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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on March 19, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 have been amended. Claims 18-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant's Amendments dated March 19, 2025, examiner withdrew the objection and previous prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0343803 (hereinafter, "Losch"; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5179634 (hereinafter, "Matsunaga"; newly of record).
Regarding claim 1, Losch discloses an agricultural assistance system comprising a driver assistance system configured to control one or both of a prime mover or an attachment attached to the prime mover (Fig. 1 and “a server system for the administration of sequences for agricultural working machines and to a control device for processing sequences for agricultural working machines” (para 0002)), the agricultural assistance system comprising:
an input/output unit for communicating with a user (Fig. 4 and “ a user interface of the control device on which a sequence and assigned parameters are displayed” (para 0022));
a rule generator (Fig. 1, #1 and “The server 1 can be basically any computer system, which can also comprise various individual computers, having a database 8” (para 0030)) configured to:
store access rights of one or more users to part or all of a plurality of sets of rules (“all the above-described functionalities according to the invention, or preferred functionalities that the server 1 offers to the client 13 a-d are not implemented identically in every case for all clients 13 a-d, but rather an investigation is carried out depending on the authorization and, therefore, the access. This investigation can take place in any manner with consideration for the authorization status 26” (para 0067) and “the assigned authorization status 26 a, b can be full authorization 27, an authorized access time or non-authorization 28” (para 0068));
receive, via the input/output unit, user information (“the server 1 is designed to receive a course criterium, which preferably comprises a participant identifier” (para 0079));
responsive to determining whether to grant access based on the user information and the access rights (“wherein an authorized access time status is assigned to each participant identifier of the client entries and the selection criterium that is received comprises a participant identifier and wherein the server is designed to perform any of the group consisting of transmit the notification, determine the menu, sort the menu, transmit the course data that were determined, transmit the determined sequence, and add a user-defined sequence, also on the basis of the authorization status that is assigned to the participant identifier of the selection criterium that was received” (claim 10)), …
a rule interpreter (Fig. 1, 13a and 13b) configured to access the respective set of rules of the plurality of sets of rules (“a client relative to the server 1 is, in particular, a control device for processing sequences 4 a-d for agricultural working machines 2 a, b, 3 a, b, wherein the sequences 4 a-d each comprise a sequence of parameterized process steps 5 a-f of working devices 6 a-f of an agricultural working machine 2 a, b, 3 a, b. Such a control device according to the invention comprises a client 13 a, b having a machine interface 29 for controlling the working devices 6 a-f for implementing the process steps 5 a-f” (para 0076));
generate,..., one or more control parameters to control the one or both of the prime mover or the attachment attached to the prime mover (“a client relative to the server 1 is, in particular, a control device for processing sequences 4 a-d for agricultural working machines 2 a, b, 3 a, b, wherein the sequences 4 a-d each comprise a sequence of parameterized process steps 5 a-f of working devices 6 a-f of an agricultural working machine 2 a, b, 3 a, b. Such a control device according to the invention comprises a client 13 a, b having a machine interface 29 for controlling the working devices 6 a-f for implementing the process steps 5 a-f” (para 0076)).
However, Losch does not explicitly teach
generate, via the input/output unit, a user interface through which the one or more users enter rules information in order to perform one or both of creating or editing of one or more rules for a respective set of rules of the plurality of sets of rules, wherein the one or more rules comprise if-then conditions; and
responsive to the rules information entered, perform the one or both of creating or editing of the one or more rules for the respective set of rules of the plurality of sets of rules; and
input one or more input parameters; and
…based on the one or more rules of the respective set of rules…
Matsunaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
generate, via the input/output unit, a user interface through which the one or more users enter rules information in order to perform one or both of creating or editing of one or more rules for a respective set of rules of the plurality of sets of rules (“The memory 32 stores programs and arithmetic formulae for computing fuzzy rules, and an operation board 33 is provided with a keyboard and parameter set up dials (see FIG. 24(B)) for allowing the system operator to set up data on the parameters” (Col. 10, lines 20-25) and “a primary object of the present invention is to provide a fuzzy rule generator which allows existing sets of rules to be effectively utilized if any such sets of rules indeed exist, and simplifies the work of creating and modifying fuzzy rules by generating or synthesizing new sets of rules by making use of existing sets of rules”(Col. 1, lines 50-56)), wherein the one or more rules comprise if-then conditions (“The set of rules include a large number of fuzzy rules which are allocated for different control situations, and such fuzzy rules are typically expressed in the form of if-then statements” (Col. 1, lines 18-22)); and
responsive to the rules information entered, perform the one or both of creating or editing of the one or more rules for the respective set of rules of the plurality of sets of rules (“The memory 32 stores programs and arithmetic formulae for computing fuzzy rules, and an operation board 33 is provided with a keyboard and parameter set up dials (see FIG. 24(B)) for allowing the system operator to set up data on the parameters” (Col. 10, lines 20-25) and “a primary object of the present invention is to provide a fuzzy rule generator which allows existing sets of rules to be effectively utilized if any such sets of rules indeed exist, and simplifies the work of creating and modifying fuzzy rules by generating or synthesizing new sets of rules by making use of existing sets of rules”(Col. 1, lines 50-56)).
input one or more input parameters (“In B, a constraint parameter is inputted to a fuzzy rule modifier 25 from constraint parameter set up means 24”(Col. 9, lines 42-44)); and
…based on the one or more rules of the respective set of rules (“it is possible to generate fuzzy rules which can control the control object in a stable fashion simply by inputting approximate values of parameters and an evaluation parameter of the control object”(Col. 11, lines 15-19))…
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Losch with the teachings of Matsunaga in order to allow the system operator to obtain desired control characteristics and system stability; see Matsunaga at least at (Col. 1, lines 66-68)).
Regarding claim 2, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 1. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the user interface is created via a browser (“The data transmitted from the server 1 and, in particular, the sequences, can be depicted in a conventional browser if they are formatted according to the HyperText Markup Language (HTML)” (para 0073) and FIg. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 1. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the rule generator is configured to transmit the one or more sets of rules to the rule interpreter (“wherein the client 13 a, b is designed to transmit a selection criterium 15 to the server 1 via the data channel 14, receive a sequence 4 a-d from the server 1 via the data channel 14 and implement the received sequence 4 a-d by use of the machine interface 29” (para 0076)); and
wherein the rule interpreter is configured to process the one or more sets of rules (“a control device for processing sequences 4 a-d for agricultural working machines 2 a, b, 3 a, b, wherein the sequences 4 a-d each comprise a sequence of parameterized process steps 5 a-f of working devices 6 a-f of an agricultural working machine 2 a, b, 3 a, b” (para 0076)).
Regarding claim 4, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 3. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the rule interpreter is configured to perform the one or both of creating or editing the one or more sets of rules via a dialog with the user (“the user interface 31 is preferably designed to display stored sequences 4 a-d and stored process steps 5 a-f and, based on input by the operator, to generate an operator sequence from the stored sequences 4 a-d and the stored process steps 5 a-f” (para 0079)).
Regarding claim 5, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 4. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the rule interpreter is configured to:
assign the dialog to a specific set of rules (“wherein the server receives an operator-generated sequence to which a sequence identifier is assigned from a client via the data channel and add the sequence to the sequence inventory” (claim 3)); and
one or both of create or edit, via the dialog and using the user interface, the specific set of rules (“a self-learning client 13 a, b also can be provided, which is characterized in that this is designed to generate a proposed sequence on the basis of implemented process steps 5 a-f and implemented sequences 4 a-d. A logic can therefore be provided in the client, which analyzes implemented sequences 4 a-d and, from these, generates proposed sequences according to pattern recognition" (para 0081)).
Regarding claim 6, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 5. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the dialog comprises at least one of a question, a selection option, or an input option (“the user interface 31 is preferably designed to display stored sequences 4 a-d and stored process steps 5 a-f and, based on input by the operator, to generate an operator sequence from the stored sequences 4 a-d and the stored process steps 5 a-f” (para 0079)).
Regarding claim 7, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 1. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the rule generator is further configured to:
receive, from the user that created a specific set of rules, an indication of access rights for other users to edit the specific set of rules; and responsive to one of the other users requesting to edit the specific set of rules, determine whether to grant access to the one of the other users based on the indication of access rights (“wherein the assigned authorization status can be full authorization, an authorized access time, or non-authorization (28) and wherein the server is designed to perform any of the group consisting of transmit the notification, determine the menu, sort the menu, transmit the determined course data, transmit the determined sequence, block the addition of a user-generated sequence in the event of non-authorization, change an authorized access time into non-authorization after expiration of a predetermined authorization time and change non-authorization or an authorized access time into full authorization upon receipt of a full-authorization notification assigned to the participant identifier to which the non-authorization or the authorized access time is assigned” (claim 11)).
Regarding claim 8, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 7. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the rule generator is further configured to:
receive input from the user indicating that the specific set of rules are published; and wherein, responsive to the specific set of rules being published, the rule generator is configured to grant access to the one of the other users without further input from the user (“It also is possible to initially assign a partial authorization to any client 13 a-d, which may provide limited functionality of the server 1, and, after expiration of a freely selectable authorization time, to convert said partial authorization into a non-authorization 28, in which this functionality is no longer available, but, if the full-authorization notification is received, to provide the possible transition to full authorization 27 both before and after expiration of the authorization time. This message can be any message that is conveniently directed to the server 1 in a detectably authorized manner and confirms that full authorization 27 is permitted” (para 0070)).
Regarding claim 9, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 7. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the indication of access rights is indicative of the user being contacted before the specific set of rules is to be published or sold; and wherein, responsive to the rule generator determining that the specific set of rules is indicative of the user being contacted before the specific set of rules is to be published or sold, the rule generator is configured to contact the user to request approval prior to publishing or selling part or all of the specific set of rules (“It also is possible to initially assign a partial authorization to any client 13 a-d, which may provide limited functionality of the server 1, and, after expiration of a freely selectable authorization time, to convert said partial authorization into a non-authorization 28, in which this functionality is no longer available, but, if the full-authorization notification is received, to provide the possible transition to full authorization 27 both before and after expiration of the authorization time. This message can be any message that is conveniently directed to the server 1 in a detectably authorized manner and confirms that full authorization 27 is permitted” (para 0070)).
Regarding claim 10, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 1. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the rule generator is resident in a server (Fig. 1, #1 and “The server 1 can be basically any computer system, which can also comprise various individual computers, having a database 8” (para 0030)); and
wherein the agricultural assistance system includes a plurality of rule interpreters decentralized from the server and residing in a plurality of different geographic locations (Fig. 1, 13a and 13b).
Regarding claim 11, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 10. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the plurality of rule interpreters are resident in a plurality of prime movers, a plurality of attachments, or in a plurality of agricultural combinations of prime movers and tractors (Fig. 1, 13a and 13b and “The working devices are either permanently installed or are coupled-on and are provided to perform various working steps, or are even used as working machines connected to one another in a train. It is also known to permit the control of the agricultural working machine and the working devices to be performed by a control device disposed thereon, such as an electronic control unit” (para 0003)).
Regarding claim 12, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 10. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the agricultural assistance system consists of a single rule generator resident in the server (Fig. 1, #1 and “The server 1 can be basically any computer system, which can also comprise various individual computers, having a database 8” (para 0030)); and
wherein the plurality of rule interpreters are configured for execution independently of the plurality of different geographic locations (“The client 13 a-b can be an electronic control device, which also is referred to as a control device. In this case, the sequence 4 a is implemented by the agricultural working machine 2 a on which the control device is disposed. The client 13 c also can be a stationary computer of an agricultural operation, a so-called farm personal computer 16 a, in which the sequence 4 a is not immediately implemented, but which is possibly only stored or processed. The client 13 d also can be a mobile electronic device" (para 0040)).
Regarding claim 13, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 1. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the rule generator is resident on a server platform (Fig. 1, #1 and “The server 1 can be basically any computer system, which can also comprise various individual computers, having a database 8” (para 0030)); and
wherein the rule generator is configured to receive the rules information via a browser (“a network interface to a global communication network receives connection requests from a client and establishes a connection-oriented, bidirectional data channel between the server and the client" (claim 1)) in order to perform the one or both of creating or editing the one or more sets of rules (“wherein the server is designed to determine a menu of sequences from the sequence inventory on the basis of a comparison of the received selection criterium with sequence identifiers of the sequences of the sequence inventory on the basis of any of the group consisting of a comparison such as a commonality, a working-device type and a utilization-environment property, generate an overview of the menu and transmit the overview to the client via the data channel" (claim 6)).
Regarding claim 14, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 13. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the server platform is configured to provide a web interface as the user interface for the rule generator (“a network interface to a global communication network receives connection requests from a client and establishes a connection-oriented, bidirectional data channel between the server and the client" (claim 1) and “a mobile end device 16 b is depicted in FIG. 1, as a further client 13 d, which is also connected to the Internet 12 a via the base station 23 b in this case, as an example” (para 0072)).
Regarding claim 15, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 14. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the server platform is configured to display flowcharts on the one or more sets of rules via the web interface (Fig. 5 and “ one possible representation of such a menu 19 in the case of a client 13 a-d. This representation is displayed on a screen of the client 13 a-d, for example. The top row shows the sequence 4 a having the process steps of intake 5 a, chopping 5 b, cracking 5 c, combining 5 d,e, and discharging 5 f. These process steps 5 a-d, f could have corresponded to the selection criterium 15 of the client 13 a-d" (para 0055)).
Regarding claim 16, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 14. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the server platform comprises a database including text components for dialogs assigned to the one or more sets of rules stored therein (“ wherein the sequences are formatted according to a sequence syntax, wherein the sequence syntax permits functional dependencies between parameterized process steps, control structures within the respective sequence or both" (claim 8)); and
wherein the server platform is configured to use the text components to create or edit the dialog in order to enable the user to provide the rules information to perform the one or both of creating or editing the one or more sets of rules (“wherein the server is designed to modify a sequence of the sequence inventory on the basis of the sequence identifiers assigned to the sequence such as on the basis of the result metrics, and on the basis of the course data assigned to the sequence, to modify a parameter set of a parameterized process step, to add a functional dependency between the parameter sets of parameterized process steps of the sequence or to add a control structure within the sequence" (claim 8)).
Regarding claim 17, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 16. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the server platform includes a preview function for the assigned dialogs (“wherein the server is designed to determine a menu of sequences from the sequence inventory…generate an overview of the menu and transmit the overview to the client via the data channel" (claim 6)).
Regarding claim 18, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 11. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the plurality of rule interpreters are further configured to:
receive, from the server, the respective set of rules of the plurality of rules (“a client relative to the server 1 is, in particular, a control device for processing sequences 4 a-d for agricultural working machines 2 a, b, 3 a, b, wherein the sequences 4 a-d each comprise a sequence of parameterized process steps 5 a-f of working devices 6 a-f of an agricultural working machine 2 a, b, 3 a, b. Such a control device according to the invention comprises a client 13 a, b having a machine interface 29 for controlling the working devices 6 a-f for implementing the process steps 5 a-f” (para 0076));
…to control the one or both of the prime mover or the attachment attached to the prime mover (“a client relative to the server 1 is, in particular, a control device for processing sequences 4 a-d for agricultural working machines 2 a, b, 3 a, b, wherein the sequences 4 a-d each comprise a sequence of parameterized process steps 5 a-f of working devices 6 a-f of an agricultural working machine 2 a, b, 3 a, b. Such a control device according to the invention comprises a client 13 a, b having a machine interface 29 for controlling the working devices 6 a-f for implementing the process steps 5 a-f” (para 0076)).
However, Losch does not explicitly teach
create or edit the one or more rules for the respective set of rules of the plurality of sets of rules; and
use the one or more rules for the respective set of rules that are edited in order to generate the one or more control parameters…
Matsunaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
create or edit the one or more rules for the respective set of rules of the plurality of sets of rules (“a primary object of the present invention is to provide a fuzzy rule generator which allows existing sets of rules to be effectively utilized if any such sets of rules indeed exist, and simplifies the work of creating and modifying fuzzy rules by generating or synthesizing new sets of rules by making use of existing sets of rules”(Col. 1, lines 50-56)); and
use the one or more rules for the respective set of rules that are edited in order to generate the one or more control parameters… (“wherein said rule modifier further includes means for examining a Liapunov function defined for said control object, and manual input means connected to said means for examining for allowing said new set of fuzzy rules to be manually modified so as to obtain a desired control property within a range of fuzzy rules ensuring a stability of said control object”(claim 9)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Losch with the teachings of Matsunaga in order to allow the system operator to obtain desired control characteristics and system stability; see Matsunaga at least at (Col. 1, lines 66-68)).
Regarding claim 19, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 18. Additionally, Losch discloses wherein the rule interpreter is executed on the prime mover (Fig. 1, 13a and 13b);
wherein the prime mover includes a user interface (Fig. 4 and “ a user interface of the control device on which a sequence and assigned parameters are displayed” (para 0022)); and
However, Losch does not explicitly teach
wherein the rule interpreter is configured to execute a dialog using the user interface through which the user is configured to create or edit the one or more rules via the prime mover.
Matsunaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the rule interpreter is configured to execute a dialog using the user interface through which the user is configured to create or edit the one or more rules via the prime mover (“an operation board 33 is provided with a keyboard and parameter set up dials (see FIG. 24(B)) for allowing the system operator to set up data on the parameters” (Col. 10, lines 22-25) and “ a fuzzy rule generator which allows existing sets of rules to be effectively utilized if any such sets of rules indeed exist, and simplifies the work of creating and modifying fuzzy rules by generating or synthesizing new sets of rules by making use of existing sets of rules”(Col. 1, lines 51-56)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Losch with the teachings of Matsunaga in order to allow the system operator to obtain desired control characteristics and system stability; see Matsunaga at least at (Col. 1, lines 66-68)).
Regarding claim 20, Losch discloses the agricultural assistance system of claim 8, wherein, after the specific set of rules are published,... (“It also is possible to initially assign a partial authorization to any client 13 a-d, which may provide limited functionality of the server 1, and, after expiration of a freely selectable authorization time, to convert said partial authorization into a non-authorization 28, in which this functionality is no longer available, but, if the full-authorization notification is received, to provide the possible transition to full authorization 27 both before and after expiration of the authorization time. This message can be any message that is conveniently directed to the server 1 in a detectably authorized manner and confirms that full authorization 27 is permitted” (para 0070)).
However, Losch does not explicitly teach
…both the rule generator and the rule interpreter are configured to perform the editing of the specific set of rules.
Matsunaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
…both the rule generator and the rule interpreter are configured to perform the editing of the specific set of rules (“wherein said rule modifier comprises manual input means for modifying a part of said new set of fuzzy rules” (claim 7)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Losch with the teachings of Matsunaga in order to allow the system operator to obtain desired control characteristics and system stability; see Matsunaga at least at (Col. 1, lines 66-68)).
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 ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663