DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 18 objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 1 and 18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-21 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-22 rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-22 rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertain to newly amended limitations not addressed in the prior Office Action of record. Applicant argues that Miller (20200012415; already of record) does not disclose automatically changing a process model and further automatic operation of a working machine; however, Miller does disclose of automatically changing a process model and automatically operating a work machine based on the changes, as seen in paragraphs 34, 68, and 70. In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Miller includes user inputs and therefore does not teach of the claimed limitations, these previously recited user inputs are in regards to elements or parameters; however, based on these inputs, subsequent automatic changes to the model and automatic vehicle operations occur and therefore does teach of the claimed limitations.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one interface to the EDP device is arranged remotely from the at least one at least one first agricultural working machine”
The Examiner believes claim 20 recites a typographical error (bolded) and for the purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret the claims as follows:
“The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one interface to the EDP device is arranged remotely from the at least one first agricultural working machine”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The amended claimed limitations contain several “or” statements and for the purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, the addressed limitations will be bolded and follow with its corresponding citation.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (20200012415; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a method for operating one or more of a plurality of working machines (Miller: Abstract), the plurality of working machines comprising;
at least one first agricultural working machine (Miller: “including a plurality of mobile agricultural devices and structures” ¶ 75), the at least one first agricultural working machine including a self-propelled root crop harvesting machine or multiple first combined agricultural working machines, the multiple first combined agricultural working machines comprising a tractor with a root crop harvesting machine towed thereby (Miller: “a tractor 212 (with associated data handles 214) towing a discing implement” ¶ 75, see also ¶ 71);
and at least one further working machine in combination with an electronic data processing (EDP) device, the EDP device arranged remotely from the at least one first agricultural working machine (Miller: “a system including a plurality of communication elements (e.g., transmitters) respectively freestanding or mounted to a plurality of farm implements, structures and devices, and a graphical user interface hosted by and/or in communication with a computing device” ¶ 17 (see also ¶67, ¶92),
wherein the method comprises:
generating, during operation, at least one first process model output comprising at least one control command for at least one controllable or regulatable functional unit of the at least one first agricultural working machine by a first process model running in a central control unit of the at least one first agricultural working machine (Miller: “a dynamic model within which farm equipment, natural characteristics, systems and structures may be spatially viewed, related and/or manipulated based on real-time or near real-time data” ¶ 35, “Each of the plurality of n local controllers 12 includes a communication element 24 (see FIG. 2) for transmitting data regarding present conditions surrounding the controller 12 and/or regarding equipment and/or structure(s) to which the controller 12 is mounted” ¶ 37, “the local controller(s) may issue commands to actuating mechanisms with which they are in communication to carry out the changes flowing from the user's editing of the model” ¶ 33) or distributed onto multiple control units on the at least one first agricultural working machine based on at least one first working data set, to influence an agricultural result (Miller: “a local controller mounted to the tractor may issue a speed change command” ¶ 33), resulting in at least one subsequent working data set (Miller: “The data handles may be set for real-time or near real-time rolling or batch-based updates from respective databases and/or local controllers of the system” ¶ 26, “data handles in the model are related to one another in many cases, manual changes to operational parameters/settings made by the user may automatically flow down to related operational settings, causing automated secondary commands” ¶ 34, see also ¶ 27, 31, 33),
transmitting, during or after operation, at least a part of a machine data set comprising at least a part of the first working data set, at least a part of the at least one subsequent working data set (Miller: “Each of the plurality of n local controllers 12 includes a communication element 24 (see FIG. 2) for transmitting data regarding present conditions surrounding the controller 12 and/or regarding equipment and/or structure(s) to which the controller 12 is mounted” ¶ 37), and the first process model output via at least one interface to the EDP device, which is arranged remotely from the at least one first agricultural working machine (Miller: “The automatically populated data handles may be manipulated, supplemented and/or deleted by a user via the graphical user interface. The data handles may be set for real-time or near real-time rolling or batch-based updates from respective databases and/or local controllers of the system” ¶ 26, “manual changes to operational parameters/settings made by the user may automatically flow down to related operational settings ... a command to speed the combine up issued by the user manually ...” ¶ 34),
automatically changing, without human input on the EDP device, in consideration of items of information of the first machine data set, of a further machine data set of one or multiple of the at least one further working machine (Miller: “The change in parameter(s) and/or setting(s) may be communicated via the computing device to local controller(s) mounted to such equipment and structure(s)” ¶ 33, “the tangible elements and data handles in the model are related to one another in many cases, manual changes to operational parameters/settings made by the user may automatically flow down to related operational settings, causing automated secondary commands to be issued to compensate ... a command to speed the combine up issued by the user manually may automatically trigger a secondary command to the trailing baling implement causing it to increase its speed to match the combine. Such automated secondary actions may also apply to relationships the user defines between model elements” ¶ 34), of the first process model and/or a further process model of one or multiple of the at least one further working machine, a basic process model stored in the EDP device, the first process model, or the further process model (Miller: “Data handles may also be included and populated in the model automatically by the mapping module by reference to the library of data handle types ... The data handles may be set for real-time or near real-time rolling or batch-based updates from respective databases and/or local controllers of the system” ¶ 26),
transmitting at least a part of the automatically-changed process model as an output process model for an operation from the EDP device directly to at least one of the plurality of working machines (Miller: “the local controller(s) may issue commands to actuating mechanisms with which they are in communication to carry out the changes flowing from the user's editing of the model” ¶ 33), and
automatically further operating the at least one of the plurality of working machines in accordance with the transmitted at least a part of the automatically-changed process model as the output process model for the operation from the EDP device (Miller: “Such automated secondary actions may also apply to relationships the user defines between model elements. In the example discussed previously, the user's designation of a “low area” within which a tractor should not travel in wet conditions may automatically flow down to other mobile equipment as well” ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 2, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first working data set is formed by first operating parameter data, first machine sensor data, first functional unit data, and/or first working data derived from these data (Miller: “FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary system 10 for reviewing and revising real-time or near real-time, farm-related data and/or altering equipment operational parameters/settings” ¶ 36, see also ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 3, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the subsequent working data set is at least partially formed by subsequent machine sensor data, subsequent functional unit data, subsequent operating parameter data, and/or subsequent working data derived from these data (Miller: “FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary system 10 for reviewing and revising real-time or near real-time, farm-related data and/or altering equipment operational parameters/settings” ¶ 36, see also ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 4, Miller teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the machine data set comprises at least one item of process feedback information (Miller: “the tractor transmits a new location and heading in a southerly direction” ¶ 79, see also ¶ 61, 70).
Regarding claim 5, Miller teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein items of information to supplement the first machine data set are received via a working machine interface (Miller: “The user and/or the user interface 26 may communicate the identifications to the computing device 14 via the user interface 16” ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 6, Miller teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process model is adapted based on of the machine data sets of at least two uncoupled working machines (Miller: “The plurality of local controllers 12 preferably include at least two controllers 12 mounted respectively to functionally and physically separate mobile farm implements, such as a combine and an independently-movable baling implement” ¶ 65, “The change in parameter(s) and/or setting(s) may be communicated via the computing device to local controller(s) mounted to such equipment and structure(s), and the local controller(s) may issue commands to actuating mechanisms with which they are in communication to carry out the changes flowing from the user's editing of the model” ¶ 33).
Regarding claim 7, Miller teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the machine data set of the at least one first agricultural working machine is supplemented via an observer interface of the at least one first agricultural working machine with items of adaptation information of an external observer (Miller: “The automatically populated data handles may be manipulated, supplemented and/or deleted by a user via the graphical user interface” ¶ 26, see also ¶ 27).
Regarding claim 8, Miller teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein items of sensor information of the at least one first agricultural working machine are processed to generate sensor data in a signal processing module of the at least one first agricultural working machine (Miller: “the sensing element 30 may be integrated in a housing or body of the local controller 12, though it may also be physically separate from the remainder of the local controller 12 and in electronic communication” ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 9, Miller teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the machine data set is transmitted in dependence on a predetermined event (Miller: “a first burst of data transmissions and subsequently the tractor transmits a new location and heading in a southerly direction” ¶ 79, Miller: “The change in parameter(s) and/or setting(s) may be communicated” ¶ 33, Note: Wherein it can be seen that any change to the system can result in transmitting the machine data).
Regarding claim 10, Miller teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process model runs on the at least one first agricultural working machine distributed in individual control devices (Miller: “The plurality of local controllers 12 preferably include at least two controllers ... several local controllers 12 may be mounted to a single device—such as a movable irrigation device—to monitor the location of and/or collect sensor data from multiple parts of the device” ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 11, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the output process model is used as a new basic process model (Miller: “the local controller(s) may issue commands to actuating mechanisms with which they are in communication to carry out the changes flowing from the user's editing of the model” ¶ 33, “the computing device 14 may receive equipment and structure identifications. Each identification may comprise an initial definition for a tangible model element and/or an instruction to incorporate a new tangible model element into the model ... where the local controllers 12 are configured to store (and, preferably, periodically update) in memory elements 32 identifying, parametric and status information regarding the equipment and structures to which they are mounted” ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 12, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein respective machine data sets of the plurality of working machines are each allocated into individual groups for machine-spanning comparability (Miller: “the three-dimensional model 200 is illustrated including a plurality of mobile agricultural devices and structures ...” ¶ 75).
Regarding claim 13, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the machine data sets for adapting the process model are filtered (Miller: “The communication element 24 may include signal or data transmitting and receiving circuits, such as antennas, amplifiers, filters, mixers, oscillators, digital signal processors (DSPs), and the like” ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 14, Miller teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process model is changed in individual assembly-specific modules and these are compiled to form a changed process model (Miller: “The computing device 14 may store, execute and/or access the virtual control program 42, which may include a mapping module 48, a user input module 50, and a landscape module 52 ... with direct or indirect interfacing with the virtual control program 42” ¶ 54, see also ¶ 62).
Regarding claim 15, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process model is changed by at least one method of artificial intelligence (Miller: “changes in physical state of the model elements and/or changes in the data handles, and apply that information to one or more machine learning techniques to generate one or more operational correlations or other relational observations for more general application” ¶ 76).
Regarding claim 16, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the output process model is made available at least partially to the operator of one of the plurality of working machines on a mobile device for app-based generation of action instructions (Miller: “The display 20 may also or alternatively display a 3D visual model to the user, the model being based at least in part on data received from the local controllers 12 in real-time or near real-time” ¶ 52, see also ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 17, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the EDP device receives items of information to supplement the first or one of the further machine data sets via an auxiliary interface (Miller: “the computing device 14 may receive and implement one or more user inputted changes to one or more model elements” ¶ 81, see also ¶ 82).
Regarding claim 18, Miller teaches an arrangement comprising a plurality of agricultural working machines and an electronic data processing (EDP) device, the arrangement carrying out steps comprising (Miller: Miller: “The performance of certain of the operations may be distributed among the one or more processing elements, not only residing within a single machine, but deployed across a number of machines” ¶ 97, see also ¶ 65):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 18, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one first agricultural working machine is one of:
a self-propelled harvesting machine; or
the at least one first or multiple first combined agricultural working machine is a combination of a tractor with a harvesting machine towed thereby (Miller: “The plurality of local controllers 12 preferably include at least two controllers 12 mounted respectively to functionally and physically separate mobile farm implements, such as a combine and an independently-movable baling implement” ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 20, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one interface to the EDP device is arranged remotely from the at least one at least one first agricultural working machine (Miller: “For instance, the user interface 16 may include a headset and hand controller” ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 21, Miller teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least a part of the changed process model that is transmitted as the output process model for an operation is for a subsequent operation from the EDP device to at least one of the working machines (Miller: “if both tractor and baling implement are traveling east within a field according to a first burst of data transmissions and subsequently the tractor transmits a new location and heading in a southerly direction, the virtual control program 42 may turn the baling implement within the model” ¶ 79).
Regarding claim 22, Miller teaches a method for operating an agricultural working machine, the method comprising:
generating, by a first process model running on a control unit of the agricultural working machine, at least one control command for at least one controllable or regulatable functional unit of the agricultural working machine based on at least one first working data set (Miller: “the local controller(s) may issue commands to actuating mechanisms with which they are in communication to carry out the changes flowing from the user's editing of the model” ¶ 33);
generating, as an output resulting from implementing the at least one control command, at least one subsequent working data set (Miller: “because the tangible elements and data handles in the model are related to one another in many cases, manual changes to operational parameters/settings made by the user may automatically flow down to related operational settings, causing automated secondary commands to be issued” ¶ 34, “a dynamic model within which farm equipment, natural characteristics, systems and structures may be spatially viewed, related and/or manipulated based on real-time or near real-time data” ¶ 35);
transmitting, via an electronic data processing (EDP) device, a machine data set comprising a first working data set and the at least one subsequent working data set (Miller: “set for real-time or near real-time rolling or batch-based updates from respective databases and/or local controllers of the system” ¶ 26, “particularly where the local controllers 12 are configured to store (and, preferably, periodically update) in memory elements 32 identifying, parametric and status information regarding the equipment and structures to which they are mounted” ¶ 68);
automatically changing, without human input, at least one of a basic process model stored in the EDP device, a first process model (Miller: “The change in parameter(s) and/or setting(s) may be communicated via the computing device to local controller(s) mounted to such equipment and structure(s)” ¶ 33, “the tangible elements and data handles in the model are related to one another in many cases, manual changes to operational parameters/settings made by the user may automatically flow down to related operational settings, causing automated secondary commands to be issued to compensate ... a command to speed the combine up issued by the user manually may automatically trigger a secondary command to the trailing baling implement causing it to increase its speed to match the combine. Such automated secondary actions may also apply to relationships the user defines between model elements” ¶ 34), or a second process model based on the first working data set and the at least one subsequent working data set; and
transmitting, from the EDP device, the automatically-changed at least one of the basic process model, the first process model, or the second process model as an output process model directly to the agricultural working machine (Miller: “the local controller(s) may issue commands to actuating mechanisms with which they are in communication to carry out the changes flowing from the user's editing of the model” ¶ 33, “the input may relate to positioning of elements within the model, to metadata and/or physical state data regarding the elements within the model, and/or to settings or parameters for the model elements including operational commands to be implemented at farm equipment and/or structure(s)” ¶ 37); and
automatically further operating the agricultural working machine in accordance with the transmitted automatically-changed at least one of the basic process model, the first process model, or the second process model as the output process model (Miller: “Such automated secondary actions may also apply to relationships the user defines between model elements. In the example discussed previously, the user's designation of a “low area” within which a tractor should not travel in wet conditions may automatically flow down to other mobile equipment as well” ¶ 34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kean et al. (20210298220) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of operating working machines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663