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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 2/13/2026. Claims 1, 10 & 17 have been amended. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1- 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1- 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US11429114B1), and further in view of Stahle (EP2511152A1).
As per claim 1, Davis discloses: an automatic steering system for an agricultural vehicle, comprising:
a controller or an estimator operatively coupled to the assisted steering device and configured to adjust the calibration range, the adjusting comprising: generating an estimated curvature for the vehicle based on a pose of the agricultural vehicle (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6; implement control system with estimated positional information, vehicle orientation and target position);
generating an estimated encoder position of the encoder based on the estimated curvature (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6; control point based on current angle and steering information, steering information associated with yaw rate of the vehicle);
determining a current encoder position of the encoder (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6; control point based on current angle and steering information, steering information associated with yaw rate of the vehicle); and
adjusting the calibration range based on the estimated encoder position and the current encoder position (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6; GPS receiver, implement control system , estimated position and positional offset—estimated position with respect to position of the implement, wheel angle history and yaw rate); wherein the estimated curvature is based on a ratio of a heading rate and velocity of the agricultural vehicle (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6; GPS receiver, implement control system , estimated position and positional offset—estimated position with respect to position of the implement, wheel angle history and yaw rate).
However, Davis does not appear to explicitly disclose an assisted steering device configured to mount to a steering wheel of an agricultural vehicle, the assisted steering device comprising a motor and an encoder comprising a calibration range (see Stahle at least fig. 1-4 steering actuating device).
Nevertheless, Stahle—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses an assisted steering device configured to mount to a steering wheel of an agricultural vehicle, the assisted steering device comprising a motor and an encoder comprising a calibration range (see Stahle EP2511152A1 at least fig. 1-4 steering actuating device).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Davis’s implement control system with those of Stahle’s steering actuating device in order to form a more user friendly and manageable autonomous steering assistance system (i.e., by controlling the steering based upon actual and projected trajectories of the vehicle).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Stahle (see Description).
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 2: wherein the adjusting further comprises generating the pose of the agricultural vehicle based on at least one of geolocation data and IMU data (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 3: wherein generating the estimated encoder position comprises using a curvature-to-encoder transformation for the encoder (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 4: wherein the calibration range comprises a calibration range reference, and wherein the adjusting of the calibration range further comprises comparing the estimated encoder position and the current encoder position, generating an estimated range reference based on the calibration reference and the comparison of the estimated and current encoder positions, and adjusting the calibration range based on the estimated range reference and the calibration range reference (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 5: wherein the calibration range reference comprises a maximum of the calibration range and the estimated range reference comprises a maximum of the estimated calibration range (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 6: wherein the adjusting of the calibration range further comprises filtering a plurality of values of the estimated range reference to generate a filtered estimated range reference, and adjusting the calibration range based on the calibration range reference and the filtered estimated range reference (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 7: wherein adjusting the calibration range comprises shifting the calibration range toward the estimated calibration range (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 8: wherein shifting the calibration range comprises shifting the calibration range in a plurality of steps (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 9: wherein each of the plurality of steps comprises a shift of the calibration range toward the estimated calibration range by about 25% or less of the calibration range (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 10: An automatic steering system for a vehicle, comprising: an assisted steering device configured to mount to a steering wheel of a vehicle, the assisted steering device comprising a motor and an encoder comprising a calibrated encoder range comprising a calibrated range reference; and a controller configured to adjust the calibrated encoder range, the adjusting comprising: generating an estimated curvature for the vehicle based on sensor data; generating an estimated encoder position based on the estimated curvature; determining a current encoder position; generating an estimated range reference based on the calibrated range reference and a comparison of the estimated encoder position and the current encoder position; filtering a plurality of values of the estimated range reference to generate a filtered estimated range reference; determining a difference between the calibrated range reference and the filtered estimated range reference; and adjusting the calibrated encoder range based on the difference (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4, see claim 1 above).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 11: wherein the sensor data comprises at least one of geolocation data and IMU data (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 12: wherein the sensor data is derived from one or more of GPS, accelerometers, gyroscopes, camera systems, radar and LIDAR (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 13: wherein the calibrated range reference comprises a maximum of the calibrated encoder range and the estimated range reference comprises a maximum of the estimated encoder range (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 14: wherein adjusting the calibrated encoder range comprises shifting the calibrated encoder range toward the estimated encoder range (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 15: wherein shifting the calibrated encoder range comprises shifting the calibrated encoder range in a plurality of steps over a period of time (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 16: wherein each of the plurality of steps comprises a shift of the calibrated encoder range toward the estimated encoder range by about 25% or less of the calibrated encoder range (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 17: A method for adjusting the calibration of an automatic steering system of an agricultural vehicle, the method comprising: generating an estimated curvature of an agricultural vehicle based on sensor data, the agricultural vehicle comprising an automatic steering system comprising a steering sensor comprising a calibration range comprising a calibration range reference; generating, with a controller or an estimator, an estimated steering position of the agricultural vehicle based on the estimated curvature; determining a current steering position of the agricultural vehicle; comparing, with the controller or the estimator, the estimated steering position and the current steering position; generating, with the controller or the estimator, an estimated range reference based on the calibration range reference and the comparison of the estimated and current steering positions; filtering, with the controller or the estimator, a plurality of values of the estimated range reference to generate a filtered estimated range reference; and adjusting the calibration range based on the calibration range reference and the filtered estimated range reference (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4; see fig. 1 above).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 18: wherein the sensor data comprises at least one of geolocation data and IMU data (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 19: wherein the calibration range reference comprises a maximum of the calibration range and the estimated range reference comprises a maximum of the estimated range (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Both Davis and Stahle disclose claim 20: wherein adjusting the calibration range comprises shifting the calibration range toward the estimated range in a plurality of steps (see Davis at least fig. 1-2 & 4-6 and see Stahle fig. 1-4).
Motivation to combine Davis and Stahle, in the instant claim, for the same reasoning and rationale as that in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights