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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 02/25/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 16-24 are examined and pending. Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 17-19, and 23-24 are currently amended, claims 4, 12, and 14-15 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Initially, the Examiner notes that applicant did not present any arguments against the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). However, the Examiner has considered the amendments in an effort to expedite prosecution of the application. As such the claim interpretation under USC 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Step 2A: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Without acquiescing to the appropriateness of such rejections, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17, thereby rendering the pending § 101 rejections moot. As such, it is respectfully requested that the pending claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
The examiner has considered the arguments/amendments and respectfully disagree and respectfully disagree. See rejection below for detailed analysis of the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “computing device configured to…”. Corresponding structure for the computing device is found on at least paragraphs 0054-0056 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determine a type of object associated with the detected object based upon the proximity sensor signal; measure/determine an object detection confidence measure, the object detection confidence measure being indicative of a confidence in the type of object determined. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as object/obstacle detection data and objects classification data could a type of object associated with the detected object based upon the proximity sensor signal; measure/determine an object detection confidence measure, the object detection confidence measure being indicative of a confidence in the type of object determined. The mere nominal recitation of the “computing device” to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of generating a proximity sensor signal indicative of a presence of an obstacle within a dynamic zone of operation of the agricultural machine; receive the proximity signal; detect an object relative to the dynamic zone of operation based upon the proximity sensor signal, initiate a safety action when the detected object is within the dynamic zone of operation, wherein the safety control system is further configured to adjust one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based upon the object detection confidences measure; agricultural machine structured to operate over a work surface; issue a control signal to one or more components of the agricultural machine to control an operation of the one or more components when the detected object is within the dynamic zone of operation, moving the agricultural machine over a work surface; a proximity sensor mounted to the agricultural machine; a computing device communicatively coupled to the proximity sensor, a work vehicle having a prime mover and adapted to convey an agricultural implement. The generating a proximity sensor signal, receiving, and detecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., receiving/collecting various data (object/obstacles detection data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The adjusting and issuing steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The issuing step is merely recited to be an issuing of (i.e., transmission of signal). However, the control step is not positively recited. The issuing of the control signal is being transmitted/issued but then it is not part of the claims that the one or more components of the agricultural machine are being controlled based on the control signal and therefore is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensors, agricultural vehicle, and a prime mover are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a computing device is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating, receiving, detecting, issuing, adjusting, and moving steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 16, and 18-24 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 1-3, 6-11, 13, 16-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase (US 20240023473 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US 20250040463 A1) in view of Mujkic (US 20230403965 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Iwase discloses a system for detecting and addressing an unsafe working condition (see at least [abstract]), the system comprising: a agricultural machine structured to operate over a work surface (see at least [Fig. 1], work vehicle 10); a proximity sensor mounted to the agricultural machine and structured to generate a proximity sensor signal indicative of a presence of an obstacle relative to a dynamic zone of operation of the agricultural machine (see at least [0033-0035], [0037-0040], [0051], [0054-0055], and [0060]); and a computing device communicatively coupled to the proximity sensor (see at least [0037], [0058], [0061-0062], [0066-0067], [0109], and [0126]), the computing device configured as a safety control system configured to: receive the proximity sensor signal (see at least [0037], [0058], [0061-0062], [0066-0067], [0109], and [0126]).
However, Iwase do not specifically disclose detecting an object relative to the dynamic zone of operation based upon the proximity sensor signal, determine a type of object associated with the detected object based upon the proximity sensor signal; and issuing a control signal to one or more components of the agricultural machine to control an operation of the one or more components when the detected object is within the dynamic zone of operation; wherein the safety control system is further configured to adjust one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based upon the object detection confidence measure.
Zhou teaches detecting an object relative to the dynamic zone of operation based upon the proximity sensor signal (see at least [0021] and [0042-0051]), determine a type of object associated with the detected object based upon the proximity sensor signal (see at least [0011], [0034-0035] and [0042-0051]); and issuing a control signal to one or more components of the agricultural machine to control an operation of the one or more components when the detected object is within the dynamic zone of operation (see at least [0013], [0021], [0044-0046], and [0051]); wherein the safety control system is further configured to adjust one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based upon the object detection confidence measure (see at least [0013], [0021], [0044-0046], and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Zhou of detecting an object relative to the dynamic zone of operation based upon the proximity sensor signal, determine a type of object associated with the detected object based upon the proximity sensor signal; and issuing a control signal to one or more components of the agricultural machine to control an operation of the one or more components when the detected object is within the dynamic zone of operation; wherein the safety control system is further configured to adjust one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based upon the object detection confidence measure. This would be done to improve agricultural tasks and increase safety by accounting for in-field variables such as obstacles and the like (see Zhou para 0003).
Iwase as modified by Zhou do not specifically disclose determining an object detection confidence measure based upon the proximity sensor signal, the object detection confidence measure being indicative of a confidence in the type of object determined.
Mujkic teaches determining an object detection confidence measure based upon the proximity sensor signal, the object detection confidence measure being indicative of a confidence in the type of object determined (see at least [0015-0020], [0043-0045], [0049], [0054-0056], and [0063-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase as modified by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mujkic of disclose determining an object detection confidence measure based upon the proximity sensor signal, the object detection confidence measure being indicative of a confidence in the type of object determined. This would be done to improve detection of obstacles/objects and increase the accuracy of the detections or their classifications so workload on operator is reduced (see Mujkic para 0005).
With respect to claim 2, Iwase discloses wherein the computing device is configured to issue at least one of an audible warning or a visual warning when the detected object is within the dynamic zone of operation (see at least [0036-0037], [0058], [0061-0062], [0066-0067], [0109], and [0126]).
With respect to claim 3, Iwase do specifically disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to adjust the dynamic zone of operation based on at least one of (1) a system confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the agricultural machine, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the agricultural machine, or (2) an environmental confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of operating the agricultural machine in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features.
Zhou teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to adjust the dynamic zone of operation based on at least one of (1) a system confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the agricultural machine, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the agricultural machine, or (2) an environmental confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of operating the agricultural machine in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features (see at least [0013], [0021], [0044-0046], and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Zhou wherein the computing device is further configured to adjust the dynamic zone of operation based on at least one of (1) a system confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the agricultural machine, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the agricultural machine, or (2) an environmental confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of operating the agricultural machine in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features. This would be done to improve agricultural tasks and increase safety by accounting for in-field variables such as obstacles and the like (see Zhou para 0003).
With respect to claim 6, Iwase discloses wherein the dynamic zone of operation includes a plurality of dynamic zones of operation (see at least [0033-0035], [0037-0040], [0051], [0054-0055], [0060], and [Fig. 4]), and wherein the proximity sensor signal indicates which of the plurality of dynamic zones of operation the obstacle is within (see at least [0033-0035], [0037-0040], [0051], [0054-0055], [0060], and [Fig. 4]).
With respect to claim 7, Iwase discloses wherein the plurality of dynamic zones of operation includes a hazard zone and a warning zone (see at least [0036-0037], [0058], and [0060]), and wherein the safety control system is configured to prohibit operation of the agricultural machine when a person is detected within the hazard zone (see at least [0036-0037], [0058], and [0060]).
With respect to claim 8, Iwase discloses wherein the proximity sensor includes a plurality of proximity sensors (see at least [0033-0040] and [Fig. 4]), and wherein the plurality of proximity sensors includes at least one of one or more cameras, one or more radars, one or more LiDAR sensors, or one or more ultrasonic sensors (see at least [0033]).
With respect to claim 9, it is drawn to an agricultural machine safety system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system for detecting and addressing an unsafe working condition of claim 1. As such, claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system for detecting and addressing an unsafe working condition of claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 10, Iwase discloses wherein the proximity sensor is mounted to the work vehicle and wherein the dynamic zone of operation includes a plurality of dynamic zone of operation (see at least [0033-0035], [0037-0040], [0051], [0054-0055], [0060], and [Fig. 4], sensor(s) 18).
With respect to claim 11, Iwase discloses wherein the dynamic zone of operation is defined around the work vehicle and the agricultural implement (see at least [0031-0032], [0078], and [Figs. 2 and 4]).
With respect to claim 13, Iwase do not specifically disclose wherein the safety control system is further configured to adjust the dynamic zone of operation of the work vehicle using at least one of (1) a system confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the work vehicle, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the work vehicle, or (2) an environmental confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of operating the work vehicle in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features.
Zhou teaches wherein the safety control system is further configured to adjust the dynamic zone of operation of the work vehicle using at least one of (1) a system confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the work vehicle, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the work vehicle, or (2) an environmental confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of operating the work vehicle in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features (see at least [0013], [0021], [0044-0046], and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Zhou wherein the safety control system is further configured to adjust the dynamic zone of operation of the work vehicle using at least one of (1) a system confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the work vehicle, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the work vehicle, or (2) an environmental confidence measure indicative of a confidence measure of operating the work vehicle in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features. This would be done to improve agricultural tasks and increase safety by accounting for in-field variables such as obstacles and the like (see Zhou para 0003).
With respect to claim 16, Iwase discloses wherein the proximity sensor is a plurality of proximity sensors (see at least [0033-0040] and [Fig. 4]), wherein the safety control system is configured to generate a fused sensor signal comprising data from a first proximity sensor of the plurality of proximity sensors combined with data from a second proximity sensor of the plurality of proximity sensors (see at least [0033-0040] and [Fig. 4]).
With respect to claim 17, it is drawn to a method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claim 1. As such, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system of claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 18, Iwase discloses wherein the dynamic zone of operation of the agricultural machine includes a plurality of dynamic zone of operation (see at least [0036-0037], [0058], and [0060]), and wherein the method further includes initiating an operation when the obstacle moves from a first dynamic zone of operation of the plurality of dynamic zone of operation to a second dynamic zone of operation of the plurality of dynamic zone of operation (see at least [0036-0037], [0058], and [0060]).
With respect to claim 19, Iwase discloses wherein initiating the operation comprises changing a power setting of a prime mover of the agricultural machine when the obstacle moves from the first dynamic zone of operation to the second dynamic zone of operation (see at least [0037], [0058], [0061-0062], [0066-0067], [0109], and [0126]).
With respect to claim 20, Iwase do not specifically disclose wherein the adjusting the dynamic zone of operation of the agricultural machine is also based upon at least one of a system operation confidence indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the agricultural machine, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the agricultural machine or (2) an environmental condition confidence indicative of a confidence measure of operating an agricultural machine in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features.
Zhou teaches wherein the adjusting the dynamic zone of operation of the agricultural machine is also based upon at least one of a system operation confidence indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the agricultural machine, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the agricultural machine or (2) an environmental condition confidence indicative of a confidence measure of operating an agricultural machine in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features (see at least [0013], [0021], [0044-0046], and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Zhou wherein the adjusting the dynamic zone of operation of the agricultural machine is also based upon at least one of a system operation confidence indicative of a confidence measure of an operational characteristic of the agricultural machine, the operational characteristic relating to at least one of sensing, computing, or communications of the agricultural machine or (2) an environmental condition confidence indicative of a confidence measure of operating an agricultural machine in an environment, the environment comprising weather conditions or terrain features. This would be done to improve agricultural tasks and increase safety by accounting for in-field variables such as obstacles and the like (see Zhou para 0003).
With respect to claim 21, Iwase do not specifically disclose wherein adjusting, with the computing device, the one or more boundaries includes adjusting, with the computing device, one or more boundaries of the first dynamic zone of operation and one or more boundaries of the second dynamic zone of operation.
Zhou teaches wherein adjusting, with the computing device, the one or more boundaries includes adjusting, with the computing device, one or more boundaries of the first dynamic zone of operation and one or more boundaries of the second dynamic zone of operation (see at least [0013], [0021], [0044-0046], and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Zhou of detecting an object relative to the dynamic zone of operation based upon the proximity sensor signal, determining an object detection confidence measure based upon the proximity sensor signal, and initiating a safety action when the detected object is within the dynamic zone of operation; wherein the safety control system is further configured to adjust one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based upon the object detection confidence measure. This would be done to improve agricultural tasks and increase safety by accounting for in-field variables such as obstacles and the like (see Zhou para 0003).
With respect to claim 22, Iwase discloses including a data hub, wherein the proximity sensor is configured to communicate raw data to the data hub and a second computing device is configured to process the raw data to generate the proximity sensor signal (see at least [0027-0028], [0039], [0046], [0072-0073], and [0075]).
With respect to claim 24, Iwase do not specifically disclose wherein the object detection confidence measure includes a confidence threshold, such that when the computing device determines the type of objected detected and the object detection confidence measure meets or exceeds the threshold, the safety control system adjusts the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based on the type of object detected.
Zhou teaches wherein the object detection confidence measure includes a confidence threshold, such that when the computing device determines the type of objected detected and the object detection confidence measure meets or exceeds the threshold, the safety control system adjusts the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based on the type of object detected (see at least [0013], [0021] and [0044-0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Zhou wherein the object detection confidence measure includes a confidence threshold, such that when the computing device determines the type of objected detected and the object detection confidence measure meets or exceeds the threshold, the safety control system adjusts the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based on the type of object detected. This would be done to improve agricultural tasks and increase safety by accounting for in-field variables such as obstacles and the like (see Zhou para 0003).
Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase (US 20240023473 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US 20250040463 A1) in view of Mujkic (US 20230403965 A1) in view of Yamauchi et al (US 20220098012 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Iwase as modified by Zhou and Mujkic do not specifically disclose wherein the object detection confidence measure includes a confidence threshold, such that when the computing device determines the detected object is a person and the object detection confidence measure meet or exceeds the threshold, the computing device adjusts the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based on the detected object being a person.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the object detection confidence measure includes a confidence threshold, such that when the computing device determines the detected object is a person and the object detection confidence measure meet or exceeds the threshold, the computing device adjusts the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based on the detected object being a person (see at least [0062-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase as modified by Zhou and Mujkic, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi wherein the object detection confidence measure includes a confidence threshold, such that when the computing device determines the detected object is a person and the object detection confidence measure meet or exceeds the threshold, the computing device adjusts the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation based on the detected object being a person. This would be done to increase safety of the vehicle and or detected persons/objects detected by the working vehicle (see Yamauchi para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 23, Iwase as modified by Zhou and Mujkic do not specifically disclose wherein, when the computing device determines the obstacle is a person, and the object detection confidence measure exceeds a threshold, the computing device is configured to adjust the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation to enlarge the dynamic zone of operation.
Yamauchi teaches wherein, when the computing device determines the obstacle is a person, and the object detection confidence measure exceeds a threshold, the computing device is configured to adjust the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation to enlarge the dynamic zone of operation (see at least [0062-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwase as modified by Zhou and Mujkic, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi wherein, when the computing device determines the obstacle is a person, and the object detection confidence measure exceeds a threshold, the computing device is configured to adjust the one or more boundaries of the dynamic zone of operation to enlarge the dynamic zone of operation. This would be done to increase safety of the vehicle and or detected persons/objects detected by the working vehicle (see Yamauchi para 0002-0003).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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 Almatrahi can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights