DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weed et al. (U.S. 20200198561) in view of Nishi et al. (U.S. 20190382005)
In re claim 1, Weed teaches a utility vehicle (fig. 9; four wheel vehicle 11, such as a utility vehicle; [0115]), comprising:
a frame (fig. 1; frame 104; [0089]; fig. 9, frame not numbered but shown);
a prime mover (fig. 1-2; power system 110 is connected to power system 114, which electrically couples on or more batteries; [0091-0092]; engine supported by the frame; [0015]; fig. 2; Power system 110 includes a prime mover 112 …prime movers 112 include internal combustion engines; [0092]) supported by the frame;
an operator area (fig. 9; generally around the drivers seat) with a first set of controls (fig. 9; one or more user interfaces 150; [0115]) that is configured to control the prime mover (as indicated in fig. 1-2), wherein
the first set of controls is accessible while an operator is seated in the operator area (as indicated/suggested in fig. 5-10); and
a second set of controls (input device 152 includes…inputs from frequency operated button (FOB); [0098]; fig. 33; key FOB 920; [0285]) provided on an exterior of the utility vehicle (note: the key fob 920 may be placed or sat on an exterior of a vehicle, such as a vehicle hood/trunk/other exterior surface, as is common in the art and meets the requirements of this limitation; further note: a fob is considered to be a form of a remote control),
outside of the operator area (as is known in the art, key FOBs can be accessed both inside and outside of the vehicle (or operators area)).
Weed further teaches
a first set of controls (fig. 9; one or more user interfaces 150; [0115]) that is configured to control the vehicle (as indicated in fig. 1-2; Additionally, and/or alternatively, a controller (e.g., a user interface controller 156 and/or an accessory controller 140) within the vehicles 100 shown in FIGS. 5-10 may receive, control, and/or transmit information to the accessories, such as accessories 202, 204, 206, 208. Additionally, and/or alternatively, the controller may also provide power to the accessories; [0115])
Weed lacks explicitly stating wherein
a first set of controls that is configured to control the prime mover;
the second set of controls (fob) being configured to control the prime mover.
Nishi teaches
a first set of controls (fig. 26; the driver part 205 includes, for example, various manual operation devices, such as a steering wheel 211…shuttle lever 214…clutch pedal 216; [0414]; note: an accelerator pedal/lever operated fuel metering valve/governor is not listed, but is considered to be necessarily present so as to control engine rpm, as is commonly known in the art) that is configured to control the prime mover (as explained above).
a second set of controls (fig. 26; via. remote controller 270; [0461]) separate from the first set of controls (as indicated in fig. 26 and [0461]) being configured to control the prime mover (driving start, driving stop; [0461]; remote controller 270 includes start switch 270A, stop switch 270B; [0465]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Weed, to incorporate a first set of controls that is configured to control the prime mover and a second set of controls configured to control the prime mover, as clearly suggested and taught by Nishi, in order to more reliably keep a work vehicle from coming into contact with an obstacle during automated driving (abstract).
In re claim 3, Weed and Nishi teach the utility vehicle of claim 1, and Nishi further teaches wherein
the second set of controls is configured to provide a control signal to a vehicle controller of the utility vehicle (as explained above and indicated in fig. 4; via. remote control device 100; [0043-0044; 0083-0084]; note: remote control device can control the vehicle to driver, in a forward direction, stop, and also to drive in a reverse direction), wherein
the vehicle controller is configured to control the prime mover (fig. 4; as indicated via. drive position, reverse position; [0044; 0083-0084]).
In re claim 4, Weed and Nishi teach the utility vehicle of claim 3, and Nishi further teaches wherein
the vehicle controller includes
a power steering controller configured to control operation of a steering system of the utility vehicle (When the manual driving mode is selected, the power steering unit 24 steers the right and left front wheels 9 based on an operation to rotate the steering wheel 19. Also, when the automated driving mode is selected, the power steering unit 24 steers the right and left front wheels 9 based on a control instruction from the main ECU 30; [0243]).
In re claim 6, see claims 1 and 3 above.
In re claim 7, Weed and Nishi teach the utility vehicle of claim 1, and Weed further teaches
a bed supported by the frame (as shown in fig. 9; note: bed, roll bar and frame rails shown/indicated, but not numbered).
Weed lacks wherein
the second set of controls is attached to the utility vehicle at the bed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second set of controls attached to the utility vehicle at the bed, roll bar or other easily accessed portion or the vehicle body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (such as locating a set of controls, such as a second set of controls to the bed, roll bar or other easily accessed portion or the vehicle body) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weed et al. (U.S. 20200198561) in view of Nishi et al. (U.S. 20190382005) and in further view of Averill et al. (U.S. 20160098096).
In re claim 2, Weed and Nishi teach the utility vehicle of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein
the second set of controls is removably attached to the exterior of the utility vehicle.
Averill discloses an analogous accessory controller (fig. 4; the modular accessory controller 30 may be electrically coupled to a plurality of accessories…and may be in electrical communication with a vehicle controller…; [0020]) for a vehicle, and further discloses wherein
the second set of controls (fig. 1, 3, 8 and 9; the modular accessory controller 30 may be electrically coupled to a winch controller; [0020]; and includes a first and second control button 18, 20; [0022]; note: fig. 6a-6c and fig. 9 show a removable button pad of the control interface) is removably attached to the exterior of the utility vehicle (as shown in fig. 8, and indicated in [0050], the second set of controls can be mounted/removably attached to an exterior of a vehicle (such as a roll bar or a bed))
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Weed, to incorporate wherein the second set of controls is removably attached to the exterior of the utility vehicle, as clearly suggested and taught by Averill, in order to allow a user to comfortably adjust operation of multiple vehicle accessories from a single riding position in the vehicle ([0018]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weed et al. (U.S. 20200198561) in view of Nishi et al. (U.S. 20190382005) and in further view of Nelson et al. (U.S. 9797247).
In re claim 5, Weed and Nishi teach the utility vehicle of claim 1, but fail to further teach wherein
the second set of controls includes
a joystick.
Nelson teaches an analogous input device (fig. 2-3; second input device 248 may be a second joystick; [Col. 21, ln 45-67]), and further teaches
wherein the forward input control and the reverse input control are configured to control movement of the vehicle when the remote input device is in a remote mode of operation (movement of the second input device 248 controls movement and steering of the machine 100 such that forward movement propels the machine 100 in a forward direction, backward movement propels the machine 100 in a reverse direction; [Col. 21, ln 45-67]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Weed , to incorporate a forward input control and a reverse input control into the joystick control, so as to configured to control movement of the vehicle, as clearly suggested and taught by Nelson, in order to control the movement (such as steering, acceleration, braking, etc.) of the movement, since both references teach art equivalent means for controlling the movement of the vehicle.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weed et al. (U.S. 20200198561) in view of Nishi et al. (U.S. 20190382005) and in further view of Weiss (U.S. 20240198797).
In re claim 8, Weed and Nishi teach the utility vehicle of claim 1, but lacks wherein
the second set of controls includes a tether having an adjustable length.
Weiss teaches an analogous vehicle having
a set of controls (fig. 5a; remote controller 2000; [0037]) including a tether having an adjustable length (fig. 5a-6; a tether 1800 comprises a first end 1810 interconnected with the vehicle and a second end 1820 adapted for being removably interconnected with the remote-controller 2000. In certain embodiments the first end 1810 of the tether is interconnected with the vehicle 1000 wherein the tether is retractable with a spooling device 1900, such as a winch or other mechanism to allow the retraction of the tether 1800 when not in use, or allow adjustment of the length of the tether; [0037]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Weed, to incorporate wherein a set of controls (such as a second set) includes a tether having an adjustable length, as clearly suggested and taught by Weiss, in order to allow the user to be towed by the vehicle while simultaneously remotely piloting the vehicle. In a remote piloting configuration, the remote-control unit is disconnected from the vehicle, wherein the remote-control unit is in wireless communication with the vehicle to allow the remote piloting of the vehicle at a distance ([0010]).
In re claim 9, Weed, Nishi and Weiss teach the utility vehicle of claim 8, and Weiss further teaches wherein
the tether is configured to be removably attached to
an operator (The second end 1820 of the tether comprises a connecting device 1830, such as a carabiner or spring-hook to allow the rapid interconnection and removal of the remote-controller 2000 from the second end 1820 of the tether. The connecting device 1830 of certain embodiments optionally comprises a quick-disconnect device which is optionally actuated by the user, and/or optionally actuated when certain criteria (e.g. in excess of a threshold force) are met to prevent injury to the user; [0037]) or
another vehicle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weed et al. (U.S. 20200198561) in view of Nishi et al. (U.S. 20190382005) and in further view of Kim (U.S. 20200324773).
In re claim 10, Weed and Nishi teach the utility vehicle of claim 1, but fails to further teach wherein
the second set of controls includes a beacon.
Kim teaches an analogous removable input device (as indicated in fig. 1; detachably attached; [0066]) for a vehicle (integrated control apparatus for an autonomous driving vehicle; [abstract]) and further teaches
a beacon (AVN; [0064]; note: AVN is typically used in the art to indicate audio visual navigation. The specification states in [0065] that the beacon is used (along with sensors 114) to determine location of device 200 (which beacon 220 is part of). Lacking a more specific special definition of a “beacon” the AVN as disclosed by Kim is also able to determine its location (current location) further note: navigation units are able to navigate from a current position to a desired position)
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Weed , to incorporate wherein the second set of controls includes a beacon, as clearly suggested and taught by Kim, in order to arrive at an integrated control apparatus is configured to perform starting, shifting, accelerating, braking, and steering of a vehicle through one integrated system, so that the integrated control apparatus can be easily used for autonomous driving vehicles, and a commercial value by increasing convenience can be more improved ([0006]).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weed et al. (U.S. 20200198561) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. 9797247).
In re claim 11, Weed teaches a method for managing a vehicle under automatic control (the controller 156 records the GPS location of the vehicle 100 during operation (e.g., as the vehicle 100 is being driven). Then, at another time, the controller 156 uses the recorded GPS locations of the vehicle 100 to autonomously plow the route by replaying the recorded route. [0258]; Here, the autonomously plowing encompasses both autonomous control of the plow blade, and also autonomous control/driving of the vehicle, such that snow can be plowed along the route in an autonomous manner), comprising:
operating vehicle under automatic control (as indicated in [0257-0258], and as explained above and below);
suspending the automatic control (the controller 156 records the GPS location of the vehicle 100 during operation (e.g., as the vehicle 100 is being driven); [0257]; the vehicle 100 during operation (e.g., as the vehicle 100 is being driven); [0258]; Here, as indicated in [0257-0258] the vehicle is under manual control by the driver/operator (indicating suspension of the automatic control, and then at a later time, the vehicle is under automatic control);
when the automatic control is suspended,
receiving a manual movement instruction at a vehicle controller of the vehicle (fig. 5-10; vehicle is being driven; [0257]; vehicle is being driven; [0258]; Here, since the vehicle is being driven, the manual movement instruction is via. steering wheel/handle bars, via. accelerator pedal/throttle and via. brake pedal/brake lever, as is typical, routine and common in the art according to the various vehicles depicted in fig. 5-10);
moving the vehicle according to the manual movement instruction (as explained above).
Weed lacks
determining, at the vehicle controller of the vehicle,
whether to resume automatic movement of the vehicle; and
when it is determined to resume automatic movement of the vehicle,
moving the vehicle according to the automatic control.
Nelson an analogous vehicle control system and method (abstract) having an input device (fig. 2-3; second input device 248 may be a second joystick; [Col. 21, ln 45-67]), and further teaches
determining, at the vehicle controller of the vehicle (autonomous control switch 282 may be disposed on the machine 100 and is configured to select/deselect autonomous status for the machine 100; [Col. 17, ln 4-6]),
whether to resume automatic movement of the vehicle (Here, in [Col. 18, ln 5-9] and as explained above in [Col. 17, ln 4-6], it is determined at the vehicle controller of the vehicle, via operator selection/deselection of switch 282, whether to resume automatic/autonomous movement of the vehicle); and
when it is determined to resume automatic movement of the vehicle (as explained above, and indicated via. switch 282),
moving the vehicle according to the automatic control (as indicated above).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Weed, to incorporate determining, at the vehicle controller of the vehicle, whether to resume automatic movement of the vehicle; and when it is determined to resume automatic movement of the vehicle, moving the vehicle according to the automatic control, as clearly suggested and taught by Nelson, in order to control an operation of the machine, based on the mine map, to avoid collision of the machine with the virtual wall or the temporary wall added to the mine map ([Col. 2, ln 36-39]).
In re claim 13, Weed and Nelson teach the method of claim 11, and Nelson further teaches
receiving a user input regarding resumption of automatic movement of the vehicle (as explained in claim 11 above, and indicated via. switch 282), and wherein
determining whether to resume automatic movement is based on the user input (as explained in claim 11 above, and indicated via. switch 282).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weed et al. (U.S. 20200198561) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. 9797247) and in further view of Nilsson et al. (U.S. 20170297569).
In re claim 12, Weed and Nelson teach the method of claim 11, but lack wherein
determining whether to resume automatic movement of the vehicle includes
determining whether user input has not been received for a predetermined amount of time.
Nilsson teaches an analogous autonomous vehicle method (abstract) and further teaches
determining whether to resume automatic movement of the vehicle (determining any disturbances in sensor data, vehicle systems or components enabling the autonomous drive mode of the autonomous road vehicle 2; [0086]; if a disturbance is determined, such that the autonomous drive mode is incapacitated, 35 signaling to a driver environment of the autonomous road vehicle 2 a request for a driver to take over control of the autonomous road vehicle 2; [0087]) includes
determining whether user input has not been received for a predetermined amount of time (after a disturbance has been determined the method continues by 36 determining if control of the autonomous road vehicle 2 has been assumed by a driver thereof within a pre-determined time, and upon a negative determination thereof the method continues by 37 controlling the autonomous road vehicle 2 by the autonomous drive control unit 6 to follow the most recently calculated safe trajectory 10 to a stop within the drivable space 8 in a safe stoppage maneuver; [0089]; Here, as indicated in [0086-0089], and as explained above, if a disturbance occurs, such that the autonomous drive mode is incapacitated, the method tries to transfer control to the driver. This incapacitation of the autonomous driving mode indicates that automatic movement of the vehicle has been at least temporarily paused if not suspended, and thus unable to operate normally. Further the method continues to request that the driver take over and if the driver does not assume control within a pre-determined time (which necessarily requires some sort of driver input), the method continues by resuming control of the autonomous vehicle).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Weed, to incorporate determining whether to resume automatic movement of the vehicle includes determining whether user input has not been received for a predetermined amount of time, as clearly suggested and taught by Nilsson, in order to minimize, or at least reduce, the risk of an accident in the case where an autonomous road vehicle must stop and a driver thereof is not capable of taking over control the road vehicle ([0092]).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weed et al. (U.S. 20200198561) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. 9797247) and in further view of Diessner (U.S. 20200282974).
In re claim 14, Weed and Nelson teach method of claim 11, but lack wherein
determining whether to resume automatic movement includes determining whether an obstacle is obstructing the vehicle.
Diessner teaches a vehicular parking system including
a plurality of exterior viewing cameras, at least one receiver and a control; and
controls the vehicle to autonomously drive the vehicle from the entrance of the parking structure toward a parking location in the parking structure (abstract)
and Diessner further teaches
determining whether to resume automatic movement includes determining whether an obstacle is obstructing the vehicle (fig. 7; The system may perform object detection during the maneuver using cameras/UPA/Radar and may stop the vehicle if an object is detected on the path of travel of the vehicle, whereby the system may stop or pause the vehicle maneuver until the determined object is removed, and then may resume the maneuver; [0024]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Weed, to incorporate determining whether to resume automatic movement includes determining whether an obstacle is obstructing the vehicle, as clearly suggested and taught by Diessner, in order to park the vehicle consistently in the same parking position ([0024]).
In re claim 15, see claim 14 above. note: cameras/UPA/Radar are sensors performing object detection.
In re claim 16, see claims 11 and 14 above, and Diessner further teaches detecting, based on data received from one or more object sensors, an obstacle and when the obstacle is detected, providing an indication of the obstacle to a device (mobile device; [0019]).
In re claim 17, see claim 16 above. note: a mobile device having a remote control application is a removable input device of the vehicle.
In re claim 18, see claims 16 and 17 above.
In re claim 19, see claims 15-16 above. note: cameras used for object detection provide an indication of distance, size, or image data for the obstacle, and radar used for object detection provide an indication of distance and/or size data for the obstacle
In re claim 20, see claims 14 and 16 above. note: cameras used for object detection provide image data.
Conclusion
The prior art of Thompson et al. (U.S. 20210387528) teaches an analogous vehicle system, having an analogous second set of controls (keyfob 104; [0052]) and further teaches wherein
the second set of controls configured to control the prime mover (in some examples control system 190 may be in communication with a remote engine start receiver 195 (or transceiver) that receives wireless signals 106 from a key fob 104 having a remote start button 105. In other examples (not shown), a remote engine start may be initiated via a cellular a telephone, or smartphone based system where a user's cellular telephone sends data to a server and the server communicates with the vehicle to start the engine; [0052]).
The prior art of Holub et al. (U.S. 20140379174) teaches an analogous vehicle system/method having a fob (fig. 1; fob 34) and a remote start function (fig. 2b; [0031]) and further teaches
the operation begins when vehicle 12 is parked and shut off. Controller 18 waits to receive a remote engine start command from the driver as indicated in decision block 62. The driver provides the remote engine start command when the driver wants to precondition vehicle 12. Engine 14 is not started until the driver provides the remote engine start command as indicated in block 64. Controller 18 causes engine 14 to be started upon the driver remotely starting the engine by providing the remote engine start command to the controller as indicated in block 66. The driver may remotely start engine 14 by transmitting the remote engine start command from one or more of the communication devices of the driver to one or more of the communication devices of vehicle 12 ([0031]; Here, the driver communication devices are the fob 34 and/or cell phone 32, as indicated in fig. 1).
The prior art of Ohtani et al. (U.S. 20190248414) teaches a steering assist apparatus configured to
perform a steering assist control for changing a steering angle of a vehicle in such a manner that the vehicle moves along a target path;
determine whether a newly-detected object is a stationary object or a moving object;
cancel the steering assist control and inform a driver that the steering assist control is cancelled when the newly-detected object is the stationary object and a cancel condition is satisfied;
pause the steering assist control and inform the driver that the steering assist control is paused when the newly-detected object is the moving object and a pause condition is satisfied; and
resume the steering assist control when a resume condition is satisfied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights