DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 21-31, 33-38, and 40 have been examined in this application. Claims 21-23, 27, 31, 33, 34, and 40 are amended. Claims 24-26, 28-30, and 35-38 are as previously presented. Claims 1-20, 32, and 39 are cancelled.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 8/27/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 6/17/2025 and 8/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the drawings filed 8/26/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the specification filed 8/26/2024 is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/27/2024, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the specification and drawing objections (presented on p. 7), the arguments and persuasive and the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 7 under the heading “Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)”), the remarks are acknowledged. The interpretation of “squaring adjustment system” in Claim 31 is withdrawn due to the recitation of structure (a processor). However, Claim 38 has not been amended in a similar manner and the term in Claim 38 continues to invoke 112(f). No reasoned arguments have been provided regarding why Applicant does not believe the term should invoke 112(f). Additionally, the claims are re-evaluated in light of the amendments (see Claim Interpretation below). The interpretation under 112(f) is merely a matter of claim interpretation and not an objection or rejection to be held in abeyance.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112(a) (presented on p. 7-8 under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112(b) (presented on p. 8 under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 9-13 under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103”), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. The arguments (p. 11) state that there is a difference between the gaps and overlaps in WO2017/074863A1 (Meyer) and the overlaps and skips in the claim. These arguments are moot as Meyer is no longer relied upon for these limitations. However, it is noted that the limitation to display overlaps between implement swaths and skips between implement swaths in the independent claims is broad, and does not specify that the swaths must be in subsequent rows of the path.
Upon review of the amendments as a whole, the claims are determined to overcome the previous rejections and therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of WO2018/055921A1 (Hiramatsu) and US2020/0029487A1 (Dix) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of WO2017/074863A1 (Meyer), US2018/0024549A1 (Hurd), and US2017/0102702A1 (Ishijima et al.).
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 25 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 21 and 27, “automatic steering unit” should instead read “automatic steering system” for consistency.
In Claims 21 and 25, “the polygonal field boundaries” should instead read “the one or more polygonal field boundaries”
In Claim 21, the second “v)” should instead read “vi)”
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. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a path system” configured to perform the receive, define, plot, display, and engage functions in Claim 21,
(b) "a squaring adjustment system" that plots a square path or turn, in Claim 38.
The limitations invoke 112(f) because the claim limitations use the generic placeholder “system” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) the "path system" is interpreted to as a processor and algorithms for performing the recited functions, as described in paragraphs ¶017, 063 and Fig. 1B.
(b), the squaring adjustment system is understood to be a feature of the path system, as described in paragraph ¶0134, and therefore is interpreted to as a processor and algorithms for performing the recited functions.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-31, 33-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 21, 27, and 34, the claims recite populating additional boundary points “as needed to generate accurate guidance paths and implement swaths.” The disclosure as originally filed (e.g. specification filed 7/6/2020 ¶093) recites the path system 12 is configured to populate the boundary 18 with additional points to render a best-fit line (shown generally at 19) so as to smooth the boundaries 18, reduce the distance between the plotted boundary points and allow the path system 12 to plot guidance paths within the defined boundaries 18, as would be appreciated. While this provides support for the populating of additional boundary points to generate guidance paths (and therefore also swaths), there does not appear to be any description of populating the points “as needed” and how such a need is determined, and there does not appear to be any description of the points being needed “to generate accurate guidance paths” versus inaccurate or any other guidance paths, or what defines a path being accurate or not.
Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-26, 28-31, 33, 35-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 21 (for Claims 22-26), Claim 27 (for Claims 28-31 and 33), or Claim 34 (for Claims 35-38 and 40) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-31, 33-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 21, 27, and 34, the phrase “one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear whether the phrase “one or more” in the limitation means is referring to the polygonal field boundaries and regions in the alternative (i.e. the limitation requiring either plural polygonal field boundaries or plural regions or both), or alternatively whether “one or more” is only referring to the polygonal field boundaries (such that at least one polygonal field boundary and also plural regions are required), or alternatively is referring to any number of boundaries or regions (such that only a single boundary or region would read on the limitation), or some other interpretation or combination of these elements. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any defining of at least one element, the element being a polygonal field boundary or region.
Additionally, regarding Claims 21, 27, and 34, the limitation to populate additional boundary points “as needed to generate accurate guidance paths and implement swaths” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear how the “need” to populate additional boundary points is determined, and whether this involves some evaluation of accuracy (and what accuracy means in this context), or involves filling in points between certain distances of boundary points, or something else. Additionally in Claim 27, the word “accurate” is both underlined and struck through, and it is not clear whether the term is intended to be in the claim or not. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any populating of additional boundary points.
Claims 22-26, 28-31, 33, 35-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 21 (for Claims 22-26), Claim 27 (for Claims 28-31 and 33), or Claim 34 (for Claims 35-38 and 40) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 27, the limitation “plot guidance paths and corresponding implement swaths throughout the at least one polygonal field map” renders the claim indefinite. There is no antecedent basis for “the at least one polygonal field map.” It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions, or the stored map data, or something else, or is intended to be a new term in the claim. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as plotting the guidance paths and swaths corresponding to the one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions.
Claims 28-31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 27 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 31, it is not clear whether “a processor” is referring to the same processor already recited in Claim 27, or is some second, different processor. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the processor in interpreted as the same one previously recited.
Regarding Claim 34, the limitation “display the plotted guidance paths…” renders the claim indefinite. There is no antecedent basis for “plotted guidance paths” in the claim. It is unclear whether this is intended to refer to the boundaries and regions, or whether the limitation should be understood as plotting and displaying paths, or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as generating and displaying guidance paths.
Claims 35-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claims 21, 22, 24-28, 30, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2018/055921A1 (Hiramatsu) (English description relied upon for citations) in view of Published Application US2020/0029487A1 (Dix).
Regarding Claim 21, Hiramatsu discloses an agricultural vehicle guidance visualization system (see Figure 5, [0020], tractor 1 and communication terminal 46) for use with an agricultural vehicle operating an implement (see Figure 2, [0035]), comprising:
a) a display comprising a graphical user interface (see Figure 5, [0043] display 37), and e.g. Figure 7 interface):
b) a GNSS or GPS unit (see Figure 5, [0040] GNSS antenna/unit 49 in tractor) in operational communication with the display (see Figure 5, [0042] wireless communication between tractor and terminal);
c) an automatic steering system (see Figure 5, [0034] steering actuator, controller, control unit 4) in operational communication with the display (see Figure 5, [0042] wireless communication between tractor and terminal); and
d) an operations unit comprising a processor (see [0030, 0054], control unit 4 or wireless communication terminal 46 having CPU) in operational communication with the display, GNSS or GPS unit, and automatic steering unit (see Figure 5); and
e) a path system (see [0054] communication terminal having CPU, display control unit 31) configured to:
i) receive one or more field data inputs, including at least one of stored map data (see Figure 9, [0072] information about a field set in the past), user input (see [0073] option to set or change field information), or GNSS/GPS data (see [0075] recording field perimeter based on tractor positioning Note: the slash in “GNSS/GPS” being interpreted as “or”);
ii) define one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions from the field data inputs (see Figure 9, [0074]) and populate additional boundary points as needed to generate accurate guidance paths and implement swaths (see [0073] changing a previous field or [0075] “redo” function to specify further perimeter points – see also interpretation under 112(b));
iii) plot guidance paths within the polygonal field boundaries (see [0052, 0092], Figure 15, 17, [0094] unit 64, route P of tractor automatically generated, work and non-work/headland inside field boundary. Plural “paths” for multiple uses of the system, or multiple sections of route P);
iv) display the plotted guidance paths (see [0094] image is displayed showing the generated driving route) for user confirmation prior to the engagement of the automatic steering system (see [0095], after which, transfer data button to transfer to control unit of tractor);
v) display overlaps between implement swaths and skips between implement swaths (see Figure 13, [0088-0089] display overlap setting screen with overlap value and non-overlap (skip)); and
v) engage the automatic steering system via transmitting commands (see [0095] transfer data to the control unit of tractor 1) to execute assisted steering along the plotted guidance paths (see [0096] control unit stores route, [0097-0098] instructions to drive route P, [0034] steering),
wherein the plotted guidance paths include one or more of a heading (see Figures 16, 17, guidance path the tractor drives includes direction), a position and any user confirmed adjustment to the heading, path shape (see Figures 16, 17), path spacing (see Figures 16, 17, spacing from boundary or from previous row) or path position (see Figures 16, 17, path as line (i.e. set of position points)).
Hiramatsu further discloses the capability to display implement swaths (see Figure 16, swaths during working) does not explicitly recite the path system to:
iv) display the plotted guidance paths and corresponding implement swaths for user confirmation prior to the engagement of the automatic steering system.
However, Dix teaches a system for use with agricultural vehicles and implements (see e.g. [0020]), configured to:
display corresponding implement swaths (see Figure 8, [0031, 0042], display of coverage map for a field, including graphical representation of a swath, [0030-0031, 0043] which corresponds to path) prior to working (see [0042] for the area of field to be worked on).
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 the display of the route P of Hiramatsu to additionally display swaths to be worked as taught by Dix, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving user awareness and ease of use of automatic agricultural vehicles (see Dix, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 22, Hiramatsu discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the path system is further configured to apply an offset adjustment (see [0068] offset of work implement applied as work vehicle information).
Regarding Claim 24, Hiramatsu discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the path system is configured to display field obstacles (see [0076]).
Regarding Claim 25, Hiramatsu discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the polygonal field boundaries are drawn from stored boundary map data (see [0072]).
Regarding Claim 26, Hiramatsu discloses the system of claim 25, wherein the path system is configured to populate the stored boundary map data with one or more additional boundary points (see [0073] changing previously set field information).
Regarding Claim 27, Hiramatsu discloses a path system (see Figure 5, [0020], communication terminal 46) configured to be used on a display (see Figure 5, [0043] display 37), and e.g. Figure 7 interface) operationally integrated (see Figure 5, [0042] wireless communication between tractor and terminal, i.e. integrated with all connected components) with a GNSS or GPS unit (see Figure 5, [0040] GNSS antenna/unit 49 in tractor), an automatic steering unit (see Figure 5, [0034] steering actuator, controller, control unit 4), and an operations unit comprising a processor (see [0030, 0054], control unit 4 having CPU), in an agricultural vehicle operating an agricultural implement (see Figure 2, [0035]), having a swath (see [0068], Figure 13, work implement 3 having width), the path system configured to:
receive one or more field data inputs, including at least one of stored map data (see Figure 9, [0072] information about a field set in the past), user input (see [0073] option to set or change field information), or GNSS/GPS data (see [0075] recording field perimeter based on tractor positioning Note: the slash in “GNSS/GPS” being interpreted as “or”);
define one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions from the one or more field data inputs (see [0074], Figure 9) and populate additional boundary points as needed to generate accurate guidance paths and implement swaths (see [0073] changing a previous field or [0075] “redo” function to specify further perimeter points – see also interpretation under 112(b));
plot guidance paths throughout the at least one polygonal field map (see [0052, 0092], Figure 15, 17, [0094] unit 64, route P of tractor automatically generated, work and non-work/headland inside field boundary. Plural “paths” for multiple uses of the system, or multiple sections of route P);
display the plotted guidance paths (see [0094] image is displayed showing the generated driving route) for user confirmation prior to the engagement of the automatic steering system (see [0095], after which, transfer data button to transfer to control unit of tractor);
display overlaps between implement swaths and skips between implement swaths (see Figure 13, [0088-0089] display overlap setting screen with overlap value and non-overlap (skip)); and
engage the automatic steering system via transmitting commands (see [0095] transfer data to the control unit of tractor 1) to execute assisted steering along the plotted guidance paths (see [0096] control unit stores route, [0097-0098] instructions to drive route P, [0034] steering);
wherein the plotted guidance paths include one or more of a heading (see Figures 16, 17, guidance path the tractor drives includes direction), a position and any user confirmed adjustment to the heading, path shape (see Figures 16, 17), path spacing (see Figures 16, 17, spacing from boundary or from previous row) or path position (see Figures 16, 17, path as line (i.e. set of position points)).
Hiramatsu further discloses the capability to display implement swaths (see Figure 16, swaths during working) does not explicitly recite the path system to:
plot corresponding implement swaths, and
display the corresponding implement swaths for user confirmation prior to the engagement.
However, Dix teaches a system for use with agricultural vehicles and implements (see e.g. [0020]), configured to:
plot corresponding implement swaths (see [0042] generate coverage map including swaths), and
display the corresponding implement swaths (see Figure 8, [0031, 0042], display of coverage map for a field, including graphical representation of a swath, [0030-0031, 0043] which corresponds to path) prior to working (see [0042] for the area of field to be worked on).
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 the display of the route P of Hiramatsu to additionally display swaths to be worked as taught by Dix, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving user awareness and ease of use of automatic agricultural vehicles (see Dix, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 28, Hiramatsu discloses the path system of claim 27, wherein the path system is configured to display overlaps between implement swaths and skips between implement swaths (see Figure 13, [0088-0089] display overlap setting screen with overlap value and non-overlap (skip)).
Regarding Claim 30, Hiramatsu discloses the path system of claim 27, wherein the path system is configured to utilize user defined offsets (see [0068] offset of work implement used as work vehicle information).
Regarding Claim 31, Hiramatsu discloses the path system of claim 27, further comprising a squaring adjustment system comprising a processor configured to plot either a square path or a turn at a corner (see Figure 17, [0049] route P having arc-shaped connecting route, i.e. turns).
Regarding Claim 33, Hiramatsu discloses the path system of claim 27, wherein the path system is configured to display guidance path headings (see Figures 16, 17, guidance path the tractor drives includes direction), positions (see Figures 16, 17, path as line (i.e. set of position points)), overlaps between implement swaths and skips between implement swath (see Figure 13, [0088-0089] display overlap setting screen with overlap value and non-overlap (skip)).
Claims 34, 35, 37, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2018/055921A1 (Hiramatsu) (English description relied upon for citations) in view of Publication WO2017/074863A1 (Meyer), Further in view of Published Application US2020/0029487A1 (Dix)
Regarding Claim 34, Hiramatsu discloses a visualization and guidance system (see Figure 5, [0020], tractor 1 and communication terminal 46) for use with automatic steering (see Figure 5, [0034] steering actuator, controller, control unit 4) of an agricultural vehicle (see Figure 2, [0035]), comprising a path system (see [0054] communication terminal having CPU, display control unit 31), connected to a display (see Figure 5, [0043] display 37, connected with rest of system), a GNSS or GPS unit (see Figure 5, [0040] GNSS antenna/unit 49 in tractor), and an automatic steering system (see Figure 5, [0034] steering actuator, controller, control unit 4), wherein the path system is configured to:
a) receive one or more field data inputs, including at least one of stored map data (see Figure 9, [0072] information about a field set in the past), user input (see [0073] option to set or change field information), or GNSS/GPS data (see [0075] recording field perimeter based on tractor positioning Note: the slash in “GNSS/GPS” being interpreted as “or”);
b) define one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions from the field data inputs (see [0074], Figure 9) and populate additional boundary points as needed to generate accurate guidance paths and implement swaths (see [0073] changing a previous field or [0075] “redo” function to specify further perimeter points – see also interpretation under 112(b));
c) display the plotted guidance paths (see [0092-0094] generate route P, image is displayed showing the generated driving route) for user confirmation prior to the engagement of the automatic steering system (see [0095], after which, transfer data button to transfer to control unit of tractor), and display guidance path headings (see Figures 16, 17, guidance path the tractor drives includes direction) and positions (see Figures 16, 17, path as line (i.e. set of position points)) and overlaps between implement swaths and skips between implement swaths (see Figure 13, [0088-0089] display overlap setting screen with overlap value and non-overlap (skip)); and
d) engage the automatic steering system via transmitting commands (see [0095] transfer data to the control unit of tractor 1) to execute assisted steering along the plotted guidance paths (see [0096] control unit stores route, [0097-0098] instructions to drive route P, [0034] steering);
wherein the plotted guidance paths include one or more of a heading (see Figures 16, 17, guidance path the tractor drives includes direction), a position and any user confirmed adjustment to the heading, path shape (see Figures 16, 17), path spacing (see Figures 16, 17, spacing from boundary or from previous row) or path position (see Figures 16, 17, path as line (i.e. set of position points)).
Hiramatsu does not explicitly recite the path system:
configured to run on an operations unit and an in-cab display.
However, Meyer teaches a path system for a vehicle (see [0008-0009])
configured to run on an operations unit and an in-cab display (see [0009] control module connected to display, handling guidance information, and see Figure 4, in cab).
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 the separate tractor and display of Hiramatsu to be used for an in-cab system, as taught by Meyer, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the system to be used with additional hardware configurations and improv flexibility of the system to use various guidance algorithms (see Meyer [0006]).
Hiramatsu further discloses the capability to display implement swaths (see Figure 16, swaths during working) does not explicitly recite the path system to:
display corresponding implement swaths for user confirmation prior to the engagement of the automatic steering system.
However, Dix teaches a system for use with agricultural vehicles and implements (see e.g. [0020]), configured to:
display corresponding implement swaths (see Figure 8, [0031, 0042], display of coverage map for a field, including graphical representation of a swath, [0030-0031, 0043] which corresponds to path) prior to working (see [0042] for the area of field to be worked on).
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 the display of the route P of Hiramatsu to additionally display swaths to be worked as taught by Dix, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving user awareness and ease of use of automatic agricultural vehicles (see Dix, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 35, Hiramatsu discloses the visualization and guidance system of claim 34, wherein the path system is configured to display field obstacles (see [0076]), overlaps between implement swaths and skips between implement swaths (see Figure 13, [0088-0089] display overlap setting screen with overlap value and non-overlap (skip)).
Regarding Claim 37, Hiramatsu discloses the visualization and guidance system of claim 34, wherein the path system is configured to utilize user defined offsets (see [0068] offset of work implement used as work vehicle information)..
Regarding Claim 38, Hiramatsu discloses the visualization and guidance system of claim 34, further comprising a squaring adjustment system configured to plot either a square path or a turn at a corner (see Figure 17, [0049] route P having arc-shaped connecting route, i.e. turns).
Regarding Claim 40, Hiramatsu discloses the visualization and guidance system of claim 34,
wherein the path system is configured to display guidance path headings (see Figures 16, 17, guidance path the tractor drives includes direction), positions (see Figures 16, 17, path as line (i.e. set of position points)), overlaps between implement swaths, skips between implement swaths (see Figure 13, [0088-0089] display overlap setting screen with overlap value and non-overlap (skip)), start and end points (see Figure 16, start and current tractor position being the current end of travel), and corresponding headings (see Figure 16 path direction through field are headings corresponding to path defined by start/end).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2018/055921A1 (Hiramatsu) (English description relied upon for citations) in view of Published Application US2020/0029487A1 (Dix), further in view of Publication US2017/0102702A1 (Ishijima et al.).
Regarding Claim 23, Hiramatsu does not explicitly recite The system of claim 21, wherein the path system is configured to apply a squaring adjustment and wherein the squaring adjustment is configured to:
a) determine a corner radius; and
b) display a user prompt querying a square off option.
However, Ishijima et al. teaches a technique to plan agricultural paths (see [0021]),
wherein the path system (see [0153] the travel route generation apparatus being a computer with CPU) is configured to apply a squaring adjustment and wherein the squaring adjustment is configured to:
a) determine a corner radius (see [0179] determine minimum turning radius vehicle can make while turning a guidance path); and
b) display a user prompt querying a square off option (see [0201, 0205], display notification to select inversion route and allow user adjustment e.g. Figure 8 tighter radius squares off turn compared to large radius).
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 the path system of Hiramatsu to further include capability for squaring adjustments as taught by Ishijima et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to provide additional path configuration and eliminate user burden (see Ishijima et al., [0020]).
Claims 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2018/055921A1 (Hiramatsu) (English description relied upon for citations) in view of Published Application US2020/0029487A1 (Dix), further in view of Publication US2018/0024549A1 (Hurd).
Regarding Claim 29, Hiramatsu does not explicitly recite the path system of claim 27, wherein the path system is in operational communication with a cloud server comprising the stored field map data.
However, Hurd teaches a system for mapping,
wherein the path system is in operational communication with a cloud server comprising the stored field map data (see [0010] cloud accessed by vehicle system, [0052] boundaries of a field in cloud based server).
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 the path system of Hiramatsu to use a cloud server as taught by Hurd, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to store field data for future use (see Hurd, [0052]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2018/055921A1 (Hiramatsu) (English description relied upon for citations) in view of Publication WO2017/074863A1 (Meyer), Further in view of Published Application US2020/0029487A1 (Dix), further in view of Publication US2018/0024549A1 (Hurd).
Regarding Claim 36, Hiramatsu discloses wherein the operations unit is in operational communication with a GNSS or GPS unit
Hiramatsu does not explicitly recite the visualization and guidance system of claim 34, wherein the operations unit is in operational communication with a cloud server comprising stored field map data.
However, Hurd teaches a system for mapping,
wherein the operations unit is in operational communication with a cloud server comprising stored field map data (see [0010] cloud accessed by vehicle system, [0052] boundaries of a field in cloud based server).
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 the path system of Hiramatsu to use a cloud server as taught by Hurd, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to store field data for future use (see Hurd, [0052]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669