DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the appeal brief filed February 18th, 2026. Claims 1-3 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In view of the appeal brief filed on February 18th, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 12th, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oota et al. (US Pub. No. 20160200252 A1), herein after Oota.
Regarding claim 1, Oota teaches [a]n obstacle detection system comprising: a front obstacle sensor for which a front side of a work vehicle is set as an obstacle detection range; a rear obstacle sensor for which a rear side of the work vehicle is set as the obstacle detection range (Oota: Para. 0048; Para. 0048, teaching an obstruction detection unit that uses cameras in front, behind, and to the sides of a dump truck to monitor for obstructions to the vehicle); a display unit that displays a position of the obstacle detected by the front obstacle sensor and the rear obstacle sensor (Oota: Para. 0058; Para. 0058, teaching a display device that displays the area around the vehicle with all the objects around it as well as notifying the driver when an obstruction in the path of the vehicle is detected); and a control unit that determines a travel direction of the work vehicle and performs control related to the obstacle including display by the display unit, based on results of the determination and detection information of the front obstacle sensor and the rear obstacle sensor (Oota: Para. 0059 and 0103; Para. 0059, teaching a virtual viewpoint image of the entire surroundings of the vehicle is displayed as well as displaying notifications of obstructions in the path of the vehicle; and Para. 0103, teaching limiting the traveling operation of the vehicle when it is detected that an obstruction exists in the path of the vehicle), wherein (i) if the work vehicle is traveling in the forward direction and the obstacle has been detected by the front obstacle sensor, the control unit displays a detection position of the obstacle on the display unit and executes collision avoidance control in accordance with the detection position of the obstacle, (ii) if the work vehicle is traveling in the rear direction and the obstacle has been detected by the rear obstacle sensor, the control unit displays a detection position of the obstacle on the display unit and executes collision avoidance control in accordance with the detection position of the vehicle, (iii) if the work vehicle is traveling in the forward direction and the obstacle has been detected by the rear obstacle sensor, the control unit displays a detection position of the obstacle on the display unit without executing the collision avoidance control, and (iv) if the work vehicle is traveling in the rear direction and the obstacle has been detected by the forward obstacle sensor, the control unit displays a detection position of the obstacle on the display unit without executing the collision avoidance control (Oota: Para. 0074 and 0103; Para. 0074, teaching determining if an object detected around the vehicle is in the path of the vehicle based on the position of the object, the direction of travel of the vehicle, and the direction of travel of the object, and either marking the object as an obstruction and notifying the driver if it will be in the path of travel of the vehicle or ignoring the object if it will not be in the path of the vehicle; and Para. 0103, teaching limiting the traveling operation of the vehicle when it is detected that an obstruction exists in the path of the vehicle; also see FIG. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Oota FIG. 10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Takuya et al. (JP Pub. No. 2019175254 A), herein after Takuya.
Regarding claim 2, Oota remains as applied as in claim 1, however Oota is silent to [t]he obstacle detection system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is included in an automatic travel unit that enables automatic travel of the work vehicle, and the display unit is provided in a wireless communication device set up for communication so as to be wirelessly communicable with the automatic travel unit.
In a similar field, Takuya teaches [t]he obstacle detection system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is included in an automatic travel unit that enables automatic travel of the work vehicle (Takuya: Para. 0023; "… but a work vehicle other than a tractor can be applied"), and the display unit is provided in a wireless communication device set up for communication so as to be wirelessly communicable with the automatic travel unit (Takuya: Para. 0024 and 0095; "… As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the automatic traveling system includes an automatic traveling unit 2 mounted on a tractor 1 and a portable communication terminal 3 set to communicate with the automatic traveling unit 2.") for the benefit of providing a driving support system capable of supporting driving of the work vehicle so as to cause the work vehicle to travel as intended.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the automatic guided vehicle from Oota to have the control unit be included in an automatic travel unit that enables automatic travel of the work vehicle, as taught by Takuya, providing a driving support system capable of supporting driving of the work vehicle so as to cause the work vehicle to travel as intended.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Hiramatsu et al. (JP Pub. No. 2015194981 A), herein after Hiramatsu.
Regarding claim 3, Oota remains as applied as in claim 1, however Maeda is silent to [t]he obstacle detection system according to claim 1, wherein if there is a trailing work vehicle that follows the work vehicle while the work vehicle travels forward, the rear obstacle sensor detects the trailing work vehicle as the obstacle when the trailing work vehicle enters the detection range of the rear obstacle sensor.
In a similar field, Hiramatsu teaches [t]he obstacle detection system according to claim 1, wherein if there is a trailing work vehicle that follows the work vehicle while the work vehicle travels forward, the rear obstacle sensor detects the trailing work vehicle as the obstacle when the trailing work vehicle enters the detection range of the rear obstacle sensor (Hiramatsu: Para. 0030-0031; "... the obstacle sensor 41 will be controlled to stop a run, if constitute from a laser sensor or an ultrasonic sensor, arrange at the front part and side part of the body, or a rear part, it connects with the control device 30, it detects whether an obstacle is the front, the side, and behind the body and an obstacle approaches within set distance.") for the benefit of enabling an autonomous traveling work vehicle to resume work when turning of an adjoint traveling work vehicle has finished.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the automatic guidance of a work vehicle from Oota to include a trailing work vehicle that follows the work vehicle while the work vehicle travels forward, as taught by Hiramatsu, for the benefit of enabling an autonomous traveling work vehicle to resume work when turning of an adjoint traveling work vehicle has finished.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal Brief Filed, filed February 18th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 in view of Maeda under 103, claim 2 in view Maeda in further view of Takuya under 103, and claim 3 in view Maeda in further view of Hiramatsu under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for claim 1 in view of Oota under 102(a)(1), claim 2 in view Oota in further view of Takuya under 103, and claim 3 in view Oota in further view of Hiramatsu under 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, 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 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights