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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 25 February 2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 7, 10 and 11. Claims 4-5 were previously canceled. Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 25 February 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 25 February 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 25 February 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-3 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument is directed toward new limitations that have not been previously considered. As such, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
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, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. control unit in claims 2-3 and 6-9;
The structure of the “control unit” is described in the Specification as “a CPU, ROM, RAM, I/O” (Specification, para 0032).
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.
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 § 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN107817794, hereinafter Zhang, the paragraph numbers are cited based on the attached machine translated copy) in view of Pieper (US20140081568).
As to claims 1, 10 and 11, Zhang teaches a work vehicle, an automatic travel method for a work vehicle and an automatic travel system for a work vehicle capable of automatic travel along a travel route that is set parallel to a reference route generated based on a first reference point and a second reference point set in advance, while identifying an own vehicle position thereof using a satellite positioning system, wherein (see at least Zhang para 0006, para 0050):
when automatic travel is being performed, a first control reference position and a second control reference position are set based on the first and second reference points, respectively, and
(see at least Zhang para 0017: the processor determines whether the work in the area enclosed by the boundary is completed based on the current position and the end point of the driving trajectory, and if so, generates a control instruction, i.e. activating a notification device at the end point, i.e. 1st or 2nd reference point, to control the tractor to perform agricultural operations on the boundary; para 0019 for generating cruise command when at the end point; para 0034 for starting point and end point of AB lines; para 0035: when reaching end point B, control device generates a control instruction, i.e. notification to the steering device; para 0036: when reaching end of line AB, lifting agricultural tools and when reaching starting point, put down the tools, i.e. generating notification to the actuating system; also see Fig. 1, 2; see para 0016 for control unit, also see para 0036, 0049).
one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position to a third control reference position identified on the basis of a third reference point which is different from the first reference point and the second reference point, and after the change, the notification device is activated on the basis of the third control reference position instead of one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position (see at least Zhang para 0019 for generating cruise command when at the end point; para 0034 for starting point and end point of AB lines, A1B1 lines, i.e., generating cruise command at end point B1 which is a third reference position point different from A and B, and when reaching B1, the notification is generated based on end point B1; para 0035: when reaching end point B1, control device generates a control instruction, i.e. notification to the steering device; para 0036: when it reaches point B1, the controller generates a control command to control the lifting of the farm implement, i.e. generating notification to the actuating system based on end point B1; also see Fig. 1, 2; para 0036, 0040, 0049).
wherein the third reference point is set to the own vehicle position at a time a predetermined operation is performed by an operator (see at least Zhang para 0034 for current position of each point on the inner straight line in real time to determine turning position; para 0035: obtain real time position and attitude of the tractor and control the tractor to turn at the turning position…when reaching point B, the control device issues a control instruction…toward A1…and B1 along A1B1 line; para 0036: …the controller also obtains the lifting point and landing point of the agricultural implement based on the width of the agricultural implement and the coordinates of the boundary. When the tractor drives toward the boundary and reaches the lifting point, The agricultural implement is lifted to suspend agricultural operations; when the tractor leaves the boundary and reaches the landing point, the agricultural implement is lowered to perform agricultural operations. para 0042: input the width of the …and the driving trajectory will be generated, i.e., operator operation; also see para 0033, para 0038, Fig. 2).
Zhang further teaches the first control reference position, second control reference position, and the third control reference position are line segments going through the first reference point, second reference point, and third reference point respectively and the automatic travel is performed based on the third control reference position (see at least Zhang Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para 0022, para 0034-0036).
Zhang does not explicitly teach the first control reference position, second control reference position, and the third control reference position are different line segments.
Pieper is directed to generating a swath coverage pattern for a given working area to be traversed by a vehicle or equipment attached. Pieper teaches the first control reference position, second control reference position, and the third control reference position are different line segments (see at least Pieper para 0064-0065, para 0074-0079, Fig. 3, Fig. 8 and related text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include the first control reference position, second control reference position, and the third control reference position are different line segments in view of Pieper et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that shifting the reference point/line when the vehicle is working on land that has complicated/irregular geometric shapes of Pieper can be used in a similar manner to automatically control the vehicle in Zhang, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Pieper because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to navigate the work vehicle to automatically follow constructed paths in farmlands of various shapes (see at least Pieper para 0017).
As to Claim 2, Zhang in view of Pieper teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a control unit is capable of changing one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position to the third control reference position, both when the automatic travel is being performed and when the automatic travel is not being performed (see at least Zhang para 0034 for you can enter the width of the agricultural implement, the starting point and end point of the first AB line, and the turning radius on the display to form multiple parallel AB lines, and B1...B6 are the turning position, i.e., the end point are generated and serves as reference position, no matter the automatic travel is being performed or not).
As to Claim 3, Zhang in view of Pieper teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a control unit changes one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position, which is on a rear side of a working direction, to the third control reference position when the third reference point is set in a work area defined on the basis of the first reference point and the second reference point while the automatic travel is being performed (see at least Zhang para 0034 for you can enter the width of the agricultural implement, the starting point and end point of the first AB line, and the turning radius on the display to form multiple parallel AB lines, the starting point and end point of the first line AB constitute the direction of line AB and B1...B6 are the turning position, i.e., A, B are the first and second reference position and upcoming end point B1 can be third reference position, Fig. 2).
As to Claim 7, Zhang in view of Pieper teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a control unit that activates a notification device, if the own vehicle position approaches a first control reference position identified based on the first reference point or a second control reference position identified based on the second reference point when the automatic travel is being performed (see at least Zhang, para 0035: when reaching end point B, control device generates a control instruction, i.e. notification to the steering device; para 0036: when reaching end of line AB, lifting agricultural tools and when reaching starting point, put down the tools, i.e. generating notification to the actuating system; also see Fig. 1, 2; see para 0016 for control unit, also see para 0049), wherein
after the change, the notification device is activated based on the third control reference position instead of one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position when one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position is changed to the third control reference position (see at least Zhang para 0034-0036:…enter the width of the agricultural implement, the starting point and end point of the first AB line, and the turning radius on the display to form multiple parallel AB lines, the starting point and end point of the first line AB constitute the direction of line AB and B1...B6, ., the end point are generated and serves as reference position, no matter the automatic travel is being performed or not are the turning position, A, B are the first and second reference position and upcoming end point B1 can be third reference position…when reaching end point B, control device generates a control instruction, i.e. notification to the steering device…when reaching end of line AB, lifting agricultural tools and when reaching starting point, put down the tools, i.e. generating notification to the actuating system; Fig. 2), wherein
the third reference point is set based on the own vehicle position when the operator of the work vehicle performs a specified operation (see at least Zhang para 0034 for current position of each point on the inner straight line in real time to determine turning position; para 0035: obtain real time position and attitude of the tractor and control the tractor to turn at the turning position…when reaching point B, the control device issues a control instruction…toward A1…and B1 along A1B1 line; para 0042: input the width of the …and the driving trajectory will be generated, i.e., operator operation; also see para 0033, para 0038, Fig. 2) .
As to Claim8, Zhang in view of Pieper teaches the work vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the control unit identifies a working direction when the automatic travel is started and changes one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position, which is on a rear side of the working direction, to the third control reference position when the third reference point is set in a work area defined based on the first reference point and the second reference point while the automatic travel is not being performed (see at least Zhang para 0034 for you can enter the width of the agricultural implement, the starting point and end point of the first AB line, and the turning radius on the display to form multiple parallel AB lines, the starting point and end point of the first line AB constitute the direction of line AB and B1...B6, ., the end point are generated and serves as reference position, no matter the automatic travel is being performed or not are the turning position, A, B are the first and second reference position and upcoming end point B1 can be third reference position, Fig. 2).
As to Claim 9, Zhang in view of Pieper teaches the work vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the control unit changes one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position, which is closer to the own vehicle position, to the third control reference position when the third reference point is set outside a work area defined based on the first reference point and the second reference point (see at least Zhang para 0034 for you can enter the width of the agricultural implement, the starting point and end point of the first AB line, and the turning radius on the display to form multiple parallel AB lines, the starting point and end point of the first line AB constitute the direction of line AB and B1...B6 are the turning position, i.e., A, B are the first and second reference position and upcoming end point B1 can be third reference position which is outside the area between A and B and is the next closer end point, Fig. 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Pieper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Runde (US20180373257, hereinafter Runde).
As to claim 6, Zhang in view of Pieper teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
the own vehicle position reaches a first control reference position or a second control reference position when the automatic travel is being performed (see at least Zhang para 0017: the processor determines whether the work in the area enclosed by the boundary is completed based on the current position and the end point of the driving trajectory, and if so, generates a control instruction, i.e. activating a notification device at the end point, i.e. 1st or 2nd reference point, to control the tractor to perform agricultural operations on the boundary; para 0019 for generating cruise command when at the end point; para 0034 for starting point and end point of AB lines; para 0035: when reaching end point B, control device generates a control instruction, i.e. notification to the steering device; para 0036: when reaching end of line AB, lifting agricultural tools and when reaching starting point, put down the tools, i.e. generating notification to the actuating system; also see Fig. 1, 2; see para 0016 for control unit, also see para 0049),
wherein the control unit sets one of the first control reference position and the second control reference position to a third control reference point identified based on a third reference point different from the first reference point and the second reference point, and the work vehicle is configured to change the position, and after the change and the work vehicle is controlled based on the third control reference position instead of either the first control reference position or the second control reference position (see at least Zhang para 0019 for generating cruise command when at the end point; para 0034 for starting point and end point of AB lines, A1B1 lines, i.e., generating cruise command at end point B1 which is a third reference position point different from A and B, and when reaching B1, the notification is generated based on end point B1; para 0035: when reaching end point B1, control device generates a control instruction, i.e. notification to the steering device; para 0036: when it reaches point B1, the controller generates a control command to control the lifting of the farm implement, i.e. generating notification to the actuating system based on end point B1; also see Fig. 1, 2; para 0049).
wherein the third reference point is set based on the own vehicle position when the operator of the work vehicle performs a specified operation (see at least Zhang para 0034 for current position of each point on the inner straight line in real time to determine turning position; para 0035: obtain real time position and attitude of the tractor and control the tractor to turn at the turning position…when reaching point B, the control device issues a control instruction…toward A1…and B1 along A1B1 line; para 0042: input the width of the …and the driving trajectory will be generated, i.e., operator operation; also see para 0033, para 0038, Fig. 2).
Zhang modified by Pieper does not teach a control unit that stops the work vehicle when the own vehicle position reaches a first or second control reference position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Runde teaches the stop and start motion occurs when the tractor needs to execute a three-point turn at the end of a field row (see at least Runde para 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include a control unit that stops the work vehicle when the own vehicle position reaches a first or second control reference position in view of Runde et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that three-point turn at the end of field row of Runde can be used in a similar manner to move the vehicle between rows in Zhang, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Runde because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to move the vehicles between adjacent tracks where the area of the headland is limited (see at least Runde para 0060).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights