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 .
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 1-4, 6-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/100810 (‘810) in view of Ogura et al. (USPGPub 2017/0177002).
Regarding claims 1 and 2: ‘810 discloses a combine harvester (as seen in figure 1, generally 10), comprising:
a main-body portion (as seen in figure 1) including
a reaping portion (as seen in figure 1, generally 15) which configured to reap grain culms;
a traveling portion (as seen in figure 1, generally 11) which configured to travel while supporting the main-body portion; and,
a detecting portion (as seen in figure 1, at 19 “yield sensor”) which configured to detect an abnormality of the main-body portion (as per paragraph [0099], a full grain tank which would be “abnormal” for the main body).
Further, ‘810 discloses a control portion (as seen in figure 9, “control unit” 5) which configured to execute control such that, when the detecting portion detects based on detection, by the detecting portion, of an abnormality during performance of an automatic reaping work in which the reaping portion is caused to reap the grain culms while the traveling portion is caused to travel autonomously, after the automatic reaping work is interrupted, the traveling portion is caused to travel backward by a first predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 13 with the “first predetermined distance” being define along “L3”) but fails to show the “detecting portion” employed to detect a malfunction during the performance of automatic reaping work. However, Ogura teaches that it is well known in the autonomous agricultural vehicle art to employ such detecting in concert with that autonomous combine. Ogura discloses an autonomous vehicle (as seen in figure 1, generally 1) having a control portion (as seen in figures 2 and 10) whereby the control portion, based on a detected malfunction (Abstract; also, as seen in figure 11, at S27 and page 11, paragraph [0123]) varies the operation of the vehicle. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of ‘810 with the teachings of Ogura in order to provide an autonomous combine having a means to prevent further damage in the event of a local malfunction.
Regarding claim 3: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the combine harvester of claims 1 and 2. Further, ‘810 discloses a field-information acquiring portion (paragraph [0037]) which configured to acquire field information including an outer shape of a field and an outer shape of an unreaped land or a reaped land in the field (paragraph [0038] to [0041]), and
wherein when the field information indicates that either one of left and right of the main-body portion is the unreaped land and the other side is the reaped land, and when the detecting portion detects an abnormality during performance of the automatic reaping work, the control portion is configured to execute control such that the traveling portion is caused to travel backward by the first predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 13 with the “first predetermined distance” being define along “L3”) and to travel away from the unreaped land to a side by a second predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 14 as denoted along “L5”).
Regarding claim 4: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the combine harvester of claim 3. Further, ‘810 discloses wherein, based on detection, by when the detecting portion, of detects an abnormality in a part of the unreaped land side of the main-body portion, the control portion is configured to execute control such that the traveling portion is caused to travel backward by the first predetermined distance and to travel away from the unreaped land to a side by the second predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figures 13 and 14 as denoted along “L5” to “L6”).
Regarding claim 6: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the combine harvester of claim 1. Further, ‘810 discloses an operation portion (figure 9) which configured to accept operations, and
wherein the control portion is configured to execute control (paragraph [0045]) such that, after the traveling portion is caused to travel backward, when an abnormality detected by the detecting portion is solved and an operation which allows resumption of the automatic reaping work is accepted by the operation portion, after the traveling portion is caused to move to an interrupted position where the automatic reaping work was interrupted, the traveling portion and the main-body portion resume the automatic reaping work (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 7: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the combine harvester of claim 6. Further, ‘810 discloses wherein the control portion is capable of being configured to execute control such that the traveling portion is caused to move to the interrupted position at a speed slower than a set speed in the automatic reaping work (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 8: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the combine harvester of claim 1. Further, ‘810 discloses wherein the harvester comprises:
an operation portion (figure 9) which configured to accept operations, and
wherein the control portion is configured to execute control such that, after the
automatic reaping work is interrupted, when the operation which allows the traveling portion to travel backward is accepted by the operation portion, the traveling portion is caused to travel backward (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 13 as denoted along “L3”).
Regarding claims 9 and 10: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses a traveling control method (paragraphs [0083] to [0112]), comprising
an automatic reaping process in which a reaping portion (as seen in figure 1, generally 15) is caused to perform an automatic reaping work for reaping grain culms, while a traveling portion (as seen in figure 1, generally 11) is caused to travel autonomously, while supporting a main-body portion (as seen in figure 1) including the reaping portion; and
a backward control process in which, when a detecting portion (as seen in figure 1, at 19 “yield sensor”) detects an abnormality of the main-body portion during performance of the automatic reaping work, after the automatic reaping work is interrupted, the traveling portion is controlled to travel backward by a first predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 13 with the “first predetermined distance” being define along “L3”).
Regarding claim 11: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the traveling method of claims 9 and 10. Further, ‘810 discloses wherein:
in the backward control process, such control is executed that, when field information indicates that either one of left and right of the main-body portion is the unreaped land and the other is the reaped land (paragraph [0038]), and when the detecting portion detects an abnormality during performance of the automatic reaping work, the traveling portion is caused to travel backward by the first predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 13 with the “first predetermined distance” being define along “L3”) and to travel away from the unreaped land to a side by a second predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 14 as denoted along “L5”).
Regarding claim 12: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the traveling method of claim 11. Further, ‘810 discloses wherein:
in the backward control process, such control is executed that, when the detecting portion detects an abnormality in a part of the unreaped land side of the main-body portion, the traveling portion is caused to travel backward by the first predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 13 with the “first predetermined distance” being define along “L3”) and to travel away from the unreaped land to a side by the second predetermined distance (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 14 as denoted along “L5”).
Regarding claim 14: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the traveling method of claim 9. Further, ‘810 discloses the method comprising:
an automatic-reaping resumption process (as seen in figure 9, via control unit 5) in which, after the traveling portion is caused to travel backward in the backward control process, when an abnormality detected by the detecting portion is solved and an operation which allows the automatic reaping work to be resumed is accepted by an operation portion, after the traveling portion is caused to move to an interrupted position where the automatic reaping work was interrupted (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101]), the traveling portion and the main-body portion are controlled to resume the automatic reaping work (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 15: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the traveling method of claim 14. Further, ‘810 discloses in the automatic-reaping resumption process, the traveling portion is capable of controlling the movement to the interrupted position at a speed slower than a set speed in the automatic reaping work (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 16: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the traveling method of claim 9. Further, ‘810 discloses wherein: in the backward control process, after the automatic reaping work is interrupted, when an operation which allows the traveling portion to travel backward is accepted by an operation portion, the traveling portion is controlled to travel backward (as per paragraphs [0100] to [0101] and as seen in figure 13 as denoted along “L3”)..
Regarding claims 5 and 13: ‘810 as modified by Ogura discloses the claimed traveling control method and combine harvester combine harvester as discussed above. Further, ‘810 discloses the combine harvester having a conveying device (as seen in figure 1, at 16; also, paragraph [0032]) and a threshing portion (as seen in figure 1, at 13; also, paragraph [0032]) but fails to positively show (although figure 1 does “appear” to have these features on the left side) those components on the left side of the harvester. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place these components on the left side of the vehicle, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by ‘810 or as claimed by the applicant, absent any showing to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671