data from the portion of the environmental map information that relates to the area to be worked by the working machine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid unnecessary updates when the work being done does not change the site.
Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Li teaches:
and perform the second process including, based on the sensing result, re-registering data(Li, para [23], “re-registers the sensor data”)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Li in order to include a second process to re-register data based on the sensing result. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid unnecessary updates when the work being done does not change the site.
Regarding claim 12:
Pettersson in view of Li and Nakano, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Nakano teaches:
The assist system according to claim 10, wherein the updater is configured or programmed to, in a case that the working machine travels back and forth between a first edge and a second edge of a worksite: perform the first process including deleting data from the portion of the environmental map information that relates to the area to be worked by the working machine as the working machine travels; (Nakano depicts in Fig. 18 A and B an autonomous working machine travel travels back and forth between a first edge and a second edge of a worksite , para [20], “the map generation unit deletes data of the environment map for an area that has already been passed”)
PNG
media_image1.png
929
1444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
upon each travel of the working machine from one of the first edge or the second edge to the other. (Nakano depicts in Fig. 18 A and B an autonomous working machine travel travels back and forth between a first edge and a second edge of a worksite)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Nakano in order to include wherein the updater is configured or programmed to, in a case that the working machine travels back and forth between a first edge and a second edge of a worksite: perform the first process including deleting data from the portion of the environmental map information that relates to the area to be worked by the working machine as the working machine travels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid unnecessary updates when the work being done does not change the site.
Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Li teaches:
and perform the second process including, based on the sensing result, re-registering data(Li, para [23], “re-registers the sensor data”)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Li in order to include a second process to re-register data based on the sensing result. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid unnecessary updates when the work being done does not change the site.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US20160312446A1) in view of Nakano (US20160062361A1).
Regarding claim 11:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Nakano teaches:
The assist system according to claim 1, wherein the updater is configured or programmed to, in a case that the working machine travels back and forth between a first edge and a second edge of a worksite, (Nakano depicts in Fig. 18 A and B an autonomous working machine travel travels back and forth between a first edge and a second edge of a worksite
PNG
media_image1.png
929
1444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
update the environmental map information upon each travel of the working machine from one of the first edge or the second edge to the other. (Nakano, para [148], “In step S47, the control unit 11 executes the update process of the global map”)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Nakano in order to include wherein the updater is configured or programmed to, in a case that the working machine travels back and forth between a first edge and a second edge of a worksite, update the environmental map information upon each travel of the working machine from one of the first edge or the second edge to the other. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid unnecessary updates when the work being done does not change the site.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US20160312446A1) in view of Harakawa (US 20230213949 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
Pettersson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pettersson teaches:
The assist system according to claim 1, further comprising: a position estimator configured or programmed to estimate a position of the working machine based on the sensing result obtained by the one or more sensors and based on the environmental map information updated by the updater; (Pettersson, para [28], “the position data relates to the actual (relative) position of the bulldozer in the terrain. Each of the captured terrain sections is related to a respective position of the bulldozer as a pose of the camera for capturing that respective image is known and relative positions of the bulldozer are derivable from the image series. In other words, the terrain data may comprise position information regarding the position of the bulldozer and positions of the captured terrain sections”, para [141], “gathering scaled terrain information and simultaneously generating a map of the terrain”)
Pettersson does not explicitly teach, but Harakawa teaches:
and a display to display the position of the working machine estimated by the position estimator. (Harakawa, para [35], “the display 70 displays the position of the machine 10 estimated in the position estimation process”)
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 working machine environmental map updating method of Pettersson to include these above teachings from Harakawa in order to include a display to display the position of the working machine estimated by the position estimator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid unnecessary updates when the work being done does not change the site.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aremu (US20170329304A1) teaches a system for communicating between a machine and a remote system generates machine data and image data on-board the machine. The data is segmented into machine data subsets and image data subsets. At least some of the machine data subsets and only some of the image data subsets are transmitted off-board the machine to an off-board controller. The off-board controller updates an electronic map based upon the image data subsets, and generates a machine movement plan based upon the updated electronic map.
Yuasa (US12443198B2) teaches a mobile machine movable between multiple rows of trees includes one or more sensors to output sensor data indicating a distribution of objects in a surrounding environment of the mobile machine, and a data generator. While performing localization, the data generator is configured or programmed to detect trunks of the rows of trees in the surrounding environment of the mobile machine based on the sensor data that is repeatedly output from the one or more sensors, and generate local map data from which to generate environment map data indicating a distribution of the detected trunks of the rows of trees and record the local map data to a storage.
Davis (US20240142986A1) teaches systems for generating a worksite map that indicates locations of characteristics and items in the field includes operating a mobile machine outfitted with a position sensor system and a multi-spectral observation sensor system in a non-plants of interest area, such as a headland or a road. Determining the locations of characteristics and items in the worksite, and external to the mobile machine, based on the sensor data generated by the multi-spectral observation sensor system and the position sensor system while the mobile machine is in the non-plants of interest area. Generating the map of the worksite that indicates the characteristics and items at their respective locations in the worksite. In some examples, the method can further include generating a control output based on the map of the worksite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights