DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 21-27, 29-31, 33-38, and 40-43 have been examined in this application. Claims 21, 25, 27, 31, 33-35, and 40 are amended. Claims 22-24, 26, 29, 30, and 36-38 are as previously presented. Claims 41-43 are new. Claims 1-20, 28, 32, and 39 are cancelled.
This is a non-final office action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 4/16/2026. 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 4/16/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 7), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112(a) (presented on p. 7), 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. 7), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. Particularly, the issue in Claim 27 regarding the term polygonal field map and issue in Claim 34 regarding accurate paths and swaths has not been addressed and no reasoned arguments have been provided, and therefore these rejections are maintained. For all other previous issues under 112(b), the arguments and amendments are persuasive and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 7-11), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art ofUS2018/0206390A1 (Sakaguchi et al.) US2017/0150676A1 (Yamauchi et al.), and US2011/0231217A1 (Hand), as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2017/0102702A1 (Ishijima et al.), and US2018/0024549A1 (Hurd).
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 should be labeled “Currently Amended” instead of “Previously Presented”
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 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 27, 29-31, 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 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 29-31 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 34, the limitation to populate additional boundary points “to generate accurate guidance paths and implement swaths” renders the claims indefinite. The term “accurate” is a relative term. However, “accurate” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of accuracy for a path and swath to be considered “accurate” or not, or even define how accuracy of a path or swath would be measured or determined. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, and the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any populating of additional boundary points.
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 34 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, 24-27, 30, 31, 33-35, 37, 38, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0206390A1 (Sakaguchi et al.) in view of US2017/0150676A1 (Yamauchi et al.), further in view of US2011/0231217A1 (Hand).
Regarding Claim 21, Sakaguchi et al. discloses an agricultural vehicle guidance visualization system for use with an agricultural vehicle operating an implement (see Figures 1-3, [0016-0017]), comprising:
a) a display comprising a graphical user interface (see [0017, 0020, 0026], Figure 3):
b) a GNSS or GPS unit in operational communication with the display (see Figures 1, 2, [0013, 0018] mobile station 5 receiving GNSS as part of system [0015] including display);
c) an automatic steering system in operation communication with the display (see [0021] controller performs steering control based on control signals from unit 29, and Figure 2, unit 29 in communication with display 11);
d) an operations unit comprising a processor in operational communication with the display, GNSS or GPS unit, and automatic steering system (see [0016-0018] terminal controller 12, as CPU, and Figure 2, in communication with display 11, [0018] GNSS unit and [0017] drive control unit 29); and
e) a path system (see [0016] terminal controller 12 CPU and algorithms for its functions) configured to:
i) receive one or more field data inputs, including at least one of stored map data (see [0018] field data in memory), user input, and GNSS/GPS data (see [0018] GNSS information for each point (GNSS/GPS understood as GNSS or GPS per limitation b) above));
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "at least one of," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
ii) define one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions from the field data inputs (see Figure 3, [0028-0029] display of field including “external shape”. Examiner’s note: “one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions” understood as one or more polygonal field boundaries and also one or more regions that are inside the boundaries),
iii) plot guidance paths within the one or more polygonal field boundaries (see [0016] generate driving route R based on the field data, and Figure 3) including any overlaps between implement swaths (see [0026, 0028] D4 setting for overlap (corresponding to width of work device and distances between adjacent straight line sections));
iv) display the plotted guidance paths (see [0029]), for user confirmation prior to the engagement of the automatic steering system (see [0031] user can adjust or [0032] user sets driving route when meets objective (confirmation), [0033] for automatic travel [0053-0055] for planning the work); and
v) engage the automatic steering system via transmitting commands to execute assisted steering along the plotted guidance paths (see [0021, 0033]), wherein the plotted guidance paths include one or more of a heading (see Figure 3, path with direction of travel), a position (see Figure 3, route made up of positions the vehicle will be at) and any user confirmed adjustment to the heading, path shape, path spacing or path position (see Figure 3, [0026, 0028], overlap setting D4 (causes adjustment of path and therefore overall shape, spacing, and position points) and [0031] user changing value causes path regeneration [0032] for final driving route to be set).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "one or more," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Sakaguchi et al. discloses the boundary points used to generate guidance paths and implement swaths (see Figure 3, [0028-0029]) but does not explicitly recite the path system to:
populate additional boundary points to generate guidance paths and implement swaths.
However, Yamauchi et al. teaches a system for defining a field area (see [0031]) configured to:
populate additional boundary points (see [0057] smoothing function on initial boundary data for continuous smooth boundary (i.e. new additional points compared to initial data)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the boundary points and resulting route and swath generation of Sakaguchi et al. to include generation of additional points as taught by Yamauchi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving field coverage by maximizing area and ensuring the vehicle can travel the area (see Yamauchi et al., [0057]).
Sakaguchi et al. does not explicitly recite the path system to plot guidance paths and swaths including:
skips between implement swaths;
and does not explicitly recite the path system to display:
corresponding implement swaths, overlaps between implement swaths, and skips between implement swaths.
However, Hand teaches a technique for use with work vehicles (see [0035] e.g. ground based chemical delivery vehicle), configured to determine and display:
corresponding implement swaths, overlaps between implement swaths, and skips between implement swaths (see [0032] display of a plume of coverage such that any gaps and/or overlaps in a planned route's chemical coverage can be visually displayed).
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 Sakaguchi et al. to include swaths and overlaps and skips as taught by Hand, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to apply to sprayers and improving efficiency by avoiding duplication or gaps of coverage (see Hand, [0036]).
Regarding Claim 22, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the path system is further configured to apply an offset adjustment (see [0026, 0028] central lap margin setting D4 being offset between adjacent straight line sections).
Regarding Claim 24, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the path system is configured to display field obstacles (see [0029] ridge collision warning) .
Regarding Claim 25, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the one or more polygonal field boundaries are drawn from stored boundary map data (see [0018], Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 26, Sakaguchi et al. does not explicitly recite 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.
However, Yamauchi et al. teaches the system as above:
wherein the path system is configured to populate the stored boundary map data with one or more additional boundary points (see [0057] smoothing function on initial boundary data for continuous smooth boundary (i.e. new additional points compared to initial data)).
The motivation to combine Sakaguchi et al. and Yamauchi et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 27, Sakaguchi et al. discloses a path system (see [0016] terminal controller 12 CPU and algorithms for its functions) configured to be used on a display operationally integrated with a GNSS or GPS unit (see Figures 1, 2, [0013, 0018] mobile station 5 receiving GNSS as part of system [0015] including display), an automatic steering system (see [0021] controller performs steering control based on control signals from unit 29, and Figure 2, unit 29 in communication with display 11a and terminal controller 12), and an operations unit comprising a processor (see [0016] CPU), in an agricultural vehicle operating an agricultural implement having a swath (see Figure 1, [0024] with work device having width), the path system configured to:
receive one or more field data inputs, including at least one of stored map data (see [0018] field data in memory), user input, or GNSS/GPS data (see [0018] GNSS information for each point (GNSS/GPS understood as GNSS or GPS per limitation b) above));
define one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions from the one or more field data inputs (see Figure 3, [0028-0029] display of field including “external shape”),
plot guidance paths and corresponding implement swaths (see [0016] generate driving route R based on the field data, and Figure 3) including any overlaps between implement swaths (see [0026, 0028] D4 setting for overlap (corresponding to width of work device and distances between adjacent straight line sections)) throughout the at least one polygonal field map (see Figure 3);
display the plotted guidance paths (see [0029]), for user confirmation prior to engagement of the automatic steering system (see [0031] user can adjust or [0032] user sets driving route when meets objective (confirmation), [0033] for automatic travel [0053-0055] for planning the work); and
engage the automatic steering system via transmitting commands to execute assisted steering along the plotted guidance paths (see [0021, 0033]);
wherein the plotted guidance paths include one or more of a heading (see Figure 3, path with direction of travel), a position (see Figure 3, route made up of positions the vehicle will be at) and any user confirmed adjustment to the heading, path shape, path spacing or path position (see Figure 3, [0026, 0028], overlap setting D4 (causes adjustment of path and therefore overall shape, spacing, and position points) and [0031] user changing value causes path regeneration [0032] for final driving route to be set).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "one or more," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Sakaguchi et al. discloses the boundary points used to generate guidance paths and implement swaths (see Figure 3, [0028-0029]) but does not explicitly recite the path system to:
populate additional boundary points to generate guidance paths and implement swaths.
However, Yamauchi et al. teaches a system for defining a field area (see [0031]) configured to:
populate additional boundary points (see [0057] smoothing function on initial boundary data for continuous smooth boundary (i.e. new additional points compared to initial data)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acquisition of field data of Sakaguchi et al. to include generation of additional points as taught by Yamauchi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving field coverage by maximizing area and ensuring the vehicle can travel the area (see Yamauchi et al., [0057]).
Sakaguchi et al. does not explicitly recite the path system plotting:
skips between implement swaths
and configured to display:
and corresponding implement swaths, overlaps between implement swaths, and skips between implement swaths.
However, Hand teaches a technique for use with work vehicles (see [0035] e.g. ground based chemical delivery vehicle), configured to plot and display:
corresponding implement swaths, overlaps between implement swaths, and skips between implement swaths (see [0032] display of a plume of coverage such that any gaps and/or overlaps in a planned route's chemical coverage can be visually displayed).
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 Sakaguchi et al. to include swaths and overlaps and skips as taught by Hand, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to apply to sprayers and improving efficiency by avoiding duplication or gaps of coverage (see Hand, [0036]).
Regarding Claim 30, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the path system of claim 27, wherein the path system is configured to utilize user defined offsets (see [0026, 0028] central lap margin setting D4 being offset between adjacent straight line sections, [0030] input by plus or minus).
Regarding Claim 31, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the path system of claim 27, further comprising a squaring adjustment system comprising the processor configured to plot either a square path or a turn at a corner (see Figure 3, plotting corners including right angle when vehicle travels around perimeter, or u-turns for headland).
PNG
media_image1.png
297
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 33, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the path system of claim 27, wherein the path system is configured to display guidance path headings and positions (see Figure 3, path direction and line being a set of positions)
Regarding Claim 34, Sakaguchi et al. discloses a visualization and guidance system for use with automatic steering of an agricultural vehicle (see Figures 1-3, [0016-0017, 0021]), comprising a path system (see [0016] terminal controller 12 CPU and algorithms for its functions) configured to run on an operations unit and an in-cab display (see [0016] CPU and Figure 1, [0014] device 6 in vehicle cab), a GNSS or GPS unit (see Figures 1, 2, [0013, 0018] mobile station 5 receiving GNSS as part of system), and an automatic steering system (see [0021] controller performs steering control based on control signals from unit 29), wherein the path system is configured to:
a) receive one or more field data inputs, including at least one of stored map data (see [0018] field data in memory), user input, or GNSS/GPS data (see [0018] GNSS information for each point (GNSS/GPS understood as GNSS or GPS per limitation b) above));
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "at least one of," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
b) define one or more polygonal field boundaries and regions from the field data inputs (see Figure 3, [0028-0029] display of field including “external shape”),
c) display guidance paths (see [0029]), for user confirmation prior to the engagement of the automatic steering system (see [0031] user can adjust or [0032] user sets driving route when meets objective (confirmation), [0033] for automatic travel [0053-0055] for planning the work), and
d) engage the automatic steering system via transmitting commands to execute assisted steering along the plotted guidance paths (see [0021, 0033]);
wherein the plotted guidance paths include one or more of a heading (see Figure 3, path with direction of travel), a position (see Figure 3, route made up of positions the vehicle will be at) and any user confirmed adjustment to the heading, path shape, path spacing or path position (see Figure 3, [0026, 0028], overlap setting D4 (causes adjustment of path and therefore overall shape, spacing, and position points) and [0031] user changing value causes path regeneration [0032] for final driving route to be set).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "one or more," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Sakaguchi et al. discloses the boundary points used to generate guidance paths and implement swaths (see Figure 3, [0028-0029]) but does not explicitly recite the path system to:
populate additional boundary points to generate accurate guidance paths and implement swaths.
However, Yamauchi et al. teaches a system for defining a field area (see [0031]) configured to:
populate additional boundary points (see [0057] smoothing function on initial boundary data for continuous smooth boundary (i.e. new additional points compared to initial data)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acquisition of field data of Sakaguchi et al. to include generation of additional points as taught by Yamauchi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving field coverage by maximizing area and ensuring the vehicle can travel the area (see Yamauchi et al., [0057]).
Sakaguchi et al. does not explicitly recite the path system configured to display:
corresponding implement swaths, and any overlaps between implement swaths or skips between implement swaths.
However, Hand teaches a technique for use with work vehicles (see [0035] e.g. ground based chemical delivery vehicle), configured to display:
corresponding implement swaths, overlaps between implement swaths, and skips between implement swaths (see [0032] display of a plume of coverage such that any gaps and/or overlaps in a planned route's chemical coverage can be visually displayed).
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 Sakaguchi et al. to include swaths and overlaps and skips as taught by Hand, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to apply to sprayers and improving efficiency by avoiding duplication or gaps of coverage (see Hand, [0036]).
Regarding Claim 35, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the visualization and guidance system of claim 34, wherein the path system is configured to display field obstacles (see [0029] ridge collision warning).
Regarding Claim 37, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the visualization and guidance system of claim 34, wherein the path system is configured to utilize user defined offsets (see [0026, 0028] central lap margin setting D4 being offset between adjacent straight line sections, [0030] input by plus or minus).
Regarding Claim 38, Sakaguchi et al. 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 3, plotting corners including right angle when vehicle travels around perimeter, or u-turns for headland).
Regarding Claim 40, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the visualization and guidance system of claim 34, wherein the path system is configured to display guidance path headings (see Figure 3, direction of route), positions (see Figure 3, route being set of positions on the map), and start and end points (see Figure 3, [0028] work start and end points T1, T2).
Regarding Claim 41, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the path system is further configured to allow user adjustments to the plotted guidance paths (see [0026, 0030] adjustment to values D1 – D5 via plus/minus buttons) prior to user confirmation (see [0031-0032] adjust and regenerate route before setting the travel route R that meets object) and prior to the engagement of the automatic steering system (see [0033], automatic travel of the route and [0053-0055] for planning the work).
Regarding Claim 42, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the system of claim 41, wherein user adjustments include one or more of a path heading adjustment, a path shape adjustment, a path spacing (offset) adjustment, and a path position adjustment (see Figure 3, [0026, 0028], overlap setting D4 (causes adjustment of path and therefore overall shape, spacing, and position points) and [0031] user changing value causes path regeneration [0032] for final driving route to be set).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "one or more," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Regarding Claim 43, Sakaguchi et al. discloses the system of claim 42, wherein user adjustments are executed via commands entered into the graphical user interface (see Figure 3, [0030]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0206390A1 (Sakaguchi et al.) in view of US2017/0150676A1 (Yamauchi et al.), further in view of US2011/0231217A1 (Hand), further in view of Publication US2017/0102702A1 (Ishijima et al.).
Regarding Claim 23, Sakaguchi et al. 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 6, 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 and possible adjustments of Sakaguchi et al. 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 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0206390A1 (Sakaguchi et al.) in view of US2017/0150676A1 (Yamauchi et al.), further in view of US2011/0231217A1 (Hand), further in view of Publication US2018/0024549A1 (Hurd).
Regarding Claim 29, Sakaguchi et al. 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 Sakaguchi et al. 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 or in additional client systems (see Hurd, [0052]).
Regarding Claim 36, Sakaguchi et al. discloses wherein the operations unit is in operational communication with a GNSS or GPS unit (see [0018, 0033]).
Sakaguchi et al. 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 Sakaguchi et al. 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 or in additional client systems (see Hurd, [0052]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights