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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umemoto et al (US 20230104274 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Umemoto discloses an autonomous travel method for causing a work vehicle to autonomously travel along a target route (see at least [abstract], [0108-0109], and [0114-0115]), comprising: setting a travel mode of the work vehicle to an autonomous travel mode or a manual travel mode (see at least [0108-0109], [0114-0115], [0133-0134], [0135-0138], [0141-0144], [0147-0150], [0152-0154], and [0209-0211]); and maintaining the autonomous travel mode when the work vehicle set in the autonomous travel mode satisfies an autonomous travel maintaining condition (see at least [0133-0136], [0141-0144], [0148-0150], [0152-0154], [0209-0211], and [0216]).
With respect to claim 3, Umemoto discloses wherein: the autonomous travel is stopped when the work vehicle autonomously traveling in the autonomous travel mode satisfies an autonomous travel stop condition (see at least [0108-0109], [0114-0115], [0133-0134], [0135-0138], [0141-0144], [0147-0150], [0152-0154], and [0209-0211]), and resumption of the autonomous travel is permitted when the work vehicle satisfies the autonomous travel maintaining condition (see at least [0108-0109], [0114-0115], [0133-0134], [0135-0138], [0141-0144], [0147-0150], [0152-0154], [0209-0211], and [0216]).
With respect to claim 4, Umemoto discloses wherein: the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the autonomous travel is stopped by an operation of an operation acceptor that temporarily stops the autonomous travel (see at least [0108-0109], [0114-0115], [0133-0138], [0141-0144], [0147-0150], [0152-0154], [0209-0211], and [0216]).
With respect to claim 5, Umemoto discloses wherein: the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the autonomous travel is stopped due to positioning accuracy becoming less than a predetermined accuracy (see at least [0108-0109], [0114-0115], [0133-0138], [0141-0144], [0147-0150], [0152-0154], [0209-0211], and [0216]).
With respect to claim 6, Umemoto discloses wherein: the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the autonomous travel is stopped due to detection of an obstacle (see at least [0108-0109], [0114-0115], [0133-0138], [0141-0144], [0147-0150], [0152-0154], [0209-0211], and [0216]).
With respect to claim 12, it is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 13, it is directed to a system claim that recites substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
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 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 2, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto et al (US 20230104274 A1) in view of Yasuyama et al (US 20250117014 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Umemoto do not specifically disclose wherein: when the work vehicle set in the autonomous travel mode does not satisfy the autonomous travel maintaining condition, the work vehicle is switched to the manual travel mode.
Yasuyama teaches wherein: when the work vehicle set in the autonomous travel mode does not satisfy the autonomous travel maintaining condition, the work vehicle is switched to the manual travel mode (see at least [0074-0075], [0083], [0095], [0122-0123], [0127], [0139-0140], and [0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Umemoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yasuyama wherein: when the work vehicle set in the autonomous travel mode does not satisfy the autonomous travel maintaining condition, the work vehicle is switched to the manual travel mode. This would be done to improve resumption of autonomous driving of a vehicle (see Yasuyama para 0004).
With respect to claim 7, Umemoto do not specifically disclose wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when an operation of setting the work machine to a non-work position is received while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode, and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the work vehicle receives an operation to set the work machine to the non-work position while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode.
Yasuyama teaches wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when an operation of setting the work machine to a non-work position is received while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode (see at least [0074-0075], [0083], [0095], [0122-0123], [0127], [0139-0140], and [0196]), and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the work vehicle receives an operation to set the work machine to the non-work position while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode (see at least [0113-0119], [0027-0029], [0073-0076], [0095-0106], [0110-0113], [0118-0120], [0148], and [0184-0187]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Umemoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yasuyama wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when an operation of setting the work machine to a non-work position is received while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode, and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the work vehicle receives an operation to set the work machine to the non-work position while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode. This would be done to improve resumption of autonomous driving of a vehicle (see Yasuyama para 0004).
With respect to claim 10, Umemoto do not specifically disclose wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when a communication state between the work vehicle and an operation terminal is deteriorated to a predetermined state while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode, and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the communication state between the work vehicle and the operation terminal is deteriorated to the predetermined state while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode.
Yasuyama teaches wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when a communication state between the work vehicle and an operation terminal is deteriorated to a predetermined state while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode (see at least [0017], [0025], [0164-0165], [0182], and [0184-0187]), and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the communication state between the work vehicle and the operation terminal is deteriorated to the predetermined state while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode (see at least [0017], [0025], [0164-0165], [0182], and [0184-0187]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Umemoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yasuyama wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when a communication state between the work vehicle and an operation terminal is deteriorated to a predetermined state while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode, and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the communication state between the work vehicle and the operation terminal is deteriorated to the predetermined state while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode. This would be done to improve resumption of autonomous driving of a vehicle (see Yasuyama para 0004).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto et al (US 20230104274 A1) in view of Kume et al (US 20240288883 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Umemoto do not specifically disclose wherein: the work vehicle is switched to the manual travel mode when an operator leaves a driver's seat while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode, and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the operator leaves the driver's seat while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode.
Kume teaches wherein: the work vehicle is switched to the manual travel mode when an operator leaves a driver's seat while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode (see at least [0082-0083]), and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the operator leaves the driver's seat while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode (see at least [0082-0083], [0087], [0096], and [claims 6-7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Umemoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kume teaches wherein: the work vehicle is switched to the manual travel mode when an operator leaves a driver's seat while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode, and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the operator leaves the driver's seat while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode. This would be done to safely response to determined/detected abnormality of a vehicle (see Kume para 0004).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto et al (US 20230104274 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20210323579 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Umemoto do not specifically disclose wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when a steering operation on a steering section is received while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode, and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the steering operation on the steering section is received while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode.
Kim teaches wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when a steering operation on a steering section is received while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode (see at least [0019] and [0053-0060]), and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the steering operation on the steering section is received while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode (see at least [0011-0013], [0021-0025], [0019] and [0053-0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Umemoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kim teaches wherein: the work vehicle switches to the manual travel mode when a steering operation on a steering section is received while the work vehicle autonomously travels in the autonomous travel mode, and the work vehicle maintains the autonomous travel mode when the steering operation on the steering section is received while the work vehicle is stopped in the autonomous travel mode. This would be done to perform maximized responses when autonomous vehicle steering is detected (see Kim para 0004).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto et al (US 20230104274 A1) in view of Sato et al (US 20180059661 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Umemoto do not specifically disclose wherein, in a case where the work vehicle that has stopped the autonomous travel satisfies the autonomous travel maintaining condition, resumption of the autonomous travel is permitted when positioning accuracy of the work vehicle is equal to or more than predetermined accuracy, and a notification of warning information is made for an operator when the positioning accuracy of the work vehicle is less than the predetermined accuracy.
Sato teaches wherein, in a case where the work vehicle that has stopped the autonomous travel satisfies the autonomous travel maintaining condition, resumption of the autonomous travel is permitted when positioning accuracy of the work vehicle is equal to or more than predetermined accuracy (see at least [0006-0007], [0022-0025], [0034-0042], [0044-0047], [0050-0052], and [0056-0057]), and a notification of warning information is made for an operator when the positioning accuracy of the work vehicle is less than the predetermined accuracy (see at least [0006-0007], [0022-0025], [0034-0042], [0044-0047], [0050-0052], and [0056-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Umemoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kim teaches wherein, in a case where the work vehicle that has stopped the autonomous travel satisfies the autonomous travel maintaining condition, resumption of the autonomous travel is permitted when positioning accuracy of the work vehicle is equal to or more than predetermined accuracy, and a notification of warning information is made for an operator when the positioning accuracy of the work vehicle is less than the predetermined accuracy. This would be done to account for situations in which performing autonomous driving is difficult and thus increasing safety of vehicle operating in autonomous driving (see Sato para 0004).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights