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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 24 June 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-16, 18-21, 23-28, 36-37 and 46-49 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claim(s) 1, 21, 27 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the office action 25 February 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claim(s) 1, 21, 27 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the office action 25 February 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 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
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 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.
Claim(s) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano et al. (US 2022/0381920 A1 hereinafter Kano) in view of Kamoda et al. (US 20200130601 A1 hereinafter Kamoda)
Regarding Claim 15, Kano teaches A control system for a power machine (see at least Abstract), the control system comprising:
a first object detection sensor configured to monitor a first detection zone for objects along a primary path of travel that extends from the power machine in a first direction that extends opposite a primary implement interface of the power machine, the first object detection sensor being secured to the power machine so that the first detection zone extends from an apex of the first detection zone located at the first object detection sensor, along and around a first object detection sensor axis extending from the apex; (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0080-0105]: The front camera 81 and front obstacle sensor 86 are arranged to look down a front a front side of the tractor from a diagonally upper side on the opposite side of a primary implement (rotary tilling device 3) of the power machine. The rear camera 82 and rear obstacle sensor 87 are arranged to look down the rear side of the tractor from diagonally upward side.)
a second object detection sensor configured to monitor a second detection zone for objects along the primary path of travel, the second object detection sensor being secured to the power machine so that the second detection zone extends from an apex of the second detection zone located at the second object detection sensor, along and around a second object detection sensor axis extending from the apex, (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0080-0105]: The front camera 81 and front obstacle sensor 86 are arranged to look down a front a front side of the tractor from a diagonally upper side on the opposite side of a primary implement (rotary tilling device 3) of the power machine. The rear camera 82 and rear obstacle sensor 87 are arranged to look down the rear side of the tractor from diagonally upward side.)
a control device (see at least Fig. 6: vehicle-mounted control unit 23) configured to execute operations including:
when the power machine is moving or is commanded to move in the first direction, receiving signals from the first and second object detection sensors that indicate detected objects in the detection zone (see at least Fig. 11-17 [0109-0129]: Based on the detection information of the front obstacle sensor 86 , the automatic travel control unit 23 F performs first determination processing in which whether an obstacle has been detected in a forward travel speed control range including the deceleration control range Rdc and the stop control range Rsc of the first detection range Rd 1 is determined)
providing an indication of the detected objects to an operator of a power machine; (see at least Fig. 11-17 [0109-0129]: In the obstacle display control, the automatic travel control unit 23 F instructs the display control unit 51 A of the mobile communication terminal 5 to execute each obstacle information display processing in accordance with the detection information of each of the obstacle sensors 86 to 88 to control display on the display device 50 of the mobile communication terminal 5 .)
controlling the automatic travel of the power machine along the primary path of the travel based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects. (see at least Fig. 11-17 [0109-0129]: The automatic travel control unit 23F executes, based on determination results in the travel direction determination processing, the detection information of each of the obstacle sensors 86 to 88 transmitted to the vehicle-mounted control unit 23 , or the like, obstacle display control in which display on the display device 50 of the mobile communication terminal 5 is controlled to indicate presence or absence of obstacles and locations of the obstacles, collision avoidance control in which travel of the tractor 1 is controlled to avoid collision with the obstacles.)
It may be alleged that Kano does not explicitly teach the first and second object detection sensors being arranged so that the first object detection sensor axis extends to a first side of the primary path of travel with a first yaw angle, the second object detection sensor extends to a second side of the primary path of travel with a second yaw angle, and the first and second detection zones overlap to provide a detection zone along the primary path of travel; (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0025-0039]: As shown in Fig 3, the two front obstacle sensors 105 are being arranged so that the first object detection sensor 105a extends to first side of the path of travel with a first yaw angle and the second obstacle detection sensor 105b extends to a second side with a second yaw angle. The first and second obstacle sensors’ detection zone overlap a detection zone along the path of travel.)
Komoda is directed to working vehicle equipped with plurality of obstacle detection sensors, teaches a first object detection sensor configured to monitor a first detection zone for objects along a primary path of travel that extends from the power machine in a first direction that extends opposite a primary implement interface of the power machine, the first object detection sensor being secured to the power machine so that the first detection zone extends from an apex of the first detection zone located at the first object detection sensor, along and around a first object detection sensor axis extending from the apex; (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0025-0039]: The tractor includes a first obstacle sensor 105a and a second front obstacle sensor 105 for detecting if an obstacle is detected in front of the tractor. The drawings illustrate obstacle detection range 115b of the front obstacle sensor, the sensors are attached such that the major axes of them are substantially horizonal. As shown in the images, the front obstacle sensors 105 detects obstacle in a direction opposite to the primary implement interface of the power machine.)
a second object detection sensor configured to monitor a second detection zone for objects along the primary path of travel, the second object detection sensor being secured to the power machine so that the second detection zone extends from an apex of the second detection zone located at the second object detection sensor, along and around a second object detection sensor axis extending from the apex, (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0025-0039]: The tractor includes a first obstacle sensor 105a and a second front obstacle sensor 105 for detecting if an obstacle is detected in front of the tractor. The drawings illustrate obstacle detection range 115b of the front obstacle sensor, the sensors are attached such that the major axes of them are substantially horizonal. As shown in the images, the front obstacle sensors 105 detects obstacle in a direction opposite to the primary implement interface of the power machine.)
the first and second object detection sensors being arranged so that the first object detection sensor axis extends to a first side of the primary path of travel with a first yaw angle, the second object detection sensor extends to a second side of the primary path of travel with a second yaw angle, and the first and second detection zones overlap to provide a detection zone along the primary path of travel; (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0025-0039]: As shown in Fig 3, the two front obstacle sensors 105 are being arranged so that the first object detection sensor 105a extends to first side of the path of travel with a first yaw angle and the second obstacle detection sensor 105b extends to a second side with a second yaw angle. The first and second obstacle sensors’ detection zone overlap a detection zone along the path of travel.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kano’s obstacle detection system to incorporating the technique of arranging the first and second objection detection sensors the first object detection sensor axis extends to a first side of the primary path of travel with a first yaw angle, the second object detection sensor extends to a second side of the primary path of travel with a second yaw angle, and the first and second detection zones overlap to provide a detection zone along the primary path of travel as taught by Kamoda with reasonable expectation of success to tractor’s obstacle detection range.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kano in view of Kamoda teaches The control system of claim 15,
Kano further teaches wherein the control device is further configured to provide the indication of the detected objects by providing one or more of an auditory alert, a visual-display alert, or a tactile alert to the operator of the power machine, corresponding to at least one of the detected objects. (see at least Fig. 11-17 [0109-0129]: In the obstacle display control, the automatic travel control unit 23 F instructs the display control unit 51 A of the mobile communication terminal 5 to execute each obstacle information display processing in accordance with the detection information of each of the obstacle sensors 86 to 88 to control display on the display device 50 of the mobile communication terminal 5.)
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Kamoda and Yu (US 2022/0161850 A1).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Kano in view of Kamoda teaches The control system of claim 18, further comprising an object detection display;
The combination of Kano in view of Kamoda does not explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to provide the indication of the detected objects to the operator by providing a visual representation on the object detection display of a location and the distance between the power machine and the one or more of the detected objects.
Yu is directed to vehicular assistance device for notifying a driver of detected obstacle during reverse driving, Yu teaches wherein the control system is configured to provide the indication of the detected objects to the operator by providing a visual representation on the object detection display of a location and the distance between the power machine and the one or more of the detected objects. (see at least Fig. 2A-3 [0055-0074]: a plurality of sensors may sense an obstacle located around the vehicle and the controller may detect the separation distance between the vehicle and the obstacle and update the separation distance in real time and may display a proximity image in the form of a pop-up)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kano and Kamoda to incorporate the technique of providing the indication of the detected objects to the operator with a visual representation on the object detection display of a location and a distance of one or more of the detected objects relative to the power machine as taught by Yu with reasonable expectation of success because doing so would improve vehicle operation safety (Yu [0010]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Kamoda and Ries et al. (US 2021/0238827 A1 hereinafter Ries).
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Kano in view of Kamoda teaches The control system of claim 15,
The combination of Kano in view of Kamoda does not explicitly teach wherein a range of object detection for the first or second object detection sensor is controllable by an operator.
Ries is direct to operation-based object detection for a work vehicle, Ries teaches wherein a range of object detection for the first or second object detection sensor is controllable by an operator. (see at least Fig. 1, 4A-5 [0045-0053]: The display 404 may provide a preview to indicate one or more zones to be ignored for object detection based on a user selection/input.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of controlling a range of object detection for the object detection sensor based on operator input as taught by Ries with reasonable expectation of success because doing so would allow an operator to identify unseen hazards near the work vehicle while suppressing unnecessary alert that may distract the operator from other more relevant alerts (Ries [0002-0004]).
Claim(s) 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Kamoda and Takeno et al. (US 2024/0151000 A1 hereinafter Takeno).
Regarding claim 48, The combination of Kano in view of Kamoda teaches The control system of Claim 15,
Kano further teaches wherein controlling the travel of the power machine along the primary path of travel based on the received signals include selectively operating the power machine in a plurality of operating modes that includes a first operating mode, the first operating mode including, based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a command speed (see at least Fig. 4, 20-22 [0097-0167]: Each of the detection ranges Rd1 and Rd2 of the front and rear obstacle sensors is divided into a stop control range Rsc, a deceleration control range Rdc, and a notification control range Rnc, based on collision determination processing in which a collision prediction time. The automatic travel control unit23F controls travel of the tractor to execute control for each collision avoidance in accordance with detection information of each of the obstacle sensors. If obstacle is located in deceleration control range Rdc, the control unit performs forward travel deceleration control or reducing forward travel speed. The travel control unit performs forward travel stop if the obstacle is detected to be in the stop control range Rsc.)or relative a maximum possible power machine speed, with a non-linear reduction relative to changes in distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects.
It may be alleged that the combination of Kano in view of Kamoda does not explicitly teach the first operating mode including, based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a command speed or relative a maximum possible power machine speed, with a non-linear reduction relative to changes in distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects.
Svendsen is directed to autonomous robot capable of obstacle avoidance, Svendsen teaches the first operating mode including, based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a command speed or relative a maximum possible power machine speed, with a non-linear reduction relative to changes in distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects. ([0017-0018, 0069]: Upon sensing a proximity of the object forward of the robot, the robot may decrease the full cleaning speed to a reduced cleaning speed at a constant rate, an exponential rate, a non-linear rate, or some other rate.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kano and Kamoda to incorporate the control technique of reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone as taught by Svendsen with reasonable expectation of success to improve machine control safety and responsiveness in response to obstacle proximity.
Regarding claim 49, The combination of Kano in view of Kamoda and Svendsen teaches The control system of claim 48,
Kano further teaches wherein the operating in the object-detected mode includes automatically stopping the power machine based on detecting the detected object. (see at least Fig. 4, 18-22 [0113-0152]: Based on the detection information of the front obstacle sensor 86 , the automatic travel control unit 23 F performs determination whether an obstacle is detected in the forward travel direction and if an obstacle is detected in the forward travel deceleration control range (Rdc of Rd1), the automatic travel control unit performs forward travel deceleration by reducing forward travel speed of the tractor. The automatic travel control unit performs forward travel stop instruction if the obstacle is detected/determined to be within a stop control range (Rsc of Rd1) of the forward travel speed control range.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 21, 23-28, 36-37 and 46-47 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent Claim 1, the combination of prior arts Takeno, Kano, Kamoda, Svendsen and Weston taken either individually or in combination with each other or other prior art of records fail to teach or render obvious of (in particular, the underlined limitation):
an object detection system that includes a first object detection sensor and a second object detection sensor mounted to the power machine; and
a control device configured to execute automatic travel operations for the power machine based on signals from the first and second object detection sensors;
wherein each of the first and second object detection sensors is configured to monitor a respective detection zone for objects along a path of automatic travel that extends in a second direction that is opposite the first direction;
wherein for each of the first and second object detection sensors:
the respective detection zone extends from an apex of the respective detection zone located at the corresponding first or second object detection sensor, along and around an object detection sensor axis extending from the apex;
cross-sections of the respective detection zone at a plurality of locations along the object detection sensor axis define corresponding shapes with lower boundaries; and
the respective first or second object detection sensor is mounted to the power machine so that, with the power machine on level ground, a line extending through a plurality of the corresponding lower boundaries extends parallel with the level ground.
Independent Claims 21, 27 and 36 recite similar underlined limitation to those of claim 1 and are considered allowable for the same reason.
Dependent Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (for reciting similar limitation as indicated in independent claim 1) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights