DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 19/245,659, filed June 23, 2025. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits, Claims 1-9 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on December 26, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 6/23/2025is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: ST5-9, 31a and 31b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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: “detector configured to detect” in claim 1 and “a behavior detector configured to detect behavior” in claim 7.
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.
Regarding “detector configured to detect” in claim 1, the specification recites the structure of “The cameras 35 and the LiDAR sensor 36 function as obstacle sensors (detectors) that detect surrounding obstacles” in at least paragraph [0071], therefore the detector is interpreted as a camera or LiDAR sensor for detecting obstacles.
Regarding “a behavior detector configured to detect behavior” in claim 7, the specification recites the structure of “the computing processing unit 74 is configured or programmed to function as a behavior detector that detects the behavior of the detection target” in at least paragraph [0093], therefore the behavior detector is interpreted as a processor.
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 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) 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiramatsu (US-20170135277).
Regarding claim 1, Hiramatsu teaches a work vehicle comprising (Abstract, "An autonomously traveling work vehicle")
a vehicle body (See Figure 1 showing a vehicle with a body)
a detector configured to detect an obstacle around the vehicle body (Paragraph [0041], "An obstacle sensor 41 and a camera 42 as an obstacle detection means are arranged in the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 and connected to the control device 30 so as to prevent contact with obstacle.")
a discrimination processor configured or programmed to discriminate a type of a detection target based on a detection result by the detector (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person," here the system can use the camera in order to detect obstacles and process the images to determine an animal or a person)
and a travel controller configured or programmed to (Abstract, "a control device for causing the autonomously traveling work vehicle to automatically work and travel along a set travel route")
enable travel stop of the vehicle body or avoidance travel in which the vehicle body travels around the detection target according to the type of the detection target (Paragraph [0041], "When the obstacle is detected, control is performed so that an alarm is given and traveling speed is reduced or stopped.")
and in a case where the detection target is an animal other than a human (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person")
perform avoidance travel which an avoidance distance between the detection target and a start position of the avoidance travel smaller than that in a case where the detection target is a human (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person, and when what is detected is the animal, the sudden stop and the reduction are not performed. Namely, the animal such as a dog, a cat or a bird escapes normally when the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 approaches, whereby there is almost no possibility of collision. Rather, by approach of the animal to the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1, the person detection sensor 70 may response so that the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 is reduced or stopped, whereby the work is obstructed. Then, when it is recognized by the image processing from the camera 42 that the animal enters the first range E1, the second range E2 or the third range E3, a signal from the person detection sensor 70 is canceled so as not to reduce or stop the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1. Otherwise, even when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the transmission and the brake device are not operated, and an alarm device is operated and a head light is turned on so as to threaten the animal. Or, when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the image is displayed by the display means 49 and the display 113 and the transmission and the brake device are operated by operation of an operator," here the system is performing avoidance travel operations based on a determination of a type of obstacle being human or an animal, and if the obstacle is detected to be an animal the vehicle response distance will be smaller than in a case where the detection is a human).
Regarding claim 2, Hiramatsu teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Hiramatsu further teaches wherein the discrimination processor is configured or programmed to discriminate, as a type of a detection target, a static object that does not perform avoidance behavior by itself (Paragraph [0104], “The processing of image photted by the camera 42 by the control device 30 detects a moving object. The moving object is highlighted, and when the moving object is larger than a fixed size and smaller than a person, the moving object is judged to be an animal,” here the system can distinguish between a fixed and moving object and determine if a moving object is an animal)
and the travel controller is configured or programmed to perform, in a case where the detection target is an animal other than a human, avoidance travel with the avoidance distance smaller than that in a case where the detection target is the static object (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person, and when what is detected is the animal, the sudden stop and the reduction are not performed. Namely, the animal such as a dog, a cat or a bird escapes normally when the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 approaches, whereby there is almost no possibility of collision. Rather, by approach of the animal to the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1, the person detection sensor 70 may response so that the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 is reduced or stopped, whereby the work is obstructed. Then, when it is recognized by the image processing from the camera 42 that the animal enters the first range E1, the second range E2 or the third range E3, a signal from the person detection sensor 70 is canceled so as not to reduce or stop the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1. Otherwise, even when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the transmission and the brake device are not operated, and an alarm device is operated and a head light is turned on so as to threaten the animal. Or, when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the image is displayed by the display means 49 and the display 113 and the transmission and the brake device are operated by operation of an operator," here the system is performing avoidance travel operations based on a determination of a type of obstacle being an animal, and if the obstacle is detected to be an animal the vehicle response distance will be smaller than in a case where the detection is another object).
Regarding claim 4, Hiramatsu teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Hiramatsu further teaches wherein the discrimination processor is configured or programmed to discriminate, as a type of a detection target, a type of an animal other than a human (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person," here the system can use the camera in order to detect obstacles and process the images to determine an animal or a person)
and the travel controller is configured or programmed to perform different types of avoidance travel according to a type of an animal (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person, and when what is detected is the animal, the sudden stop and the reduction are not performed. Namely, the animal such as a dog, a cat or a bird escapes normally when the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 approaches, whereby there is almost no possibility of collision. Rather, by approach of the animal to the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1, the person detection sensor 70 may response so that the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 is reduced or stopped, whereby the work is obstructed. Then, when it is recognized by the image processing from the camera 42 that the animal enters the first range E1, the second range E2 or the third range E3, a signal from the person detection sensor 70 is canceled so as not to reduce or stop the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1. Otherwise, even when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the transmission and the brake device are not operated, and an alarm device is operated and a head light is turned on so as to threaten the animal. Or, when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the image is displayed by the display means 49 and the display 113 and the transmission and the brake device are operated by operation of an operator," here the system is performing avoidance travel operations based on a determination of a type of obstacle being human or an animal, and if the obstacle is detected to be an animal the vehicle response distance will be smaller than in a case where the detection is a human).
Regarding claim 5, Hiramatsu teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Hiramatsu further teaches wherein the discrimination processor is configured or programmed to discriminate, as a type of a detection target, a bird (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person," here the system can use the camera in order to detect obstacles and process the images to determine an animal or a person) (Paragraph [0103], “Namely, the animal such as a dog, a cat or a bird”)
and the travel controller is configured or programmed to perform, in a case where the detection target is a bird, avoidance travel with the avoidance distance smaller than that in a case where the detection target is other than a bird (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person, and when what is detected is the animal, the sudden stop and the reduction are not performed. Namely, the animal such as a dog, a cat or a bird escapes normally when the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 approaches, whereby there is almost no possibility of collision. Rather, by approach of the animal to the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1, the person detection sensor 70 may response so that the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 is reduced or stopped, whereby the work is obstructed. Then, when it is recognized by the image processing from the camera 42 that the animal enters the first range E1, the second range E2 or the third range E3, a signal from the person detection sensor 70 is canceled so as not to reduce or stop the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1. Otherwise, even when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the transmission and the brake device are not operated, and an alarm device is operated and a head light is turned on so as to threaten the animal. Or, when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the image is displayed by the display means 49 and the display 113 and the transmission and the brake device are operated by operation of an operator," here the system is performing avoidance travel operations based on a determination of a type of obstacle being human or an animal such as a bird, and if the obstacle is detected to be an animal the vehicle response distance will be smaller than in a case where the detection is a human).
Regarding claim 6, Hiramatsu teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Hiramatsu further teaches further comprising an alarm configured to perform an alarm operation according to a type of the detection target (Paragraph [0103], “Otherwise, even when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the transmission and the brake device are not operated, and an alarm device is operated and a head light is turned on so as to threaten the animal.”).
Regarding claim 8, Hiramatsu teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Hiramatsu further teaches wherein the travel controller is configured or programmed to perform the avoidance travel after the alarm device performs the alarm operation (Paragraph [0090], “At the time of working while traveling autonomously in the field H which is the set work area, when the person detection sensor 70 detects a person in a first range E1 (FIG. 4), the control device 30 gives first alarm sound by the speaker 51 which is first stage alarm and gives display by the display means 49 and the display 113 of the remote control device 112 and simultaneously stop the traveling.”).
Regarding claim 9, Hiramatsu teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Hiramatsu further teaches wherein the travel controller is configured or programmed to enable deceleration driving of the vehicle body according to a type of the detection target (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person, and when what is detected is the animal, the sudden stop and the reduction are not performed," here the system is performing avoidance travel operations based on a determination of a type of obstacle being human or an animal such as a bird, and if the obstacle is detected to be an animal the vehicle response distance will be smaller than in a case where the detection is a human)
and in a case where the detection target is an animal other than a human, a traveling speed after deceleration is higher or a deceleration is smaller than that in a case where the detection target is a human (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person, and when what is detected is the animal, the sudden stop and the reduction are not performed. Namely, the animal such as a dog, a cat or a bird escapes normally when the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 approaches, whereby there is almost no possibility of collision. Rather, by approach of the animal to the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1, the person detection sensor 70 may response so that the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 is reduced or stopped, whereby the work is obstructed. Then, when it is recognized by the image processing from the camera 42 that the animal enters the first range E1, the second range E2 or the third range E3, a signal from the person detection sensor 70 is canceled so as not to reduce or stop the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1. Otherwise, even when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the transmission and the brake device are not operated, and an alarm device is operated and a head light is turned on so as to threaten the animal. Or, when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the image is displayed by the display means 49 and the display 113 and the transmission and the brake device are operated by operation of an operator," here the system is performing avoidance travel operations based on a determination of a type of obstacle being human or an animal, and if the obstacle is detected to be an animal the vehicle deceleration will be smaller than in a case where the detection is a human).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US-20170135277) in view of Posselius (US 20180319392).
Regarding claim 3, Hiramatsu teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Hiramatsu further teaches the travel controller is configured or programmed to perform, in a case where the detection target is an animal other than a human, avoidance travel with the avoidance distance smaller than that in a case where the detection target is another object (Paragraph [0103], "The camera 42 also can detect an obstacle. An image photted by the camera 42 is processed by the control device 30 so as to detect an animal other than a person, and when what is detected is the animal, the sudden stop and the reduction are not performed. Namely, the animal such as a dog, a cat or a bird escapes normally when the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 approaches, whereby there is almost no possibility of collision. Rather, by approach of the animal to the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1, the person detection sensor 70 may response so that the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1 is reduced or stopped, whereby the work is obstructed. Then, when it is recognized by the image processing from the camera 42 that the animal enters the first range E1, the second range E2 or the third range E3, a signal from the person detection sensor 70 is canceled so as not to reduce or stop the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1. Otherwise, even when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the transmission and the brake device are not operated, and an alarm device is operated and a head light is turned on so as to threaten the animal. Or, when the person detection sensor 70 detects the animal, the image is displayed by the display means 49 and the display 113 and the transmission and the brake device are operated by operation of an operator," here the system is performing avoidance travel operations based on a determination of a type of obstacle being an animal, and if the obstacle is detected to be an animal the vehicle response distance will be smaller than in a case where the detection is another object).
However Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach wherein the discrimination processor is configured or programmed to discriminate, as a type of a detection target, a device configured to perform avoidance behavior by itself.
Posselius teaches an obstacle detection system for a work vehicle, a first sensor assembly indicative of presence of an obstacle within a field of view of the first sensor assembly including
wherein the discrimination processor is configured or programmed to discriminate, as a type of a detection target, a device configured to perform avoidance behavior by itself (Paragraph [0053], “While a herd of cows is disclosed above, the obstacle detection system may be utilized for other types of obstacles, such as stationary obstacle (e.g., trees, posts, etc.) and/or moving obstacle (e.g., vehicles, other animals, etc.),” here the system can be used to identify and respond to a plurality of obstacle types including animals, or vehicles/devices configured to perform avoidance behavior by itself)
and the travel controller is configured or programmed to perform avoidance travel in a case where the detection target is the device (Paragraph [0052], “the signal includes information regarding the type of obstacle (e.g., the herd of cows 106). Upon receiving the signal, the controller of the first autonomous work vehicle system 10 may instruct the speed control system to stop the autonomous work vehicle system or reduce the speed of the autonomous work vehicle system to avoid the encounter with the herd of cows (e.g., based on the velocity of the herd),” here the system is using the type of obstacle and determining an appropriate response in order to avoid the obstacle, while Posselius does not explicitly teach a smaller response for an animal as opposed to a human or vehicle, Hiramatsu teaches these limitations by determining a lesser response for detected animals instead of humans).
Hiramatsu and Posselius are analogous art as they are both generally related to work vehicles and detecting and avoiding obstacles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the discrimination processor is configured or programmed to discriminate, as a type of a detection target, a device configured to perform avoidance behavior by itself of Posselius in the system for determining detected animals of Hiramatsu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the efficiency of the system by determining information such a type, position, and velocity of obstacles and then responding appropriately (Paragraph [0052], “the controller may instruct the steering control system to direct the first autonomous work vehicle system 10 around the herd of cows 106 (e.g., in combination with instructions to the speed control system to reduce the speed of the autonomous work vehicle system). Because the first autonomous work vehicle system 10 may respond to the herd of cows 106 before reaching the herd of cows, the efficiency of the agricultural operations may be enhanced”).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US-20170135277) in view of Iwase (US 20240023473).
Regarding claim 3, Hiramatsu teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach further comprising: a behavior detector configured to detect behavior of the detection target based on a detection result by the detector and to stop one or both of the avoidance travel and the alarm operation when behavior of the detection target moving away from the vehicle body is detected.
Iwase teaches when an obstacle is detected in the first detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle including
further comprising: a behavior detector configured to detect behavior of the detection target based on a detection result by the detector and to stop one or both of the avoidance travel and the alarm operation when behavior of the detection target moving away from the vehicle body is detected (Paragraph [0067], “The traveling processing part 113 cancels the travel restriction (stop) of the work vehicle 10 when the determination processing part 114 determines that the obstacle B is not going to enter another detection area from the non-detection area. Specifically, the traveling processing part 113 returns the traveling state of the work vehicle 10 to that before the travel restriction was executed when the determination processing part 114 determines that the obstacle B is not going to enter another detection area from the non-detection area. For example, when the detection processing part 112 detects an obstacle B in the deceleration area K42 of the obstacle sensor 18R while the work vehicle 10 is traveling automatically, the traveling processing part 113 causes the work vehicle 10 to decelerate. Subsequently, for example, when the obstacle B moves outside the deceleration area K42 (to a non-detection area) and there is no other detection area behind it, the traveling processing part 113 cancels the deceleration of the work vehicle 10 and causes the work vehicle 10 to return to normal travel.”).
Hiramatsu and Iwase are analogous art as they are both generally related to work vehicles and detecting and avoiding obstacles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include further comprising: a behavior detector configured to detect behavior of the detection target based on a detection result by the detector and to stop one or both of the avoidance travel and the alarm operation when behavior of the detection target moving away from the vehicle body is detected of Iwase in the system for determining detected animals of Hiramatsu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent unnecessary work restrictions and therefore improve the efficiency of the machine (Paragraph [0123], “an unnecessary travel restriction is executed if the detection areas of the obstacle sensors 18 (detection area K1, etc.) are set within a certain range, regardless of the model of the work machine 14, and this results in a problem of reduced work efficiency”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Danguchi (US-20240141622) teaches systems and methods for obstacle avoidance using work restrictions in a work vehicle. Oguro (US-20180284789) teaches a vehicle control system includes a detector that detects an obstacle present in a space around a vehicle and separated from a road surface, and an action plan generating part that estimates at least one of a size and a type of the obstacle detected by the detector. Kaji (US-20200103907) teaches a vehicle control system includes: a recognizer configured to recognize an obstacle in a moving direction of a vehicle; an estimator configured to estimate at least one of a kind and a shape of the obstacle recognized by the recognizer; and an action plan generator configured to generate an action plan of the vehicle based on an estimation result of the estimator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights