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 .
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Examiners’ Note:
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of Claims 1, 9 and 14 have been withdrawn in view of the 09/10/2025 claim amendments, as the amended claims remote the claim language the previously necessitated these rejections. Claim 13 remains rejected under 112(b) due to the unclear claim language that remains in amended Claim 13.
The Examiner notes that the Claims 1, 9 and 14 amended limitations of “to be received by the work vehicle” are directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claims, as indicated by the use of “to”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of Claim 13, the Applicant argues “Claims 6, 9, and 13-14, amended similarly to claim 1 and having been rejected for similar reasons, are also not indefinite for at least the same reason as claim 1”.
The arguments are not persuasive. While the arguments directed to Claim 13 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, Claim 13 is not identical to Claim 1 and is rejected under 112(b) for issues that are specific to Claim 13, therefore, the arguments are not persuasive. See the Claim 13 rejection.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, the Applicant argues
“However, dissecting the claim limitation into two discrete parts "a second setting operation to set the work vehicle to make a turn traveling, in a front, up to a second straight route" and "if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle" and evaluating them separately is improper. Simply because Berridge, in one embodiment, may be directed to a towed work instrument and (separately) can have the vehicle follow the EOR turn path 140 is not the same as "a second setting operation to set the work vehicle to make a turn traveling, in a front, up to a second straight route if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle." As explained in paragraph [0004] of the present specification, the claimed invention is made to address the difficulty of "efficiently [traveling] along the target route, especially for the work vehicle equipped with the work instrument that enlarges the overall size of the work vehicle, resulting in a problem of reduced work efficiency." The inventive concept of the claim limitation "a second setting operation... towed by the work vehicle" is based on how the second setting operation exists in response to the condition of the work instrument being a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle. Evaluating the claim limitation by splitting it into two here is improper. MPEP 2103 states:"when evaluating the scope of a claim, every limitation in the claim must be considered. Examiners may not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the claim as a whole must be considered”.
The arguments are not persuasive. The claims were in fact considered as a whole. Furthermore, the arguments are in fact moot as they are not directed to amended Claim 9 as written. The Applicant writes “dissecting the claim limitation into two discrete parts "a second setting operation to set the work vehicle to make a turn traveling, in a front, up to a second straight route" and "if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle"”, however, amended Claim 9 does not recite the word “if”, and the arguments are then not directed to amended Claim 9 as written and are moot.
The Examiner notes that even if amended Claim 9 recited the word “if” as incorrectly argued by the Applicant, the arguments provide no clear explanation of how the word “if” causes the teachings of Berridge et al. to no longer apply to Claim 9. When referring to previous Claim 9 of the 05/06/2025 claims, the previous limitation “if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle”, which actually does contain the word “if”, encompasses merely describing a situation of using a “work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle”, where the Examiner also notes that the present claims do not have proper antecedent basis for the Claim 9 limitation “the work instrument”. The present claims do not expressly require any system determining the existence of a condition of the existence of a “work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle”.
Furthermore, the “selecting” of Claim 9 is apparently performed by a human user, as seen in P[0109] of the Applicant’s specification, therefore, the limitation “the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle” has no effect on the “selecting”, even if the word “if” was included for the claim to recite “if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle”, as the Applicant’s invention has no control over the motivations of a user choosing to perform the selection, and a user may perform the selection regardless of what type of “work instrument” is present. Therefore, the existence or use of the “work instrument” that “is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle” merely recites an intended configuration of a “work instrument” that does not further limit the “selecting” or the “second setting operation”.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s arguments are unclear in terms of how the Applicant understands that the claim was improperly rejected by, in the Applicant’s words, “splitting it into two”. The Applicant does not clearly explain how evaluating the limitation of “the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle” as a distinct limitation in the combination of limitations of Claim 9 is somehow improper. Indeed, the “work instrument” is a distinct limitation that is not a “selecting” method step and that is not a “setting operation”, and the rejection properly considers the limitation “the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle” as a distinct limitation and as part of the combination of limitations of Claim 9, and the Applicant provides no evidence or clear explanation showing how the previous rejection was improper.
Furthermore, Berridge et al. teaches the same “towed work instrument” as claimed as seen in FIG. 1 of Berridge et al., and Berridge et al. teaches the equivalent of the claimed “selecting” and “second setting operation” limitations, to which the Applicant has not provided any rebuttal other than the conclusory statement “Simply because Berridge, in one embodiment, may be directed to a towed work instrument and (separately) can have the vehicle follow the EOR turn path 140 is not the same as "a second setting operation to set the work vehicle to make a turn traveling, in a front, up to a second straight route if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle."”. The Applicant’s support of this conclusory statement is a supposed advantage of the Applicant’s invention mentioned in the specification, which does not constitute a persuasive rebuttal to the rejection, as it provides no evidence showing how the teachings of Berridge et al. were misapplied in the rejection. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Applicant then implies that the “splitting it into two” of the rejection somehow causes the teachings of Berridge et al. to not apply to Claim 9, yet no explanation is given as to how the Applicant reached this conclusion and based on what evidence.
Regarding Claim 14, which actually recites the word “if” in “if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle”, the above response applies to Claim 14, where the Applicant argues
“Claim 14, reciting similar features (specifically "the second setting operation [[to]] sets the work vehicle, after reaching the end position of the first straight route, to make a turn traveling, in a front, up to a second straight route if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle") is also not anticipated for at least the same reason as claim 9”.
However, as explained above with respect to Claim 9, the word “if” encompasses merely describing a situation of using a “work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle”, where the Examiner also notes that the present claims do not have proper antecedent basis for the Claim 14 limitation “the work instrument”. The present claims do not expressly require any system determining the existence of a condition of the existence of a “work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle”. Furthermore, the “selecting” of Claim 14 is apparently performed by a human user, as seen in P[0109] of the Applicant’s specification, therefore, the limitation “the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle” has no effect on the “selecting”, as the Applicant’s invention has no control over the motivations of a user choosing to perform the selection, and a user may perform the selection regardless of what type of “work instrument” is present. Therefore, the existence or use of the “work instrument” that “is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle” merely recites an intended configuration of a “work instrument” that does not further limit the “selecting” or the “second setting operation”.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicant argues
“The Examiner has not provided any motivation to combine the cited prior art, only writing the following: Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Berridge et al. with the teachings of Scott et al., and to perform selecting to receive to the work vehicle, upon generating a target route, after reaching an end position of a first straight route, a first setting operation to set the work vehicle to travel rearward toward a start position of the first straight route, as rendered obvious by Scott et al., in order to return to a "start point" (Scott et al.; see P[0120]). Here, there is no rationale regarding why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Berridge with Scott, only that Scott "render[s] obvious" the claimed features of claim 1 without any support for this assertion”.
The arguments are not persuasive. The argument that recites “The Examiner has not provided any motivation to combine the cited prior art, only writing the following” and the continues by quoting the motivation provided in the rejection is contradictory, as the Applicant asserts no motivation has been provided by the Examiner, but then immediately proceeds by quoting the motivation provided by the Examiner. The Applicant disagreeing with a provided motivation is not equivalent to a motivation not being provided, however, the Applicant only argues that a motivation was not provided while quoting the provided motivation, therefore, the argument is nonsensical as it is self-contradictory, and it is then not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Moreover, Applicant submits that there exists no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Berridge with Scott in the first place”
and
“Berridge notes that "undesirable turning paths" which "cross over the field boundary and back into the work area of the field" can result in "crop damage, unnecessary soil compaction, and/or the like." However, if Berridge were to be combined with Scott, the resulting invention, as the Examiner argues, would have the work vehicle reverse back over its travel path. However, Berridge's invention requires minimal traversal of the work field in order to avoid crop damage and unnecessary soil compaction - there is no reason nor motivation to add reverse travel over the once-traveled travel route towards the start position into Berridge's invention, as this would contradict Berridge's aim of avoiding undesirable paths/outcomes. Berridge provides no reason, suggestion, or motivation to travel backwards to the start position, and doing so would only result in unnecessary soil compaction and a reduction in efficiency. In fact, combining the prior art in the manner that the Examiner proposes is impermissible hindsight reconstruction using the claimed invention as a blueprint”.
The arguments are not persuasive. The motivation to modify Berridge et al. with the teachings of Scott et al. was provided in the rejection, therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded that “no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Berridge with Scott in the first place”.
Furthermore, the Applicant completely mischaracterizes Berridge et al. in an attempt to make Berridge et al. fit the Applicant’s opinion, as explained below.
Specifically, regarding the “undesirable turning paths” mentioned in P[0004] of Berridge et al., P[0004] of Berridge et al. recites
“This can lead to the generation of unpredictable and often undesirable turning paths, which can be problematic in instances in which limited space is available outside the field boundary and/or for fields having complex shapes. For example, conventional algorithms will often generate turning paths that cross over the field boundary and back into the work area of the field, which can result in crop damage, unnecessary soil compaction, and/or the like” (emphasis added by Examiner),
and additionally, P[0040] of Berridge et al., a portion of which is used as evidence by the Applicant as quoted above, recites
“However, when the work boundary 104 defines a more complex shape, EOR turn paths generated by the vehicle control system 42 based solely on such factors can result in all or a portion of agricultural machine 10 crossing over the work boundary 104. In such instances, guidance of the agricultural machine 10 along such paths can lead to undesirable results, such as crop damage, unnecessary soil compaction and/or other undesirable outcomes within the work area 104 of the field 102” (emphasis added by Examiner).
Therefore, the “undesirable turning paths”, “crop damage” and “unnecessary soil compaction” of Berridge et al. discussed by the Applicant are actually directed to the goal of Berridge et al. of not crossing a work boundary, and it is clear that reversing over a previously-traveled route would not cross any work boundary that was not crossed when first traveling the route, therefore, the combination of Berridge et al. with Scott et al. would not negatively affect the goals of Berridge et al., and the arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, the motivation to combine is provided in the rejection, and the Applicant again fails to make a persuasive rebuttal as to why the motivation is not valid. No hindsight reasoning was used in the rejection, and hindsight is in fact not required to simply combine Berridge et al. and Scott et al. to achieve the advantages of both for the motivation as provided in the rejection.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues “Berridge's invention requires minimal traversal of the work field in order to avoid crop damage and unnecessary soil compaction”, however, Berridge et al. does not make any mention of “minimal traversal of the work field” or of the term “minimal traversal”, and the term “minimal traversal” is a term that the Applicant misleadingly attempts to link to Berridge et al., which is a mischaracterization of Berridge et al. that does not amount to a persuasive rebuttal of the rejection.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The arguments directed to Claims 11 and 13 are not persuasive for the reasons given above.
All other arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
All claims are rejected. See the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines “sets the work vehicle to make a turn traveling, in a front, up to a second straight route the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle”. The limitation “the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle” is a sentence fragment that appears mid-sentence after the words “a second straight route” with no clear link to the words “a second straight route word”, or to the word “sets”, or to any other preceding word. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6, 9, 13 and 14 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.
As per Claim 13, the claim recites “a receiving processor that, upon generating [[a]] the target route and upon selection receives a first setting operation to set the work vehicle, after reaching [[an]] the end position of a first straight route, to travel rearward toward [[a]] the start position of the first straight route”.
It is unclear what performs the step of “upon selection”. Specifically, it is unclear if the “receiving processor” performs the “selection”, or if the “selection” is performed by another system or by a user.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the work instrument" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the work instrument" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berridge et al. (2021/0405644).
Regarding Claim 6, Berridge et al. teaches the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 9,wherein with the second setting operation received, after the work vehicle reaches the end position of the first straight route, the work vehicle makes the turn traveling up to the second straight route based on a manual operation by a user (“…when the vehicle 12 or implement 14 reaches the end point 120 of the first path 122, the implement 14 may be raised, turned off, or otherwise disengaged via the implement control system 50. This may be performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42 (and/or the implement control system 50) or by the operator via the operator interface 52. The vehicle 12 then follows the EOR turn path 140 to the starting point 124 of the second path 126. In one embodiment, the guidance of the vehicle 12 along the EOR turn path 140 is performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42. Alternatively, the EOR turn may be performed semi-automatically by allowing the operator to execute one or more operator-triggered actions (e.g., varying the vehicle speed and/or the like)”, see P[0038]).
Regarding Claim 9, Berridge et al. teaches the claimed automatic traveling method for executing operations, comprising:
generating a target route that includes a plurality of straight routes, along each of which a work vehicle is caused to automatically travel from a start position to an end position (“Moreover, as shown in FIG. 3, the field map 100 also includes a plurality of virtual swath or guidance lines 112 extending across the work area 106. In several embodiments, the agricultural vehicle 12 may be automatically, semi-automatically, or manually controlled to follow the guidance lines 112 across the work area 106”, see P[0037] and FIG. 3),
selecting [[to receive to the work vehicle]], upon generating [[a]] the target route, after reaching [[an]] the end position of a first straight route, a second setting operation to be received by the work vehicle, wherein
the second setting operation [[to]] sets the work vehicle to make a turn traveling, in a front, up to a second straight route (“…when the vehicle 12 or implement 14 reaches the end point 120 of the first path 122, the implement 14 may be raised, turned off, or otherwise disengaged via the implement control system 50. This may be performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42 (and/or the implement control system 50) or by the operator via the operator interface 52. The vehicle 12 then follows the EOR turn path 140 to the starting point 124 of the second path 126. In one embodiment, the guidance of the vehicle 12 along the EOR turn path 140 is performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42. Alternatively, the EOR turn may be performed semi-automatically by allowing the operator to execute one or more operator-triggered actions (e.g., varying the vehicle speed and/or the like)”, see P[0038]) the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle (see FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Berridge et al. teaches the claimed automatic traveling system comprising:
an operation terminal having a route generating processor for generating a target route that includes a plurality of straight routes, along each of which a work vehicle is caused to automatically travel from a start position to an end position (“Moreover, as shown in FIG. 3, the field map 100 also includes a plurality of virtual swath or guidance lines 112 extending across the work area 106. In several embodiments, the agricultural vehicle 12 may be automatically, semi-automatically, or manually controlled to follow the guidance lines 112 across the work area 106”, see P[0037] and FIG. 3); and
the operation terminal having a receiving processor for selecting [[to receive to the work vehicle]], upon generating [[a]] the target route, after reaching [[an]] the end position of a first straight route, a second setting operation to be received by the work vehicle, wherein
the second setting operation [[to]] sets the work vehicle, after reaching the end position of the first straight route, to make a turn traveling, in a front, up to a second straight route (“…when the vehicle 12 or implement 14 reaches the end point 120 of the first path 122, the implement 14 may be raised, turned off, or otherwise disengaged via the implement control system 50. This may be performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42 (and/or the implement control system 50) or by the operator via the operator interface 52. The vehicle 12 then follows the EOR turn path 140 to the starting point 124 of the second path 126. In one embodiment, the guidance of the vehicle 12 along the EOR turn path 140 is performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42. Alternatively, the EOR turn may be performed semi-automatically by allowing the operator to execute one or more operator-triggered actions (e.g., varying the vehicle speed and/or the like)” (emphasis added), see P[0038]) if the work instrument is a towed work instrument that moves by being towed by the work vehicle (see FIG. 1).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berridge et al. (2021/0405644) in view of Scott et al. (2022/0024486).
Regarding Claim 1, Berridge et al. teaches the claimed automatic traveling method for executing operations comprising:
generating a target route that includes a plurality of straight routes, along each of which a work vehicle is caused to automatically travel from a start position to an end position (“The vehicle 12 then follows the EOR turn path 140 to the starting point 124 of the second path 126. In one embodiment, the guidance of the vehicle 12 along the EOR turn path 140 is performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42. Alternatively, the EOR turn may be performed semi-automatically by allowing the operator to execute one or more operator-triggered actions (e.g., varying the vehicle speed and/or the like)”, see P[0038]).
Berridge et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
selecting [[the work vehicle]], upon generating [[a]] the target route, after reaching [[an]] the end position of a first straight route, a first setting operation to be received by the work vehicle, wherein
the first setting operation [[to]] sets the work vehicle to travel rearward toward [[a]] the start position of the first straight route.
However, Scott et al. (2022/0024486) teaches selecting, upon generating a target route, after reaching an end position of a first straight route, a first setting operation to be received by the work vehicle, wherein the first setting operation sets the work vehicle to travel rearward toward a start position of the first straight route (Scott et al.; “The user commands the robot to travel along a previously taught route 230…”, see P[0140] and “At the previously-described step 232 in the context of traversal of a taught route, if the robot determines that it has reached the end of a taught route its mode of operation causes it to travel along the autonomous path 240 that it has reached…If the robot has reached the end of the autonomous path 242 its automation systems will automatically reverse the direction of travel of the robot so that it traverses the same path in the opposite direction 244 until it returns to the start of the path, operationally returning to step 240 where it will repeat its path following operation”, see P[0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Berridge et al. with the teachings of Scott et al., and selecting, upon generating the target route, after reaching the end position of a first straight route, a first setting operation to be received by the work vehicle, wherein the first setting operation sets the work vehicle to travel rearward toward the start position of the first straight route, as rendered obvious by Scott et al., in order to return to a “start point” (Scott et al.; see P[0120]).
Regarding Claim 2, Berridge et al. does not expressly recite the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 1, wherein when the first setting operation is received, the work vehicle is caused to automatically travel rearward from the end position to the start position of the first straight route.
However, Scott et al. (2022/0024486) teaches wherein when the first setting operation is received, the work vehicle is caused to automatically travel rearward from the end position to the start position of the first straight route (Scott et al.; “The user commands the robot to travel along a previously taught route 230…”, see P[0140] and “At the previously-described step 232 in the context of traversal of a taught route, if the robot determines that it has reached the end of a taught route its mode of operation causes it to travel along the autonomous path 240 that it has reached…If the robot has reached the end of the autonomous path 242 its automation systems will automatically reverse the direction of travel of the robot so that it traverses the same path in the opposite direction 244 until it returns to the start of the path, operationally returning to step 240 where it will repeat its path following operation”, see P[0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Berridge et al. with the teachings of Scott et al., and wherein when the first setting operation is received, the work vehicle is caused to automatically travel rearward from the end position to the start position of the first straight route, as rendered obvious by Scott et al., in order to return to a “start point” (Scott et al.; see P[0120]).
Regarding Claim 3, Berridge et al. does not expressly recite the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 2, wherein after the work vehicle reaches the start position of the first straight route, the work vehicle is caused to make the turn traveling, in a rear, up to the second straight route.
However, Scott et al. (2022/0024486) teaches wherein after the work vehicle reaches the start position of the first straight route, the work vehicle is caused to make the turn traveling, in a rear, up to the second straight route (Scott et al.; “Once the robot has returned to the start point, a user at the packing area 136 may instruct the robot to autonomously follow another of the taught routes, e.g., TR2-TR4, that already exists in the taught route database of the RAS to collect crops from the path, e.g. PATH2-PATH4, led to by that taught route”, see P[0120] and FIG. 17, also see P[0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Berridge et al. with the teachings of Scott et al., and wherein after the work vehicle reaches the start position of the first straight route, the work vehicle is caused to make the turn traveling, in a rear, up to the second straight route, as rendered obvious by Scott et al., in order to return to a “start point” and “collect crops” (Scott et al.; see P[0120]).
Regarding Claim 4, Berridge et al. does not expressly recite the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 2, wherein with the first setting operation received, when a predetermined operation by a user is performed after the work vehicle reaches the end position of the first straight route, the work vehicle is caused to start automatically traveling in the rearward.
However, Scott et al. (2022/0024486) teaches an interface that may be used by a user to control forward and reverse travel of an autonomous robot, and teaches the that the robot may stop at a “end position” of a route (Scott et al.; “…a forward direct button 56A, 52A for operation by the user to a generate a forward direct signal that causes the robot to travel in a forward direction, a reverse direct button 56B, 52B for operation by the user to a generate a reverse direct signal that causes the robot to travel in a reverse direction, and a stop button 56C, 52C for operation by the user to a generate a stop signal that causes the robot to stop its motion”, see P[0069] and “At the previously-described step 232 in the context of traversal of a taught route, if the robot determines that it has reached the end of a taught route”, see P[0142]). Furthermore, the robot may stop and wait for a command by a user when a user is detected (Scott et al.; see P[0119]), therefore, using the invention of Scott et al., a user may approach the robot at the end of a route and cause the robot to stop, or may use the interface to stop the robot, when the robot reaches the end of a route, and then the user may perform a “predetermined operation” of causing the robot to perform reverse travel by use of the interface, which would then teach the steps of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Berridge et al. with the teachings of Scott et al., and wherein with the first setting operation received, when a predetermined operation by a user is performed after the work vehicle reaches the end position of the first straight route, the work vehicle is caused to start automatically traveling in the rearward, as rendered obvious by Scott et al., in order to return to a “start point” and “collect crops” (Scott et al.; see P[0120]).
Regarding Claim 5, Berridge et al. does not expressly recite the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 2, wherein when the work vehicle automatically travels rearward along the first straight route in an automatic traveling mode thereby to reach the start point position of the first straight route, the automatic traveling mode is cancelled.
However, Scott et al. (2022/0024486) teaches wherein when the work vehicle automatically travels rearward along the first straight route in an automatic traveling mode thereby to reach the start point position of the first straight route, the automatic traveling mode is cancelled (Scott et al.; “Once the robot has returned to the start point, a user at the packing area 136 may instruct the robot to autonomously follow another of the taught routes…”, see P[0120] and FIG. 17, also see P[0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Berridge et al. with the teachings of Scott et al., and wherein when the work vehicle automatically travels rearward along the first straight route in an automatic traveling mode thereby to reach the start point position of the first straight route, the automatic traveling mode is cancelled, as rendered obvious by Scott et al., in order to return to a “start point” and “collect crops” (Scott et al.; see P[0120]).
Regarding Claim 7, Berridge et al. teaches the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 1, wherein when the work vehicle travels automatically forward along the first straight route in an automatic traveling mode thereby to reach the end position of the first straight route, the automatic traveling mode is cancelled (“…when the vehicle 12 or implement 14 reaches the end point 120 of the first path 122, the implement 14 may be raised, turned off, or otherwise disengaged via the implement control system 50. This may be performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42 (and/or the implement control system 50) or by the operator via the operator interface 52. The vehicle 12 then follows the EOR turn path 140 to the starting point 124 of the second path 126. In one embodiment, the guidance of the vehicle 12 along the EOR turn path 140 is performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42. Alternatively, the EOR turn may be performed semi-automatically by allowing the operator to execute one or more operator-triggered actions (e.g., varying the vehicle speed and/or the like)” (emphasis added), see P[0038]).
Regarding Claim 8, Berridge et al. teaches the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 1, wherein the work vehicle includes a work instrument that performs a predetermined work along each of the plurality of the straight routes, and the work vehicle is capable of receiving a third setting operation to set the work instrument to stop operating after the work vehicle reaches the end position of the first straight route (“…when the vehicle 12 or implement 14 reaches the end point 120 of the first path 122, the implement 14 may be raised, turned off, or otherwise disengaged via the implement control system 50. This may be performed automatically by the vehicle control system 42 (and/or the implement control system 50) or by the operator via the operator interface 52”, see P[0038]).
Regarding Claim 10, Berridge et al. teaches the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 1, wherein the target routes include a plurality of turn routes for connecting each of the plurality of the straight routes and the plurality of the straight routes, having been preset, and the work vehicle, using information on the plurality of the straight routes among the target routes, automatically travels along each of the plurality of the straight routes (“Upon reaching an end point 120 of a first path 122 defined along one of the guidance lines 122 during the performance of an agricultural operation, the agricultural vehicle 12 may proceed to a starting point 124 of a second path 126 defined along a different guidance line 122 by following an end-of-row (EOR) turn path 140 during the execution of an EOR turn…When the vehicle 12 or implement 14 reaches the starting point 124 of the second path 126 (or at a location immediately before or after such starting point 124), the implement 14 is then lowered, turned on, and/or otherwise engaged to allow for the continuation of the agricultural operation as the vehicle 12 proceeds across the work area 106 along the second path 126”, see P[0038]).
Regarding Claim 13, Berridge et al. teaches the claimed automatic traveling system comprising:
a generating processor (“…the guidance lines 112 may be generated by the vehicle control system 42 based on the swath width 114 and an initial guidance line defined across the work area 106”, see P[0037], also see P[0034]) that generates a target route that includes a plurality of straight routes, along each of which a work vehicle is caused to automatically travel from a start position to an end position (“Moreover, as shown in FIG. 3, the field map 100 also includes a plurality of virtual swath or guidance lines 112 extending across the work area 106. In several embodiments, the agricultural vehicle 12 may be automatically, semi-automatically, or manually controlled to follow the guidance lines 112 across the work area 106”, see P[0037] and FIG. 3); and
a receiving processor…(“The operator interface 52 may be disposed inside the cab 16 of the vehicle 12 and may be configured to display information for, and receive inputs from, the operator. In the illustrated embodiment, the operator interface 52 includes one or more computing devices and/or other computer-related components, such as one or more processors 60, one or more memory components 62, communication circuitry 64”, see P[0031]).
Berridge et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a receiving processor that, upon generating [[a]] the target route and upon selection receives
a first setting operation to set the work vehicle, after reaching [[an]] the end position of a first straight route, to travel rearward toward [[a]] the start position of the first straight route.
However, Scott et al. (2022/0024486) teaches a receiving processor that, upon generating a target route and upon selection receives a first setting operation to set a work vehicle, after reaching an end position of a first straight route, to travel rearward toward a start position of the first straight route (Scott et al.; “The user commands the robot to travel along a previously taught route 230…”, see P[0140] and “At the previously-described step 232 in the context of traversal of a taught route, if the robot determines that it has reached the end of a taught route its mode of operation causes it to travel along the autonomous path 240 that it has reached…If the robot has reached the end of the autonomous path 242 its automation systems will automatically reverse the direction of travel of the robot so that it traverses the same path in the opposite direction 244 until it returns to the start of the path, operationally returning to step 240 where it will repeat its path following operation”, see P[0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Berridge et al. with the teachings of Scott et al., and to provide a receiving processor that, upon generating the target route and upon selection receives a first setting operation to set the work vehicle, after reaching the end position of a first straight route, to travel rearward toward the start position of the first straight route, as rendered obvious by Scott et al., in order to return to a “start point” (Scott et al.; see P[0120]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berridge et al. (2021/0405644) in view of Scott et al. (2022/0024486) further in view of Kurata et al. (JP2019054746A).
Regarding Claim 11, Berridge et al. does not expressly recite the claimed automatic traveling method according to claim 1, wherein the target route is modified by moving the preset plurality of the straight routes based on a current position of the work vehicle.
However, Kurata et al. (JP2019054746A) teaches when there is a deviation between a planned travel route and a position of a vehicle body, the planned driving route may be shifted or moved to the position of the vehicle body (Kurata et al.; see P[0055]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that this shifting of a route can be applied to any number of routes, such as to each route of a plurality of routes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Berridge et al. and Scott et al. with the teachings of Kurata et al., and wherein the target route is modified by moving the preset plurality of the straight routes based on a current position of the work vehicle, as rendered obvious by Kurata et al., so that “when there is a deviation between the planned travel route and the position of the vehicle body” a “control device causes the position of the vehicle body to correspond to the planned travel route” (Kurata et al.; see P[0010]).
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 ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights