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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/202026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-18 are pending. Claims 11-18 have been newly added. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims. Claims 4 and 6 were previously cancelled. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 04/20/20269.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 04/20/2026, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims filed on 04/20/2026, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) has been considered. The claim as currently amended, still contains the term “small distance” which renders the claim indefinite. As also mentioned in Final Office Action filed on 03/11/2026, the term “small distance” is a relative term and since it is not defined by the claims, nor does the specification provide a standard for the requisite degree of being small, it renders the claim indefinite. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) is maintained. Furthermore, further consideration of the amended claims has revealed a new ground for indefiniteness regarding the term “adverse pitch angle”, which is recited in the phrase “agricultural tractor being in an adverse pitch angle at a small distance”. Both “adverse” and “small” are relative terms render the claims indefinite. Please see the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the Office Action below.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 04/20/2026, see pages 7-9 “Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 103”, with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument regarding the Czapka reference is persuasive, and the rejection based thereon is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amended claims in light of the prior art, a new ground of rejections and mapping are set forth in the office action below.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
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 is: “control unit” in claims 11-12, 14-16, and 18. Term “control unit” has been interpreted according to the specification of the present application, in particulat, at least paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0016]- [0018], [0029], [0030]- [0040], [0043]- [0044], and [0048].
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the recited limitation “based on the agricultural tractor being in an adverse pitch angle at a small distance from the implement interface” lacks sufficient written description support. This limitation has been interpreted as an additional condition in the control's determination step to assess starting position permissible tolerance range. However, the instant specification fails to provide any written description detailing the condition of an “adverse pitch angle at a small distance” rendering the claims unsupported by the original disclosure. This prevents a skilled artisan from determining when this specific limitation is met.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) as being dependent on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the terms “adverse pitch angle” and “small distance” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The forgoing terms are not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of being “adverse”, and “small”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “adverse pitch distance” and “small distance” are interpreted as any distance and angle between a machine and an implement that are undesired for the coupling operation between the machine and the implement.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are also further rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) as being dependent on an indefinite based claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 5, 7, 10, 11-14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jürgen EP3403477A1, hereinafter “Jürgen”, in view of Bernhardt et al., US 20020125018 A1, hereinafter “Bernhardt”, in view of Hüger et al., US 20180039278 A1, hereinafter “Hüger”, and further in view of Carpenter et al., US 20200097021 A1, hereinafter “Carpenter”.
Regarding claim 1 (and its corresponding system claim 11, which encompasses similar limitations), Jürgen discloses A method and system for assisting a coupling operation to be carried out at a three-point powerlift of an agricultural tractor including right and left lower links ([0001], “coupling an agricultural implement to a towing vehicle which has a three-point power lift with an upper link and two lower links”, [0056], “control method”) having tractor-side coupling points for attaching an implement interface ([0002], “At their free ends, the lower links have devices for attaching the implement, which form the two lower points of the three-point linkage”, [0018]. “ coupling point”,), the tractor-side coupling points adjustable with respect to a spreading extent, a lateral offset, and a height position via an actuator arrangement ([0002], [0011], “The fastening elements of the support frame and/or the fastening elements of the attachment frame can be adjusted in their length relative to the towing vehicle and/or relative to the work equipment by means of actuators assigned to them.”, [0014], [0018]-[0019], __fastening elements reads on coupling points__, [0021]-[0022], “At least one actuator is assigned to the rotating device, […] The rotating device allows the lateral alignment of the attached implement to be individually adjusted” [0029], [0059], “the height adjustment of the lower links is integrated into the control of the attachment device.”, [0086], “lateral shift”, [0088]),
Jürgen doesn’t explicitly disclose comprising:
determining via a control unit in communication with an imaging device using image capture, and analysis a spatial actual position of implement-side coupling points of the implement interface relative to the tractor-side coupling points;
steering via the control unit the agricultural tractor along a predetermined trajectory into an end position provided for the attachment of the implement interface;
activating via the control unit the actuator arrangement in accordance with the course of the predetermined trajectory such that the tractor-side coupling points take up a spatial desired position provided for attaching the implement-side coupling points;
stopping via the control unit the coupling operation when the control unit determines a starting position of the agricultural tractor lies outside a permissible tolerance range based on exceeding the spreading extent, the lateral offset of lateral stabilizers, and the height position of a hydraulic lifting mechanism based on the agricultural tractor being in an adverse pitch angle at a small distance from the implement interface,
issuing via the control unit corresponding operator information regarding stopping based on the agricultural tractor lying outside the permissible tolerance range via the operating and display unit situated in a cab of the agricultural tractor, and,
requesting via the operating and display unit if the coupling operation is desired by an operator after stopping based on the agricultural tractor lying outside the permissible tolerance range
monitoring via the imaging device surroundings in the region of the three-point power-lift,
stopping via the control unit the coupling operation when the control unit recognizes an obstacle via the imaging device in the predetermined trajectory, and
activating via the control unit the operating and display unit in the cab to inform the operator of stopping due based on the control unit recognizing the obstacle.
However, Bernhardt teaches
determining via a control unit in communication with an imaging device using image capture ([0015], [0036]), and analysis a spatial actual position of implement-side coupling points of the implement interface relative to the tractor-side coupling points ([0007], [0014]-[0015]);
steering via the control unit the agricultural tractor along a predetermined trajectory into an end position provided for the attachment of the implement interface ([0007], “A control unit calculates a movement path for the coupling process and, based on a start signal, drives the adjusting means such that the coupling process is performed completely automatically along the calculated motion path.” [0009]);
activating via the control unit the actuator arrangement in accordance with the course of the predetermined trajectory such that the tractor-side coupling points take up a spatial desired position provided for attaching the implement-side coupling points ([0007], “The spatial position of the vehicle-mounted coupling frame relative to the utility vehicle can be adjusted with adjusting means.”, “drives the adjusting means such that the coupling process is performed completely automatically along the calculated motion path. Appropriate adjustment means are provided to adjust the spatial positions of the vehicle-mounted coupling frame relative to the vehicle.” [0009], “Using the current relative position between the vehicle-mounted and implement-mounted coupling frame, the control unit calculates a movement path for the coupling process and drives the adjusting means to move the vehicle-mounted coupling frame automatically along the calculated movement path up to the implement-mounted coupling frame. ”, [0013]-[0014], [0036]-[0038]);
stopping via the control unit the coupling operation when the control unit determines a starting position of the agricultural tractor lies outside a permissible tolerance range based on exceeding the spreading extent, the lateral offset of lateral stabilizers, and the height position of a hydraulic lifting mechanism based on the agricultural tractor being in an adverse pitch angle at a small distance from the implement interface ([0040], “perceives relative motions between the utility vehicle 10 and the implement 28 and interrupts the automatic coupling process when a certain rate of relative motion is exceeded.”, “the actual position of the implement-mounted coupling points is periodically measured at specifiable time intervals during an automatic coupling process, i.e., during the automatic approach. These values are compared to the calculated desired position for the motion path. If the deviation between actual position and desired position exceeds a specifiable value, then this is an indication that the position of the implement 28 relative to the utility vehicle 10 has changed, which may mean that the utility vehicle 10 and/or the implement 28 is moving relative to the ground. The automatic coupling process is then interrupted”, [0035]-[0037], [0011], [0019], [0021], [0023], __Examiner’s Note: According to paragraph [0011] of Bernhardt, the coupling elements or coupling points are arranged in a coupling frame (that can be constructed in a variety of ways as stated in [0011]), and the coupling frame is connected to the vehicle by variable adjusting means (i.e. hydraulic cylinders acting on one or both sides). According to the forgoing cited parts of Bernhardt (i.e. at least [0035] and [0040]), when the deviation of the actual position of the coupling points and the desired/calculate position for the motion path exceeds a specifiable value (i.e. outside permissible range), the coupling process interrupts (i.e. stops). Since the position of coupling points according to paragraph [0035] of Bernhardt are related to the position sensors which are integrated to hydraulic cylinders 12, 14, 16, 18 , 20 , and 22 (i.e. the adjusting means acting on one or both sides according to [0011]), the claimed limitation of “stopping ….based on exceeding the spreading extent, the lateral offset of lateral stabilizer, and the height position of a hydraulic lifting mechanism….” has been taught by Bernhardt. These position sensors, in Bernhardt’s disclosure, calculate the three-dimensional spatial coordinates of coupling triangles. According to Fig. 2 of Bernhardt, the hydraulic cylinders 12 and 14 can read on "lateral stabilizer", the hydraulic cylinders 22, and 16 can read on “height position of lifting mechanism”, and the hydraulic cylinders 18 and 20 can read on “spreading extent” __).
requesting via the operating and display unit if the coupling operation is desired by an operator after stopping based on the agricultural tractor lying outside the permissible tolerance range ([0040], “The automatic coupling process is then interrupted and can be restarted by an activation command initiated by the operator,…”, __Examiner’s Note: according to paragraph [0034] of the instant specification, the first step in the disclosed method is step 102 (as also shown in Fig. 3), which is enquired whether the carrying out of a coupling operation between agricultural tractor and implement is desired by the operator. Further, in paragraph [0038] of the instant specification, it is disclosed that after the coupling operation is stopped, the method returns to the first step. Accordingly the recited limitation has been interpreted as restarting the method by initiating an activation command by the operator (which reads on operator’s desire for the coupling operation), after stopping__ )
monitoring via the imaging device ([0015], [0034], Examiner’s Note: Bernhardt teaches monitoring via cameras/imaging device pointed towards the implement-mounted coupling structure and stopping the coupling operation when the control unit recognizes an obstacle via the imaging device (next limitation’s mapping). Although Bernhardt is silent about a three-point power lift/three-point hitch, and instead discloses hexapod hitch, but it would be obvious to a person ordinary skill to use this teaching of Bernhardt and apply it to three-point hitch structure of Jürgen),
stopping via the control unit the coupling operation when the control unit recognizes an obstacle via the imaging device in the predetermined trajectory ([0009], [0027], “If obstacles are recognized by the sensor and analysis unit during the automatic coupling process, the coupling process is automatically interrupted.”, [0034], “The cameras 34, 36 are pointed at coupling triangle 30 and monitor the coupling area.”),
Further, Jürgen in view of Bernhardt doesn’t explicitly disclose:
issuing via the control unit corresponding operator information regarding stopping based on the agricultural tractor lying outside the permissible tolerance range via the operating and display unit situated in a cab of the agricultural tractor, and,
activating via the control unit the operating and display unit in the cab to inform the operator of stopping due based on the control unit recognizing the obstacle.
However, Hüger teaches:
issuing via the control unit corresponding operator information regarding stopping based on the agricultural tractor lying outside the permissible tolerance range via the operating and display unit situated in a cab of the agricultural tractor ([0033], “A feedback message is furthermore given to a user 30 of the vehicle 10 if the height 103 of the coupling element 21 deviates from a reference height range. […] a feedback message if the height 103 of the coupling element 21 in relation to a background 104 is less than a height of a mating coupling element 11 of the vehicle 10 in relation to a background 104. In this case, […] the method, e.g., can stop or can make it possible for the user 30 to intervene.”), and,
However, Carpenter teaches:
activating via the control unit the operating and display unit in the cab to inform the operator of stopping due based on the control unit recognizing the obstacle ([0039], “lert the operator of possible obstacles when the tractor 100 is traveling in the forward direction F or in the rearward direction R, by way of audible alerts and/or visual alerts via the user interface 140.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of coupling operation of an implement to a towing vehicle having a three-point power lift as taught by Jürgen, with a control unit, in communication with an imaging device, to monitor and analyze the coupling points in order to determine an appropriate trajectory to steer the vehicle toward the implement, activating the actuators in order to attach the implement, and stopping the operating process when the vehicle/tractor’s control unit determines if its starting position lies outside the permissible range as taught by Bernhardt and further modify it by issuing massage to the operator regarding the tractor being outside the permissible tolerance range after stopping the process as taught by Hüger and also to inform the operator via a display in the cab if the control unit recognizes the obstacle as taught by Carpenter, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the automated coupling process while improving the safety.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 11 (See rejection for claim 1), however, Jürgen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein, in order to determine the spatial actual position, an optical identification of the implement-side coupling points is carried out in advance by the control unit.
Nevertheless, Bernhardt teaches in order to determine the spatial actual position, an optical identification of the implement-side coupling points is carried out in advance by the control unit ([0009], [0028], “optical sensor device;”, [0039], “laser sensor”, “scans a different corresponding portion of the coupling frames 28 and 30.”, “optical image-processing”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of coupling operation of an implement to a towing vehicle having a three-point power lift as taught by Jürgen with an optical identification of the implement coupling points in advance as taught by Bernhardt, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the actual position of the coupling points through image capture and analysis carried out by the control unit.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 11 (See rejection for claim 1), however, Jürgen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the imaging device used for the image capture and analysis includes one of a stereo camera, an RGB camera, and a 3D laser scanner.
Nevertheless, Bernhardt teaches wherein the imaging device used for the image capture and analysis includes one of a stereo camera, an RGB camera, and a 3D laser scanner ([0015], [0017], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of coupling operation of an implement to a towing vehicle having a three-point power lift as taught by Jürgen with the imaging device for image capture and analysis as taught by Bernhardt, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of monitoring the coupling process and determining the actual position of the coupling points through image capture and analysis carried out by the control unit, in order to determine the appropriate trajectory to attach the vehicle to the implement.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 11 (See rejection for claim 1), however, Jürgen doesn’t explicitly disclose in the event of an operator-side stipulation of the predetermined trajectory, the desired position including the spreading extent, the lateral offset, and the height position of the tractor-side coupling points is dynamically adapted by the control unit in accordance with an observed actual course of the trajectory.
Nevertheless, although Bernhardt teaches the forgoing limitation, in the event of an operator-side stipulation of the predetermined trajectory, the desired position including the spreading extent, the lateral offset, and the height position of the tractor-side coupling points is dynamically adapted by the control unit in accordance with an observed actual course of the trajectory (at least [0007], “A control unit calculates a movement path for the coupling process and, based on a start signal, drives the adjusting means such that the coupling process is performed completely automatically along the calculated motion path.”, [0009], [0014], “The coordinates of the hexapod hitch can be calculated from the measured values of the sensors.”, [0021], “A processor calculates the position of the characteristic region from the reflection data, and derives the position of the coupling points from it.”, [0023], [0026], [0035], “From the position sensor signals, the computing unit 42 calculates the three dimensional spatial coordinates of coupling triangle 26 in relation to the position of the vehicle 10.”, [0036]-[0038], [0041]),
In alternative rejection, Carpenter also teaches the forgoing limitation, in the event of an operator-side stipulation of the predetermined trajectory, the desired position including the spreading extent, the lateral offset, and the height position of the tractor-side coupling points is dynamically adapted by the control unit in accordance with an observed actual course of the trajectory ([0034], “adjust a height of the tractor 100 allowing the tractor hitch 160 to align with the trailer hitch 210, which allows for autonomous connection between the tractor 100 and the trailer 200.”, [0035], “move across the surface by various combinations of movements relative to three mutually perpendicular axes defined by the tractor 100: a transverse axis X, a fore-aft axis Y, and a central vertical axis Z.”, [0054]-[0055], “The operator identifies a trajectory or path 554 within the received images 412 that will position the tractor hitch coupler 552 under or adjacent the trailer hitch coupler 212. Based on the operator identified path 554 within the images 412, the tractor 100 autonomously drives along the identified path 554.”, [0072], [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of coupling operation of an implement to a towing vehicle having a three-point power lift as taught by Jürgen with dynamically adapting the desired position of the tractor-side coupling points which includes the spreading extent, the lateral offset, and the height position as taught by Bernhardt, or Carpenter (in alternative), with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of dynamically setting a desired setpoint according to the position of the vehicle and the implement.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon discloses the method and system of claims 1 and 11 (See rejection for claim 1), however, Jürgen doesn’t disclose wherein the predetermined trajectory is predetermined computationally by the control unit based on a kinematic model of the agricultural tractor.
Nevertheless, Bernhardt teaches wherein the predetermined trajectory is predetermined computationally by the control unit based on a kinematic model of the agricultural tractor ([0007], “A control unit calculates a movement path for the coupling process and, based on a start signal, drives the adjusting means such that the coupling process is performed completely automatically along the calculated motion path.”, [0012]-[0013], [0035]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of coupling operation of an implement to a towing vehicle having a three-point power lift as taught by Jürgen with control unit to determine the trajectory computationally based on a kinematic model of the tractor as taught by Bernhardt, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling easier and faster implement attachment to the agricultural vehicle and improving the accuracy and efficiency of the automatic coupling process.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 11, however, Jürgen doesn’t explicitly disclose visualizing the implement-side coupling points optically detected via the imaging device on the operating and display unit.
However, Although Bernhardt teaches the implement-side coupling points optically detected via the imaging device (Bernhardt, [0015], “They transfer the digital images to a control apparatus in which the images are processed with the appropriate software to determine the coordinates of the implement-mounted coupling elements or coupling points.”, Bernhardt doesn’t explicitly teach visualizing the implement-side coupling points optically detected via the imaging device on the operating and display unit.
Nevertheless, Carpenter teaches visualizing the implement-side coupling points optically detected via the imaging device on the operating and display unit (See at least, for examples, Figs. 8A and 8B that shows the screen displaying the implement coupling point 122, also see Figs. 10 and 12, See Fig 13 block 902).
Therefore, the combination of Bernhart and Carpenter according to the cited part of the references, meet the limitation of claim 10.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of coupling operation of an implement to a towing vehicle having a three-point power lift as taught by Jürgen with detecting the coupling points via imaging device as taught by Bernhardt and displaying the coupling point on the operating and display unit as taught by Carpenter, with the reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the control of coupling operation and improving ease of use for operator by visualizing the coupling points on the display unit.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jürgen in view of Bernhard, Hüger, and Carpenter, or in alternative rejection, Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jürgen in view of Bernhard, Hüger, Carpenter and further in view of Kremmer et al., DE102016216515A1, hereinafter “Kremmer”.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Jürgen in view of Bernhardt and Poettinger teaches the method and system of claims 7 and 15 (See rejection for claims 7 and 15), however, Jürgen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein, in the event of a computational stipulation of the trajectory, the desired position including the spreading extent, the lateral offset, and the height position of the tractor-side coupling points is fixedly set by the control unit.
Nevertheless, although Bernhardt teaches the forgoing limitation wherein, in the event of a computational stipulation of the trajectory, the desired position including the spreading extent, the lateral offset, and the height position of the tractor-side coupling points is fixedly set by the control unit (at least [0008]-[0009], [0012], [0014]-[0015], [0020], [0023], [0038], [0040] ),
In alternative rejection, Kremmer also teaches wherein, in the event of a computational stipulation of the trajectory, the desired position including the spreading extent, the lateral offset, and the height position of the tractor-side coupling points is fixedly set by the control unit ([0005], “a setpoint value predetermined for the distance variable”, [0009], “the control unit derives the target value of the distance from a working height and/or inclination of the agricultural implement to be maintained along a contour of the earth's surface to be traveled.”, [0010], [0019]-[0020], [0037])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of coupling operation of an implement to a towing vehicle having a three-point power lift as taught by Jürgen with dynamically adapting the desired position of the tractor-side coupling points which includes the spreading extent, the lateral offset, and the height position as taught by Bernhardt or Kremmer (in alternative), with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of dynamically setting a desired setpoint according to the position of the vehicle and the implement.
Claims 9 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jürgen in view of Bernhard, Hüger, Carpenter, and further in view of Swenson et al., US20140107884, hereinafter “Swenson”.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 11 (See rejection of claim 1), however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose depicting via a navigation system a course along the predetermined trajectory and corresponding steering commands cartographically on the operating and display unit.
Nevertheless, Swenson teaches depicting via a navigation system a course along the predetermined trajectory and corresponding steering commands cartographically on the operating and display unit ([0005], “agricultural vehicles are often equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers or other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) for determining their locations or positions while they are operated. Agricultural vehicles are also often equipped with displays for displaying representations of these positions on maps or other cartographic displays.”, [0014], “The control device receives location data from the satellite system receiver and compares the location data to cartographic data for a desired path of the vehicle and produces steering commands to be delivered to a steering actuator.”, [0042], [0054], “the system 10 or other device receives or otherwise accesses cartographic data or other data that represents a desired route or path across a field or other area. […] The system 10 or other device may display several optional routes or paths”, [0054]-[0056], “the system 10 or other device guides the vehicle 12 to the start of the desired path. This may be done by providing visual or audible turn instructions to the vehicle operator or by providing steering and control signals to the steering actuator”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of coupling operation of an implement to a towing vehicle having a three-point power lift as taught by Jürgen with depicting via navigation system a desired/predetermined path and steering commands as taught by Swenson, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the control of coupling operation and improving ease of use for operator by depicting the predetermined trajectory and the steering command on the display unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights