DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are pending. Claim 1 is the independent claims. Claim 1 have been amended. Claims 4 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 9 and 10 have been newly added. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 12/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/16/2025, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered.
Applicant has amended claim 1 and added new limitations that requires new analysis and new application of prior art, as mapped below in the Final Office Action.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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 claim 1, it recites the limitation of “the control unit determines a starting position of the agricultural tractor lies outside a permissible tolerance range based on exceeding the spreading extent and the lateral offset of lateral stabilizers or the height position of a hydraulic lifting mechanism”. It is unclear to the examiner how to read the underlined limitation as written and which parts of the limitation is included in the alternative “or” limitation. There are two different ways to read the underlined limitation:
First, as “based on (exceeding the spreading extent and the lateral offset of lateral stabilizers) or (the height position of a hydraulic lifting mechanism)”.
Second, as “based on (exceeding the spreading extent) and (the lateral offset of lateral stabilizers or the height position of a hydraulic lifting mechanism)”.
The alternative limitation according to the first or second reading of the aforementioned limitation is different and therefore requires different ground for rejection. Accordingly, the mete and bound of the claim is not clear to the examiner. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation has been read according to the aforementioned first statement.
Further according to claim 1, the term “small distance” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small distance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “small distance” is interpreted as any distance between a machine and an implement that is undesired for the coupling operation between the machine and the implement.
Claims 2-10 are also 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, and 10 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 Garcia US20210402932, hereinafter “Garcia”, further in view of Poettinger, EP1862050A2, hereinafter “Poettinger”, further in view of Czapka, US20170359941A1, hereinafter “Czapka”, further in view of Carpenter et al., US 20200097021 A1, hereinafter “Carpenter”.
Regarding claim 1, Jürgen discloses A method 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 and the lateral offset of lateral stabilizers or the height position of a hydraulic lifting mechanism due to the agricultural tractor being in an adverse pitch angle at a small distance from the implement interface, and issuing via the control unit corresponding operator information via the operating and display unit situated in a cab of the agricultural tractor; and 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.
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.”1); monitoring via the imaging device ([0015], [0034]), 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.”), and activating via the control unit the operating and (at least [0003], “ the actuators can be controlled from an operating console in the vehicle cab.”).
Although Bernhardt teaches monitoring via imaging device and stopping the coupling operation when the control unit recognizes an obstacle via the imaging device as mapped in the previous paragraph of the present office action, however, Bernhardt doesn’t explicitly disclose surroundings in the region of the three-point power-lift.
Nevertheless, Garcia teaches monitoring via the imaging device surroundings in the region of the three-point power-lift ([0012], “camera covers a field of vision to supply a picture that covers part of the attachment device and part of the work unit connection.”, [0014], “monitoring of the connecting process”, [0015]-[0017], “a three-point power lifter.”, [0049], Fig. 4).
Furthermore, Poettinger teaches 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 ([0003], [0004], [0013], “control device can correspondingly control corresponding actuators for moving the connection interface on the vehicle when the coupling position of the vehicle is reached, in order to bring the vehicle-side application interface into engagement with the machine-side application interface.”).
Furthermore, Czapka teaches 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 the height position of a hydraulic lifting mechanism due to the agricultural tractor being in an adverse pitch angle at a small distance from the implement interface (Abstract, “generate a hitch height control signal indicative of instructions to adjust a hitch actuator if the pitch angle is not within the pitch angle range”, [0005], [0018], “The implement 12 also includes a sensor (e.g., inclinometer 20) to determine a pitch angle and/or height of the implement 12. Based on a distance 22 between the hitch 14 and the gauge wheels 24 (or other ground-engaging component), the actuators 16, 18 may be adjusted to achieve a desired implement 12 height and pitch angle.”, [0018], “If the height and/or pitch angle of the implement 12 are not at the desired height or pitch angle, the implement 12 may then automatically request (e.g., via ISOBUS Class 3 communication with the tractor 10) that the tractor 10 controller or control system adjust the height of the hitch 14 and/or the implement 12 via the one or more actuators 16, 18.”, [0027], Fig. 6 and associated paragraphs, __Note: even though the reference doesn’t disclose “stopping” explicitly, however, for “adjusting” the implement when it is not in a desired height/pitch angle, the coupling operation has to stop first in order to being adjusted, therefore the cited reference meet the claimed limitation__) ,and issuing via the control unit corresponding operator information via the operating (at least [0028], “The implement controller 200 may also communicate command signals to the tractor controller 202 via the ISOBUS Class 3 communication connection. […] generate a command signal indicative of instructions to extend or contract the actuators 16, 18, 54 (e.g., via the valve assembly 218) such that the hitch positions an end of the implement proximate to the hitch at a desired height to attain a desired implement pitch angle and/or implement height”).
Further, although Czapka teaches the limitaion of issuing corresponding information via the control unit, however, Czapka doesn’t explicitly disclose via display unit situated in a cab of the agricultural tractor;
However, using a display unit situated in a cab of an agricultural tractor for issuing or outputting the controlling information to the operator is common in the art, for example, Carpenter discloses a user interface such as a display, for displaying one or more notifications to the operator (at least Fig. 1, and paragraph [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 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 as taught by Bernhardt and perform attachment process by activating the actuators in order to attach the implement to the vehicle as taught by Poettinger, and further by stopping the operating process when the vehicle/tractor’s control unit determines if its starting position is in an adverse pitch angle/small distance from the implement and lies outside the permissible range and issuing corresponding operator command as taught by Czapka and displaying it on a display unit in the vehicle’s cab as, for example, taught by Carpenter, and further monitoring via the imaging device in the region of three-point power lift as taught by Bernhardt in view of Garcia, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to automate the coupling operation with the motivation of enabling easier and faster implement changes while improving the safety of the operation by monitoring if there the starting position of the vehicle/tractor is at appropriate pitch angle/distance from the implement for executing a successful coupling operation and also monitoring if there is any obstacle in the predetermined trajectory and stop the operation in order to prevent any collision or unsuccessful coupling process. These all enhance the automated coupling process while improving the safety.
Regarding claim 3, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method of claim 1 (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 claim 5, Jürgen in view of Bernhardt and Poettinger teaches the method of claim 1 (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, Carpenter teaches 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 Carpenter, 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 claim 7, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon discloses the method of claim 1 (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 claim 10, Jürgen in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method of claim 1, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jürgen in view of Bernhard (or in alternative, further in view of Holzapfel et al., US20200348123, hereinafter “Holzapfel”)”, further in view of Garcias, Poettinger, Czapaka and Carpenter.
Regarding claim 2, Jürgen in view of Bernhardt, Garcias, Poettinger, Czapaka and Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1 (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”), also in alternative rejection, Holzapfel also 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 ([0002], “The spatial position and orientation of the probe head may be determined with the aid of an optical position sensing device.”, [0015], [0019]).
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 or Holzapfel, in alternative rejection, 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jürgen in view of Bernhard, Garcia, Poettinger, Czapka, and Carpenter, and further in view of Kremmer et al., DE102016216515A1, hereinafter “Kremmer”.
Regarding claim 8, Jürgen in view of Bernhardt and Poettinger teaches the method of claim 7 (See rejection for claim 7), 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, Kremmer 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 Kremmer, 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jürgen in view of Bernhard, Garcia, Poettinger, Czapka, and Carpenter, and further in view of Swenson et al., US20140107884, hereinafter “Swenson”.
Regarding claim 9, Jürgen 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.
However, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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