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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments during the interview on 10 December 2025 were persuasive. The previous Office Action is vacated/withdrawn. The present Office Action replaces the previous Office Action.
2. Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least Bonefas, as detailed in the rejection below. The Applicant has further removed key limitations from the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
4. Claims 1-5, 8-13, 21-22, and 24-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonefas (German Patent Publication # DE 11 2013 000 939; see also English version WO 2013/184177, adding +7 to paragraph numbers from DE version).
Regarding claims 1 and 30, Bonefas discloses tractor configured to pull a grain cart during a grain cart unloading operation from the grain cart (figs 4A-5B: 91, Paragraph 41, etc: tractor on right side of figures pulls a grain cart above or behind it) to a stationary grain trailer (figs 4A-5B: 79/93 grain trailer on left side of figures) (P11, 26, 32, 85, 98, 122, etc), the tractor comprising:
a steering system configured to steer the tractor (fig 4: 11, 111, P41, etc);
one or more distance sensors mounted on the tractor (fig 4: 10, 12, P41, etc), wherein each distance sensor of the one or more distance sensors is configured to detect a linear surface of the stationary grain trailer (fig 4: 81, P32, 53, 56, 94, WO P101, etc) and provide a distance sensor signal (fig 4: 18, P32, 41, etc) indicative of a distance from the tractor to the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer (fig 4: 79, P32, 41, 94, WO P101 distance to linear surface of trailer, etc; grain trailer stationary or both vehicles stationary: P38, P41); and
a controller operably coupled to the steering system and the one or more distance sensors (fig 4: 24, 32, P25, 58, etc), the controller being configured to:
obtain relative position information that indicates a relative position of part of the grain cart relative to the tractor (figs 4A-5B, P25, 39, 42, 47, 61-62, 101, 103, 147, 152, or WO 32, 46, 49, 54, 68-69, 108, 110, 154, 159, etc: relative position/angle of the spout of grain cart relative to the tractor);
provide a notification that the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer has been detected (P70, 96, 148, WO P103-104, etc: though a message, other output, or display of object on user interface, etc)
generate a steering output (P41, 58, 68, 151-152, WO P39, 65, etc) based on:
the distance from the tractor to the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer (P41, 58, 68, 151-152, WO P39, 65, etc),
the relative position information that indicates the relative position of part of the grain cart relative to the tractor (figs 4A-5B, P39, 42, 47-48, 61-62, 147, 152, or WO P46, 49, 54-55, 68-69, 154, 159, etc: relative position/angle of the spout of grain cart relative to the tractor),
and a prescribed lateral distance from the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer (P41, 58, 68, 151-152, WO P39, 65, etc: prescribed lateral distance = offset, prescribed angle = parallel headings = 0 degrees);
control the steering system based on the steering output to maintain the prescribed lateral distance from the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer (P41, 58, 68, 151-152, WO P39, 65, etc: prescribed lateral distance = offset, prescribed angle = parallel headings = 0 degrees) as the tractor and grain cart moves relative to the stationary grain trailer during the grain cart unloading operation (WO P4, 75, 129: maintain proper spacing between two moving vehicles during the unloading of agricultural material, etc; grain trailer stationary or both vehicles stationary or one vehicle moves relative to the other: P38, P41).
Bonefas does not disclose that the grain cart is pivotable relative to the tractor about a coupling point, or obtaining and using relative position information that indicates a relative position of the grain cart relative to the tractor.
However, Bonefas discloses a grain trailer that is pivotable relative to a tractor about a coupling point (figs 4A, 5A, P78 or WO P85, etc), and obtaining and using relative position information that indicates a relative position of the spout of the grain cart relative to the tractor (figs 4A-5B, P25, 39, 42, 47, 61-62, 101, 103, 147, 152, or WO 32, 46, 49, 54, 68-69, 108, 110, 154, 159, etc: relative position/angle of the spout of grain cart relative to the tractor). Bonefas also discloses obtaining and using relative position information that indicates a relative position of the grain trailer relative to the grain trailer’s tractor (P78, 89, 100, 118-119, 131-132, 150, or WO P85, 96, 107, 125-126, 138-139, 157, etc: angle and distance between the grain trailer and grain trailer’s tractor).
If Bonefas was modified to use a tractor-trailer combination for the grain cart, then steering the tractor based on the relative position of the spout of the grain cart relative to the tractor would necessarily require obtaining and using the relative position of the grain cart relative to the tractor in order calculate the correct steering outputs for the tractor during the unloading operation.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to use a tractor-trailer combination for the grain cart (where the grain cart is pivotable relative to the tractor about a coupling point), as taught by Bonefas, in order to decrease costs by using a common tractor-trailer combination for the grain cart, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Bonefas further discloses that the at least one sensor is configured to issue a signal, while object detection is enabled, the signal being in the form of at least one of light, RF energy, and sound (figs 4, P32, 41, etc).
Regarding claim 3, Bonefas fails to disclose that the at least one distance sensor includes an ultrasonic sensor.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure distance using an ultrasonic sensor. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact. See at least Peters (P17, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve reliability of the distance measurement by adding another type of distance sensor for redundancy.
Regarding claim 4, Bonefas fails to disclose that the at least one distance sensor includes a LIDAR sensor.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure distance using a LIDAR sensor. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact. See at least Peters (P17, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve reliability of the distance measurement by adding another type of distance sensor for redundancy.
Regarding claim 5, Bonefas fails to disclose that the at least one distance sensor includes a RADAR sensor.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure distance using a RADAR sensor. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact. See at least Peters (P17, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve reliability of the distance measurement by adding another type of distance sensor for redundancy.
Regarding claim 6, Bonefas further discloses that the at least one distance sensor includes a camera (fig 4: 10, P41, etc).
Regarding claim 8, Bonefas further discloses that the mobile agricultural machine is coupled to a grain cart (P25, 54, 98, 41, 58, 68, 151-152, etc).
Regarding claim 9, Bonefas further discloses that the controller is configured to provide the steering output to maintain the prescribed lateral distance between the grain cart and the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer (P25, 54, 98, 41, 58, 68, 151-152, etc).
Regarding claim 10, Bonefas further discloses that the controller is coupled to a user interface to receive operator input indicative of grain cart model information that defines dimensions of the grain cart and the relative position of the .grain cart relative to the tractor (P25, 54, 98, etc).
Regarding claim 11, Bonefas further discloses that the controller is coupled to a user interface to receive operator input indicative of at least one threshold for determining when to responsively generate steering guidance (P78, 98, 150, etc: user interface receives operator input of machine and cart reference data and dimensional parameters, which give spatial constraints to the steering guidance, and are thus indicative of at least one threshold for determining when to responsively generate steering guidance).
Bonefas writes, “the data manager 109 supports entry or selection of container reference data by the user interface 44. The data manager 109 supports entry, retrieval, and storage of container reference data, such as measurements of cart dimensions, by the image processing module 18 to give spatial constraints to the container localizer” (P98).
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Bonefas fails to disclose that the threshold includes a maximum speed threshold under which, the controller will monitor the distance sensor signal.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a maximum speed threshold under which a sensor signal will be monitored. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact. See at least Rohlfs (P13-14, 23-24, claims 2 and 13, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as well known in the art, in order to reduce processing load and/or wear on the sensors when the mode/action triggered by the sensor signal would not be appropriate (e.g. when the speed exceeds the maximum).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, Bonefas fails to disclose that the threshold includes a maximum course deviation of the tractor relative to the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a maximum course deviation. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact. See at least Rohlfs (P13-14, 23-24, claims 2 and 13, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as well known in the art, in order to reduce processing load and/or wear on the sensors when the mode/action triggered by the sensor signal would not be appropriate (e.g. when the course deviation exceeds the maximum).
Regarding claim 14, Bonefas further discloses that the controller is configured to provide a notification that the linear object surface has been detected (P70, 96, 148, etc: though a message, other output, or display of object on user interface) and provide a user interface element allowing the operator to cancel generation of the steering output to the steering system (P64, 115, 118, 141, 145, 148, etc: by manual control of the machine by the user).
Regarding claim 24, Bonefas further discloses that detection of the linear object surface includes detecting a lateral offset and an angle between the linear object surface and a course of the tractor (figs 4A-B, etc).
Regarding claim 25, Bonefas further discloses that the controller is configured to receive an operator input enabling object detection (implicit) and, in response to enabling the object detection, responsively monitor the distance sensor signal (figs: 26, 44, P67, 70, 98, 148, 150, etc) to identify the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer (fig 4: 81, P32, 53, 56, 94, WO P101, etc), determine a distance to the surface of the stationary grain trailer (P32, 41, 53, 56, 94, WO P101, etc).
Regarding claim 26, Bonefas fails to disclose that the controller is configured to selectively provide the notification based on a speed of the tractor.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively provide a notification based on a speed. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact. See at least Hoeffel (P19, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as well known in the art, in order to avoid extraneous notifications when the vehicle is not in the correct mode or situation to use the notification.
Regarding claims 27 and 31, Bonefas in view of Bonefas further discloses that the relative position information comprises an angle of the grain cart relative the tractor. See the rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 28, Bonefas further discloses that the controller is configured to obtain grain cart model information that represents dimensions of the grain cart and to determine a distance between the grain cart and the stationary grain trailer based on the grain cart model information (P25, 54, 98, etc).
Regarding claim 29, Bonefas in view of Bonefas further discloses that the grain cart model information correlates tractor position with grain cart position (see P25, 54, 98, etc and the rejection for claim 1 above).
5. Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonefas (German Patent Publication # DE 11 2013 000 939; see also English version WO 2013/184177, adding +7 to paragraph numbers from DE version) in view of Hoeffel (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0050025).
Regarding claim 26, Bonefas fails to disclose that the controller is configured to selectively provide the notification based on a speed of the tractor.
In the same field of endeavor, Hoeffel discloses selectively provide a notification based on a speed (P19, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as taught by Hoeffel, in order to avoid extraneous notifications when the vehicle is not in the correct mode or situation to use the notification.
6. Claims 3, 5, 12-13, and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonefas (German Patent Publication # DE 11 2013 000 939; see also English version WO 2013/184177, adding +7 to paragraph numbers from DE version) in view of Rohlfs et al. (Japanese Patent Publication # JP 2007-532394).
Regarding claim 3, Bonefas fails to disclose that the at least one distance sensor includes an ultrasonic sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Rohlfs discloses a distance sensor that includes an ultrasonic sensor (P28, etc)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as taught by Rohlfs, in order to improve reliability of the distance measurement by adding another type of distance sensor for redundancy.
Regarding claim 5, Bonefas fails to disclose that the at least one distance sensor includes a RADAR sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Rohlfs discloses a distance sensor that includes an RADAR sensor (P28, etc)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as taught by Rohlfs, in order to improve reliability of the distance measurement by adding another type of distance sensor for redundancy.
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Bonefas fails to disclose that the threshold includes a maximum speed threshold under which, the controller will monitor the distance sensor signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Rohlfs discloses that the threshold includes a maximum speed threshold under which, the controller will monitor the distance sensor signal (P13-14, 23-24, claims 2 and 13, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as taught by Rohlfs, in order to reduce processing load and/or wear on the sensors when the mode/action triggered by the sensor signal would not be appropriate (e.g. when the speed exceeds the maximum).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, Bonefas fails to disclose that the threshold includes a maximum course deviation of the tractor relative to the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer.
In the same field of endeavor, Rohlfs discloses that the threshold includes a maximum course deviation of the tractor relative to the linear surface of the stationary grain trailer (P13-14, 23-24, claims 2 and 13, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as taught by Rohlfs, in order to reduce processing load and/or wear on the sensors when the mode/action triggered by the sensor signal would not be appropriate (e.g. when the course deviation exceeds the maximum).
7. Claims 3-5, 12-13, and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonefas (German Patent Publication # DE 11 2013 000 939; see also English version WO 2013/184177, adding +7 to paragraph numbers from DE version) in view of Peters et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0022273).
Regarding claim 3, Bonefas fails to disclose that the at least one distance sensor includes an ultrasonic sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Peters discloses a distance sensor that includes an ultrasonic sensor (P17, etc)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as taught by Peters, in order to improve reliability of the distance measurement by adding another type of distance sensor for redundancy.
Regarding claim 4, Bonefas fails to disclose that the at least one distance sensor includes a LIDAR sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Peters discloses a distance sensor that includes an ultrasonic sensor (P17, etc)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as taught by Peters, in order to improve reliability of the distance measurement by adding another type of distance sensor for redundancy.
Regarding claim 5, Bonefas fails to disclose that the at least one distance sensor includes a RADAR sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Peters discloses a distance sensor that includes an RADAR sensor (P17, etc)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonefas to do so, as taught by Peters, in order to improve reliability of the distance measurement by adding another type of distance sensor for redundancy.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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 Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
January 14, 2026