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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, applicant’s arguments are persuasive in part, as detailed below.
In particular, the amendment to claim 1, changing “prohibitable” to “prohibiting”, overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), description requirement, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in this respect. However, a similar rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 8 is maintained, since that claim still includes the “prohibitable” language. Moreover, a rejection of the new claim language “set to start the automatic run . . .” in the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made herein, since it is unclear whether the “set to start the automatic run . . .” language in the claim is meant to refer to (for examples only) the “ready for automatic run” determination of Step S1 in FIG. 11, the “start instruction received” determination of Step S2 in FIG. 11, both of the S1 and S2 determinations in FIG. 11, or something else entirely, since no “is set to start the automatic run . . .” condition(s) are clearly expressed/explained in the specification.
Next, applicant asserts, concerning 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The Examiner has also alleged that it is unclear whether the "first positioning method" is the same as or different from the "a positioning method" recited earlier in the claim (FOA at 18). The above amendment to claim 1 ("[[a]] positioning methods") obviates this objection.
The examiner does not see this purported amendment in claim 1, and claims 10 and 11 also do not correct the issue. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained in this respect, in a modified form to address the claim amendments that have been made.
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection related to the (different) accuracies of the first and second positioning methods, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims possibly cover a near infinite number of first and second “positioning methods” (e.g., any positioning method that might use a signal received from a satellite, e.g., a weather satellite, a geosynchronous satellite, a LEO satellite, a cubesat, GPS/GLONASS/BeiDou/Galileo satellites, etc.), and applicant has only defined (different) accuracies for DGNSS and RTK under limited conditions and constraints.
For example only, in this respect, the claims might cover and encompass GPS/GNSS methods where first or second different subsets of 4 visible satellites might be used to derive the position solution, and it is not clear whether (or why, given no atmospheric constraints) the two different subsets of four visible satellites might or will lead to different accuracies. Similarly, if one GPS/GNSS method uses 4 visible satellites and another uses 3 but only derives latitude and longitude, it is not clear (given lack of atmospheric constraints and/or a specified accuracy of the geoid/ellipsoid at the derived latitude and longitude) whether the two different methods will have different accuracies. Or if one positioning method uses GPS, and another uses GLONASS (1982), BeiDou (2000) or Galileo (2011), then how is it determined if the accuracies will be different from one another, if they all use the same basic [GNSS] principles? Or of one positioning method uses Starlink LEO satellites or Doppler Orbitography and Radio-Positioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS) and another uses conventional GNSS satellites, then how are the accuracies for the Starlink LEO or DORIS positioning methods defined/obtained, with reasonable certainty, in order to determine if they might somehow be “different” from GNSS positioning method accuracies?
Furthermore, in this respect, “different accuracies” is also facially subjective1 (e.g., every accuracy might be said to be “different” from every other accuracy, leaving the claim limitation meaningless, if the accuracies are determined to a near infinite number of decimal places).
Regarding the passive voice in dependent method claims 2 to 6, the examiner agrees that the amendment to claim 1 (changing “prohibitable” or manipulative “prohibiting”) renders these dependent claims definite, since the passive voice in the dependent claim wherein clauses gives meaning and purpose to the manipulative “prohibiting” step in the independent claim. See e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this portion of the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 7 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Accordingly, this portion of the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection in claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the “prohibits the automatic run” limitation are convincing. Accordingly, this portion of the rejection is withdrawn.
Lastly, in this respect, the examiner makes a suggestion in footnote “7” below for amending claim 1 to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and to patentably distinguish the claims over the prior art applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, in an attempt to advance prosecution.
Second, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the independent claims, applicant asserts without further analysis:
As indicated by the conjunction "and" in the above bolded claim feature, the presence of both conditions of (1) the work vehicle being set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method, and (2) switching from the first positioning method to a second positioning method, are what trigger the prohibition of the automatic run. Neither Nakabayshi nor Kellar disclose this.
The examiner shows, in the claim mapping below, how the combination of Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) and Kellar et al. (‘138) reveal or render obvious BOTH conjunctive limitations (e.g., (1) the work vehicle being set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method, and (2) switching from the first positioning method to a second positioning method) with the examiner noting that both of the conjunctive limitations are also individually indefinite.
Additionally, as a backup rejection, the examiner now shows below how applicant’s own prior art, P.C.T., WO 2020/256036 A1[2], published more than 1 year before the EFD of this application, in view of Yoshino (2019/0049594), also reveals or renders obvious both of these conjunctive limitations. Accordingly applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o)3. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis should be provided in the specification for the new claim terminology, “when the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method”, without adding new matter, so that the so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description (37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)).
Claim Interpretation
Here, regarding contingent or conditional clauses, the examiner applies the guidance of MPEP 2111.04, II. and the PTAB Decision in Ex parte RANDAL C. SCHULHAUSER et al. (Precedential), Appeal 2013-007847, decided 28 April 2016, where the Board decided:
"A proper interpretation of claim language, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim during prosecution, must construe the claim language in a way that at least encompasses the broadest interpretation of the claim language for purposes of infringement. . . . [In a method claim, if] the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. . . . [However, the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. This interpretation of the system claim differs from the method claim because the structure [] is present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. Unlike [the method claim], which is written in a manner that does not require all of the steps to be performed should the condition precedent not be met, [the system claim] is limited to the structure capable of performing all the recited functions."
As such, the examiner gives no weight to the “if” contingent/conditional limitations in new method claim 12. (Should applicant desire that the claim limitations in claim 12 not be interpreted as contingent/conditional, then applicant may change the “if” limitations to “when” limitations, if such be applicant’s intent, in order to show that applicant does not intend for the examiner to interpret the limitations as contingent/conditional. The same wording changes (changing “if” to “when”) may also be made to claims 13 and 14, if desired, although the examiner notes that the current grammar of claims 12 to 14 apparently renders those claims indefinite, as detailed below.)
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.
Claims 1 to 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.
In claim 1, line 7, in claim 10, lines 7ff, and in claim 11, line 8, “set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method” is unclear from the teachings of the specification that does not use this “set to start” language, or and does not clarify what is intended or required by this “set to start” phrase in the claim context. In this respect, the examiner believes that the starting of the automatic run process occurs at S3 in FIG. 11, but it is not clear when (e.g., in FIG. 11) the work vehicle becomes or might become “set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method”, as claimed. For example, does the work vehicle become “set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method” when the work vehicle is “ready for automatic run” at S1 in FIG. 11 because the starting automatic run condition, such as the work vehicle 10′s azimuth being within the given azimuth, is met (published paragraph [0111])? Or does the work vehicle become “set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method” when the start instruction is received at S2 in FIG. 11? Or does the work vehicle rather become “set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method” when both the work vehicle is “ready for automatic run” at S1 in FIG. 11 and the start instruction is received from the operator at S2 in FIG. 11? Or does the work vehicle rather become “set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method” when the positioning method of the work vehicle 10 is set to the DGNSS method (paragraph [0110])? The examiner cannot tell, from the teachings of the specification and the claim context.
In claim 1, lines 7ff, in claim 10, lines 8ff, and in claim 11, lines 8ff, “when the positioning method is switched to [a/the] second positioning method which has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method” is fully indefinite (and facially subjective4) from the teachings of the specification and in the claim context which does not clarify/make clear what “the positioning method” in the claim is referring to5 (e.g., is this referring to the preciously recited “a positioning method” based on a signal received from a satellite, the “first positioning method”, or something else?), what the second positioning method is particularly and/or whether the “second positioning method” is or may or must be the same as or different from the “a positioning method” and/or the “first positioning method” recited earlier in the claim or whether the “second positioning method” might not be based on any active receipt of a signal(s) e.g., from a satellite but might rather just use a position previously stored in memory, and which does not clarify how a “difference” in “positioning accuracy” might be defined or ascribed or imputed or determined with reasonable certainty, so that its scope may be determined by the public. For example, if differences in GPS positioning accuracy exist (as they do) due to real time conditions/changes in the ionosphere, so that a current position estimate/solution is 0.2% more accurate than a similar position estimate/solution indicated 5 minutes ago, would this be a switch from a first GPS positioning method/system to a second GPS positioning method/system, where the second GPS method/system received signals through the changed ionosphere? If the difference in accuracy was 20% or 200%? If the difference was 0.0002%? If the difference is/was an unavoidable (and/or unrepeatable/indeterminate) < 0.0000002% but greater than zero? Why or why not?
Here, the examiner notes that applicant has chosen to distinguish his claimed “positioning method[s]” by their accuracies alone and not based on different acts/steps in the positioning methods (as might reflect or require different positioning techniques) or different structures/operations used for/in the positioning methods. This renders the claim unclear and indefinite in scope, with metes and bounds that cannot be determined with reasonable certainty by those skilled in the art for any and all alleged accuracies of any and all possible positioning methods (e.g., an infinite number of [satellite] positioning methods) covered by the claim. For example, no claim requires that the positioning technique (method) of the first positioning method is necessarily or even be different from the positioning technique (method) of the second positioning method. Rather, the positioning techniques (methods) of the first and second positioning methods may apparently be the same, as long as something such as perhaps external factors (e.g., ambient conditions, rounding errors in calculations, etc.) results in “a difference in positioning accuracy” in/between the methods, including apparently an infinitesimally small (and/or a facially subjective) difference in positioning accuracy. This is unclear.
In claim 8, line 3, “prohibitable” is indefinite and unclear from the teachings of the specification (e.g., prohibitable by whom or what, particularly, in what particular way?) Here, the examiner notes that the specification does not make clear whether, if an act does not occur (e.g., by design), it is (by that non-occurrence) either i) prohibitable or ii) prohibited. Moreover, prohibitable and prohibited do not aspects of actual (positive) control of the work vehicle, but rather aspects of “holding back” (e.g., hindering) an end result (e.g., automatic run) from happening or restraining it from occurring in the work machine, perhaps even by authority/law6. And yet, the full scope (metes and bounds) of the particular manner(s) by which e.g., the automatic run might possibly be “prohibited” or “prohibitable”, as claimed, are neither set forth nor clarified in the specification. This renders the claim unclear with indeterminate metes and bounds. For example, might “prohibitable” or “prohibited” describe the legality, under the law, of automatic run in a particular governing jurisdiction? Why or why not? And if so, how can one determine such legality, from the teachings of the specification.
Claims 12 to 14 are indefinite for citing mutually exclusive conditions in an unclear way, where the limitation “and if the first positioning method is the RTK method, then the second positioning method is the DGNSS method” cannot apparently be true in context. For example, “the RTK method” in the claim is introduced (as “an RTK method”) as being the “second positioning method”. If “the RTK method”, which is introduced being the second positioning method, is (also, e.g., “and”) the first positioning method, as the claim recites, then “the second positioning method” cannot also be “the DGNSS method” as required by the claim. It appears that both the (underlined, above) “and” and the “the” in these claims are incorrect.
[Here, the examiner merely notes that the new dependent claims 12 to 14 do not cure the indefiniteness in the independent claims, since the new dependent claims do not require that the first positioning method and the second positioning method are in fact different ones of a DGNSS method or a RTK method. Were claims 12 to 14 worded to require that the first positioning method and the second positioning method are different ones of a DGNSS method or a RTK method, e.g., rather than claiming the difference in positioning accuracy with indeterminate metes and bounds, then this would cure the present indefiniteness in the independent claims and apparently distinguish over the applied prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.[7]]
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 to 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al.8 (Japan, 2022-11850; EPO machine translation provided previously) in view of Kellar et al. (2011/0307138).
Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) reveals
per claim 1, an automatic run method [e.g., for automatic steering driving/traveling] comprising:
positioning9 a work vehicle [e.g., FIG. 1] by a first positioning method [e.g., RTK-GPS with FIX state/solution in the satellite positioning module 80 (e.g., paragraphs [0071] to [0077], etc.)] and a second positioning method [e.g., RTK-GPS with FLOAT state/solution in the satellite positioning module 80 (e.g., paragraphs [0071] to [0077], etc.)] based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., by the satellite positioning module 80] (FIG. 4)];
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing the work vehicle’s positioned position [e.g., as shown and described with respect to FIGS. 2, 3, 8, etc., e.g., by means of the steering control unit 30 and the traveling control unit 24]; and
prohibiting the automatic run [e.g., for example only, whenever the FIX state/solution is not obtained (e.g., at S13, Yes in FIG. 10), thereby preventing/avoiding automatic steering driving (e.g., paragraphs [0014], [0015], etc.), e.g., by switching the control mode from the first mode to the second mode at S19 in FIG. 10, wherein the automatic steering travel is (only) performed in the first mode (e.g., paragraphs [0113], etc.)] when the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method [e.g., when in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), the agricultural work machine/vehicle 10 is in the first mode (automatic steering) (obviously after the first control mode is switched to/started at S07 in FIG. 9) where the second determination routine of FIG. 10 is performed at regular time intervals (e.g., paragraph [0176]), including switching the control mode of the traveling control unit 24 to the second mode when the FIX solution has not been obtained at S13, Yes; see also paragraphs [0151], etc., “the mode switching unit 33 is configured to switch the control mode of the driving control unit 24 to the first mode when a predetermined start condition is satisfied and the straight-line movement determination unit 34 determines that the aircraft[10] 10 has moved straight for a predetermined distance D1”; and/or obviously in FIG. 9 when the answers at S01 to S03 and/or S04 to S06 would obviously have been “Yes”, during obvious reaping operation of the agricultural machine], and when the positioning method is switched to the second positioning method which is has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method [e.g., when the FIX state/solution (cm accuracy) is not obtained in the satellite positioning module 80 (at S13, Yes in FIG. 10) and the FLOAT state/solution (10s of cm to a few meters accuracy) is instead used e.g., in FIGS. 9, 10, etc. (e.g., paragraphs [0071] to [0077], etc.)];
It may be alleged that Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) does not reveal the switching of the positioning methods although the examiner believes this would have been implicitly obvious to one having ordinary skill in this art even without further teaching, since the logic flow in FIGS. 9 and 10 covers both the FIX and FLOAT states/solutions both before and after switching to the first mode.
However, in the context/field of an improved positioning system and method in which utilizes both higher accuracy (RTK) positioning solutions and lower-accuracy positioning solutions, Kellar et al. (‘138) teaches that the lower accuracy solution 5000 may be continuously available, while the higher accuracy solution (RTK) 4000 may have a period/portion 4100 when it is unavailable or unreliable (e.g., paragraph [0069]), and that the final positioning solution 6000 communicated to an auto-steer application of a vehicle comprises e.g., the higher accuracy solution 1334 when it is available, etc. (e.g., paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) agricultural work machine and method so that the (lower accuracy) FLOAT state/solution would have been continuously available, as taught by Kellar et al. (‘138), and so that the (higher accuracy) FIX state/solution would have had period(s) of unavailability or unreliability during steering/traveling of the work machine, as taught by Kellar et al. (‘138), and so that when the FIX state/solution (as a higher accuracy state/solution) was available, before and after an obvious period (e.g., 4100 in Kellar et al. (‘138)) of higher accuracy unavailability that resulted in switching to and then from the lower accuracy solution, as taught by Kellar et al. (‘138), the work machine would have been switched to (when the FIX state/solution was available) the first driving mode (automatic steering driving), as taught by Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) at Step S07, and so that when only the FLOAT state/solution was available (during the period 4100 of higher accuracy unavailability as taught by Kellar et al. (‘138) and as exemplified by S03, No in FIG. 9 or S13, Yes in FIG. 10 in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)), the first driving mode of the work machine would have been not entered (e.g., in FIG. 9, while the work machine remained in the second mode, paragraph [0155]) or released (in FIG. 10), and thus prevented (e.g., paragraphs [0014], [0015], etc. in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)), and the work machine would have therefore been operated in or would have switched to the second driving mode (manual steering driving), as taught by Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) e.g., at Step S19, in order to appropriately control the steering driving of the work machine in accordance with the accuracy of the determined positioning method of the work machine, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) agricultural work machine and method would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, . . . prohibiting the automatic run [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), for example only, whenever the FIX state/solution is not obtained (e.g., at S13, Yes in FIG. 10), thereby preventing/avoiding automatic steering driving (e.g., paragraphs [0014], [0015], etc.), e.g., by switching the control mode from the first mode to the second mode at S19 in FIG. 10, wherein the automatic steering travel is (only) performed in the first mode (e.g., paragraphs [0113], etc.)] when the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method [e.g., when in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), the agricultural work machine/vehicle 10 is in the first mode (automatic steering) (obviously after the first control mode is switched to/started at S07 in FIG. 9, after/when the start condition has been satisfied (paragraphs [0155], [0173], etc.)) where the second determination routine of FIG. 10 is performed at regular time intervals (e.g., paragraph [0176]), including switching the control mode of the traveling control unit 24 to the second mode when the FIX solution has not been obtained at S13, Yes; see paragraphs [0151] in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), etc., “the mode switching unit 33 is configured to switch the control mode of the driving control unit 24 to the first mode when a predetermined start condition is satisfied and the straight-line movement determination unit 34 determines that the aircraft 10 has moved straight for a predetermined distance D1”; and/or obviously in FIG. 9 when the answers at S01 to S03 and/or S04 to S06 would obviously have been “Yes”, during obvious reaping operation of the agricultural machine], and when the positioning method is switched to the second positioning method [e.g., before an obvious period of FIX/RTK unavailability in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), as taught at 4100 in FIG. 6 of Kellar et al. (‘138)] which is has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when the FIX state/solution (cm accuracy) is not obtained in the satellite positioning module 80 and the FLOAT state/solution (10s of cm to a few meters accuracy) is instead used in FIGS. 9, 10, etc. (e.g., paragraphs [0071] to [0077], etc.); and at 4000, 5000 in FIG. 6 of Kellar et al. (‘138)];
per claim 4, depending from claim 1, wherein the automatic run is permitted until a given time elapses [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), the finite amount of time required i) to reach Step S13 during execution of FIG. 10 (e.g., to execute Steps S11, S12, etc.), ii) to execute Step S13 in FIG. 10 to determine that the positioning state of the work machine is no longer in the predetermined high accuracy state (FIX state/solution), and iii) for the mode switching unit 33 to switch the control mode of driving control unit 24 from the first mode to the second mode, at Step S19 in FIG. 10] after the positioning method is switched from the first positioning method to the second positioning method [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), from the FIX state/solution in FIG. 9 to the FLOAT state/solution in FIG. 10];
per claim 5, depending from claim 4, wherein the automatic run is permitted when the positioning method is switched from the second positioning method to the first positioning method before the given time elapses [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when the FIX state/solution obviously becomes available in Step S03 in FIG. 9 after the FLOAT state/solution had been available, and before the FLOAT state/solution (S13, Yes) again becomes available in Step S13 FIG. 10, according to the obvious logic flow handled by FIGS. 9 and 10] after the positioning method is switched from the first positioning method to the second positioning method;
per claim 6, depending from claim 4, wherein
the automatic run is prohibited [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), at S13, Yes followed by S19 in FIG. 10] when the positioning method fails to be switched from the second positioning method to the first positioning method before the given time elapses after the positioning method is switched from the first positioning method to the second positioning method [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when the control mode of the driving control unit 24 switches from the first mode to the second mode at Step S19 in FIG. 10];
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
receiving to a reception processing unit an operation from an operator [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when the first or second registration buttons 51, 52 of the display 4b of the communication terminal 4 are touched (e.g., paragraphs [0120], [0121], etc.), and/or at S01 or S02 in FIG. 9, or at S11 or S12 in FIG. 10, which causes the position coordinates to be calculated e.g., by a positioning method, as inputted/commanded (and at the time selected) by the operator; and/or when the operator operates an automatic steering start/stop button (not shown) as at paragraph [0125] in Nakabayashi et al. (‘850)] to select the positioning method [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), in order for the satellite positioning module 80 to calculate the position coordinates and/or to determine/obtain the FIX or FLOAT states/solutions, e.g., at S03 in FIG. 9 or at S13 in FIG. 10, and as described at paragraphs [0074], [0075], etc.];
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
making the automatic run prohibitable when the work vehicle which automatically runs by the first positioning method stops, and a state of the stop continues for a given time [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when the work vehicle is obviously turned OFF, so that it does not perform automatic steering driving/traveling, e.g., at night or on holidays when workers have the day off];
per claim 10, an automatic run system comprising:
a work vehicle [e.g., the combine harvester 1 in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)] with a positioning processing unit [e.g., 80, 81, 21, 25, etc. in FIG. 4 of Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)] for positioning the work vehicle by a positioning method based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., paragraphs [0070], etc. in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ’850), “The satellite positioning module 80 shown in FIG. 1 receives GPS signals from satellites GS used in the GPS (Global Positioning System) and positioning data transmitted from a reference station (not shown) installed at a known location”; see also paragraphs [0077], etc.]; and
the work vehicle [e.g., the combine harvester 1 in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)] with a run processing unit [e.g., 30, 23, 24, etc. in FIG. 4 of Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)] for causing the work vehicle to automatically run [e.g., in the first mode (automatic steering driving/traveling) of the driving control unit 24, in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)] based on position information showing the work vehicle positioned by the positioning processing unit [e.g., as shown at S07 in FIG. 9, and as described at paragraphs [0162], [0163], etc. in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)], wherein
the run processing unit prohibits the automatic run [e.g., for example only, whenever the FIX state/solution is not obtained (e.g., at S13, Yes in FIG. 10), thereby preventing/avoiding automatic steering driving (e.g., paragraphs [0014], [0015], etc.), e.g., by switching the control mode from the first mode to the second mode at S19 in FIG. 10, wherein the automatic steering travel is (only) performed in the first mode (e.g., paragraphs [0113], etc.)], when the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method [e.g., when in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), the agricultural work machine/vehicle 10 is in the first mode (automatic steering) (obviously after the first control mode is switched to/started at S07 in FIG. 9, after/when the start condition has been satisfied (paragraphs [0155], [0173], etc.)) where the second determination routine of FIG. 10 is performed at regular time intervals (e.g., paragraph [0176]), including switching the control mode of the traveling control unit 24 to the second mode when the FIX solution has not been obtained at S13, Yes; see paragraphs [0151] in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), etc., “the mode switching unit 33 is configured to switch the control mode of the driving control unit 24 to the first mode when a predetermined start condition is satisfied and the straight-line movement determination unit 34 determines that the aircraft 10 has moved straight for a predetermined distance D1”; and/or obviously in FIG. 9 when the answers at S01 to S03 and/or S04 to S06 would obviously have been “Yes”, during obvious reaping operation of the agricultural machine], and when the positioning method is switched to a second positioning method [e.g., before an obvious period of FIX/RTK unavailability in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), as taught at 4100 in FIG. 6 of Kellar et al. (‘138)] which has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when the FIX state/solution (cm accuracy) is not obtained in the satellite positioning module 80 and the FLOAT state/solution (10s of cm to a few meters accuracy) is instead used in FIGS. 9, 10, etc. (e.g., paragraphs [0071] to [0077], etc.); and at 4000, 5000 in FIG. 6 of Kellar et al. (‘138)];
per claim 12, depending from claim 1, wherein [e.g., the examiner considers the following limitations to be contingent/conditional, which need not be shown in a method claim (see Claim Interpretation section above)] if the first positioning method is a DGNSS method [e.g., Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) apparently does not reveal any DGNSS method], then the second positioning method is an RTK method [e.g., since there is no DGNSS in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), there is also no such “RTK method” that meets the claim language in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)], and if the first positioning method is the RTK method [e.g., the particular RTK method which is used as claimed when the DGNSS method is the first positioning method, which there is none of/for, in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)], then the second positioning method is the DGNSS method [e.g., Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) apparently does not reveal any DGNSS method];
Claims 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. (Japan, 2022-11850; EPO machine translation provided previously) in view of Kellar et al. (2011/0307138) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshino (2019/0049594).
Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) as implemented or modified in view of Kellar et al. (‘138) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) agricultural work machine and method may not reveal the distance and threshold value.
However, in the context/field of an improved coordinate output device for positioning using RTK (GPS) and other (e.g., dead reckoning (DR)) methods, Yoshino (‘594) teaches e.g., in paragraph [0046] that a movement amount may be added to the previous (e.g., RTK, one EPOC before) coordinates of the moving body to obtain a dead reckoning (DR) solution, with e.g., RTK (squares) and DR (circles) together in FIGS. 6 and 7 being a first positioning method and the float solution (triangles) being a second positioning method, and he teaches e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 5 to 7 and at paragraphs [0088], [0109], etc. that if the deviation between the RTK/DR solution and the float solution (the distance between the coordinates of the DR solution and the float solution) is larger than the predetermined threshold, the DR solution is output as the current coordinates of the moving body, and if the deviation is smaller than the predetermined threshold, the float solution is output as the current coordinates of the moving body.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) agricultural work machine and method so that when the FIX (RTK) solution became not available, e.g., as taught at 4100 in FIG. 6 by Kellar et al. (‘138), a position deviation between the FLOAT solution and a DR solution based on movement from the previous RTK (FIX) solution would have been determined, as taught by Yoshino (‘594), and when the distance (position deviation) was greater than the predetermined threshold, the DR solution (rather than the FLOAT solution) would have been used (as taught by Yoshino (‘594)) to control the driving control unit 24 in the second mode at Step S19 in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), thereby suppressing the influence of a positioning error (jump) of a float solution in a case where interferometric positioning by RTK method is applied to positioning of a moving body, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) agricultural work machine and method would have rendered obvious:
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, wherein the automatic run is prohibited [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when Step S19 is executed in FIG. 10] when the positioning method is switched from the first positioning method to the second positioning method [e.g., at the beginning of the period 4100 in FIG. 6 of Kellar et al. (‘138), and at the time t5 in FIGS. 5 to 7 in Yoshino (‘594) when RTK is no longer available] and when a distance difference [e.g., the deviation in paragraphs [0088], [0109], etc. in Yoshino (‘594)] between the work vehicle positioned by the first positioning method [e.g., the RTK/DR method (e.g., DR based on previous RTK measurement) shown by the circles in FIGS. 6 and 7 of Yoshino (‘594)] and the work vehicle positioned by the second positioning method [e.g., the triangles in FIGS. 5 to 7 in Yoshino (‘594)] is more than or equal to a threshold value [e.g., the predetermined threshold/value in paragraphs [0088], [0109], etc. in Yoshino (‘594)];
per claim 3, depending from claim 2, wherein the automatic run is permitted, when the positioning method is switched from the first positioning method to the second positioning method [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), during the finite amount of time required i) to reach Step S13 during execution of FIG. 10 (e.g., to execute Steps S11, S12, etc.), ii) to execute Step S13 in FIG. 10 to determine that the positioning state of the work machine is no longer in the predetermined high accuracy state (FIX state/solution), and iii) for the mode switching unit 33 to switch the control mode of driving control unit 24 from the first mode to the second mode, at Step S19 in FIG. 10], and when the distance difference [e.g., the deviation in paragraphs [0088], [0109], etc. in Yoshino (‘594)] is less than the threshold value [e.g., as shown at t11 in FIG. 6 of Yoshino (‘594) when the deviation would have obviously been less than the threshold, when the float solution was selected but the travel control unit 24 had not yet switched to the second mode (during the finite amount of time described immediately above)];
per claim 9, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
prohibiting the automatic run, when the work vehicle which automatically runs by the first positioning method stops [e.g., when the vehicle stops, automatic running implicitly/obviously cannot occur (and it is thus prohibited), in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), Kellar et al. (‘138), and Yoshino (‘594); and e.g., such as when the main shift lever 19 is in the neutral position NP at Step S11 in FIG. 10 of Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) and the work vehicle obviously stops due to lack of power, friction, drag, etc.], and a state of the stop continues for a given time [e.g., however long the work vehicle is stopped], and when a distance difference between the work vehicle positioned at a time point when the work vehicle stopped and the work vehicle positioned at a time point of an elapse of the given time is more than a threshold value [e.g., at Step S15 in FIG. 10 of Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when the work vehicle has moved, after once stopping, to the non-working position (e.g., obviously the stopping position PP in FIG. 3) and the distance is more than the threshold value to other working positions in the entire work area CA (FIG. 3)];
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. (Japan, 2022-11850; EPO machine translation provided previously) in view of Kellar et al. (2011/0307138) and Miyakubo et al. (2018/0215393).
Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) as implemented or modified in view of Kellar et al. (‘138) has been described above, e.g., with respect to the rejection of claim 1 above.
The implemented or modified Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) agricultural work machine and method may not reveal the newly claimed non-transitory medium.
However, in the context/field of an improved autonomously traveling work vehicle, Miyakubo et al. (‘393) reveals e.g., at paragraphs [0024], etc. that control device 30 includes: a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device 30a such as a RAM or a ROM; an interface; and the like. The storage device 30a stores a program and data for operating the autonomously traveling work vehicle 1. Moreover, the control device 30 includes an autonomous traveling means implementing the autonomous traveling which controls the steering actuator 40, the transmission means 44, the hoisting/lowering actuator 25, the PTO input means 45, the engine controller 60, and the like based on the positional information (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) agricultural work machine and method so that control units including the driving control unit 24 and the automatic steering control unit 30, etc. would have been conventionally implemented using a CPU and RAM or ROM, as taught by Miyakubo et al. (‘393), in order to control the automatic traveling/steering of the vehicle (e.g., in the first mode), as taught by Miyakubo et al. (‘393), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850) agricultural work machine and method would have rendered obvious:
per claim 11, a computer-readable non-transitory medium [e.g., the RAM or the ROM for the CPU(s) of/for the control device(s) (e.g., 24, 30, etc. in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)), as taught by Miyakubo et al. (’393)] storing an automatic run program [e.g., executing the flow charts of FIGS. 9 and 10, etc. in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)] for causing one or more processors to execute operations comprising:
positioning a work vehicle by a positioning method [e.g., by means of the satellite positioning module 80 and the vehicle position calculation unit 21, in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)] based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., as determined for the (positioning) decisions at Step S03 in FIG. 9 and Step S13 in FIG. 10, in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)];
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing a work vehicle position [e.g., as shown at S07 in FIG. 9, and as described at paragraphs [0162], [0163], etc. in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)]; and
prohibiting the automatic run [e.g., for example only, whenever the FIX state/solution is not obtained (e.g., at S13, Yes in FIG. 10), thereby preventing/avoiding automatic steering driving (e.g., paragraphs [0014], [0015], etc.), e.g., by switching the control mode from the first mode to the second mode at S19 in FIG. 10, wherein the automatic steering travel is (only) performed in the first mode (e.g., paragraphs [0113], etc.)], when the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method [e.g., when in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), the agricultural work machine/vehicle 10 is in the first mode (automatic steering) (obviously after the first control mode is switched to/started at S07 in FIG. 9, after/when the start condition has been satisfied (paragraphs [0155], [0173], etc)) where the second determination routine of FIG. 10 is performed at regular time intervals (e.g., paragraph [0176]), including switching the control mode of the traveling control unit 24 to the second mode when the FIX solution has not been obtained at S13, Yes; see paragraphs [0151] in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), etc., “the mode switching unit 33 is configured to switch the control mode of the driving control unit 24 to the first mode when a predetermined start condition is satisfied and the straight-line movement determination unit 34 determines that the aircraft 10 has moved straight for a predetermined distance D1”; and/or obviously in FIG. 9 when the answers at S01 to S03 and/or S04 to S06 would obviously have been “Yes”, during obvious reaping operation of the agricultural machine], and when the positioning method is switched to a second positioning method [e.g., before an obvious period of FIX/RTK unavailability in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), as taught at 4100 in FIG. 6 of Kellar et al. (‘138)] which has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method [e.g., in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850), when the FIX state/solution (cm accuracy) is not obtained in the satellite positioning module 80 and the FLOAT state/solution (10s of cm to a few meters accuracy) is instead used in FIGS. 9, 10, etc. (e.g., paragraphs [0071] to [0077], etc.); and at 4000, 5000 in FIG. 6 of Kellar et al. (‘138)];
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 to 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suzuki et al.[11] (P.C.T., WO 2020/256036 A1; with the examiner using US 2022/0408628, arising from U.S. patent application 17/620726[12][13], as an effective translation of the WO ‘036 A1 document) in view of Yoshino (2019/0049594).
Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) reveals:
per claim 1, an automatic run [e.g., automatic travel control] method comprising:
positioning a work vehicle by a first positioning method and a second positioning method [e.g., paragraph [0064] [14], “GNSS-based positioning methods include differential GNSS (DGNSS): relative positioning system, real time kinematic GNSS (RTK-GNSS): interferometric positioning system, and the like. In this embodiment, highly accurate RTK-GNSS suitable for positioning of mobile objects is used. Therefore, base stations 9 that enable positioning by RTK-GNSS are installed at known locations around the farm”; paragraph [0085], “a low-accuracy positioning state (FLOAT state) with a positioning accuracy of several tens of centimeters to a high-accuracy positioning state (FIX state) with a positioning accuracy of several centimeters”, wherein [RTK] positioning in the FIX state, when the positioning states of both of the front and rear GNSS receivers 5C and 5D have converged from a low-accuracy positioning state, is the claimed first method and [RTK] positioning in the FLOAT state, without the convergence, is the second method, as was well-known and fully conventional for RTK-GNSS positioning (e.g., paragraph [0064])] based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., from the GNSS satellite positioning system (e.g., paragraph [0035])];
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing the work vehicle's position [e.g., after the start of automatic travel control, when the answer in the third determination process (Step #8 in FIG. 12) is Yes]; and
prohibiting the automatic run when [e.g., when the answer at Step #8 in FIG. 12 becomes No e.g., after implicitly/obviously having previously been Yes, to lead to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12] the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method [e.g., when the answer at Step #2 and Step #5 in FIG. 11, or at Step #2 and Step #5 and Step #8, has previously been Yes, leading to the “start” of automatic travel control (paragraphs [0077], [0099], [0102]), that is, the work vehicle being set to start and/or starting the automatic travel control], and when the positioning method is switched to the second positioning method [e.g., when the answer in the third determination process at Step #8 in FIG. 12 becomes No, because positioning states of either the front or rear GNSS receiver 5C and 5D is the low-accuracy (FLOAT) positioning state (paragraph [0089]), leading to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12] which has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method [e.g., paragraph [0085], “a low-accuracy positioning state (FLOAT state) with a positioning accuracy of several tens of centimeters to a high-accuracy positioning state (FIX state) with a positioning accuracy of several centimeters”];
It may be alleged that Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) does not expressly reveal that the utilized FIX and FLOAT states are (parts of the first and second) positioning methods, or that the work vehicle is “set to start the automatic run” prior to reaching Step #8 in FIG. 12 when one of the front or rear GNSS receiver 5C and 5D becomes the low-accuracy (FLOAT) positioning state at Step #8, No in FIG. 12 (paragraph [0089]), leading to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12, although the examiner understands this would have been obvious in (if not implicit in) Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) even without further teaching when, after the user's touch operation on the display device 3A of the mobile communication terminal 3 for commanding automatic travel and executing the positioning control of FIG. 11 (paragraph [0077]) and after automatic travel permission had been granted at Step #7 in FIG. 11, a first pass through Step #8, Yes would have (also) started the automated travel control (see paragraph [0077]; see also paragraphs [0099], [0102]), and then after Step #14, No in FIG. 12 (paragraph [0090]) indicating that termination of automatic travel has not been commanded, a second pass through Step #8, No would have led to the suspension of automatic travel at Step #17, simply by obviously implementing/following the teachings of Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) himself (as reflected in his flowcharts) in order to recognize the full situational benefits of his described invention.
However, in the context/field of an improved RTK coordinate (position) output method, Yoshino (‘594) teaches that positioning by RTK is a “method” that uses either a fix solution or a float solution in a case where a fix solution is not calculated.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) work vehicle and method so that the high-accuracy positioning state (FIX state) and the low-accuracy positioning state (FLOAT state) with different accuracies would have been utilized as parts of the first (RTK/FIX) positioning method and the second (RTK/FLOAT) positioning method with a difference in accuracy, respectively, as taught by Yoshino (‘594), in order to obtain coordinate (position) outputs in both the FIX and the FLOAT state by means of RTK positioning methods, as taught by Yoshino (‘594), and so that the suspension/prohibition of the automatic travel at Step #17 in FIG. 12 of Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) would have occurred after automatic travel control had been set to be started (e.g., paragraphs [0077], [0099], [0102]), e.g., as an implicit/obvious precondition to suspending automatic travel, as taught by Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) himself, in order to allow the automatic travel control that had started to be suspended, as desired by Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), with a reasonable expectation of success, and as e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) work vehicle and method would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, an automatic run [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), automatic travel control] method comprising:
positioning a work vehicle by a first positioning method and a second positioning method [e.g., in Yoshino (‘594) the positioning by RTK methods using either the fix solution or the float solution; and in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), paragraph [0064] [15], “GNSS-based positioning methods include differential GNSS (DGNSS): relative positioning system, real time kinematic GNSS (RTK-GNSS): interferometric positioning system, and the like. In this embodiment, highly accurate RTK-GNSS suitable for positioning of mobile objects is used. Therefore, base stations 9 that enable positioning by RTK-GNSS are installed at known locations around the farm”; paragraph [0085], “a low-accuracy positioning state (FLOAT state) with a positioning accuracy of several tens of centimeters to a high-accuracy positioning state (FIX state) with a positioning accuracy of several centimeters”, wherein [RTK] positioning in the FIX state, when the positioning states of both of the front and rear GNSS receivers 5C and 5D have converged from a low-accuracy positioning state, is the claimed first method and [RTK] positioning in the FLOAT state, without the convergence, is the second method, as was well-known and fully conventional for RTK-GNSS positioning (e.g., paragraph [0064])] based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), from the GNSS satellite positioning system (e.g., paragraph [0035])];
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing the work vehicle's position [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), after the start of automatic travel control, when the answer in the third determination process (Step #8 in FIG. 12) is Yes, e.g., until the termination of automatic travel control is commanded (paragraph [0090]]; and
prohibiting the automatic run when [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when the answer at Step #8 in FIG. 12 becomes No e.g., after implicitly/obviously having previously been Yes, to lead to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12] the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by the first positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when automatic travel has been commanded (paragraph [0077]) to enter FIG. 11 and the answer at Step #2 and Step #5 in FIG. 11, or at Step #2 and Step #5 and Step #8, has previously been Yes, leading to the “start” of automatic travel control (paragraphs [0099], [0102]); that is, the work vehicle being set/commanded to start and/or starting the automatic travel control], and when the positioning method is switched to the second positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when the answer in the third determination process at Step #8 in FIG. 12 becomes No, because positioning states of either the front or rear GNSS receiver 5C and 5D is the low-accuracy (FLOAT) positioning state (paragraph [0089]), leading to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12] which has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), paragraph [0085], “a low-accuracy positioning state (FLOAT state) with a positioning accuracy of several tens of centimeters to a high-accuracy positioning state (FIX state) with a positioning accuracy of several centimeters”];
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, further comprising: receiving to a reception processing unit an operation from an operator to select the positioning method [e.g., paragraph [0077] in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), “In the work vehicle V, in a case where start of automatic travel is commanded by a user's touch operation on the display device 3A of the mobile communication terminal 3, the positioning module 5F of the positioning unit 5 executes positioning control to measure the current position and current orientation of the vehicle body 1.”];
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, further comprising: making the automatic run prohibitable when the work vehicle which automatically runs by the first positioning method stops, and a state of the stop continues for a given time [e.g., at steps #9 and #10 in FIG. 12 of Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), executed when the vehicle is stopped (for any given time) (paragraph [0101]), with the automatic run subsequently being “prohibitable” when the answers at Steps #14 and #8 are No, and then either the answer at Step 15 is No or the answer at Step #16 is yes];
per claim 10, an automatic run system comprising:
a work vehicle [e.g., FIG. 1 in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036)] with a positioning processing unit [e.g., 5 in FIG. 2 of Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036)] for positioning the work vehicle by a positioning method [e.g., in Yoshino (‘594) the positioning by RTK methods using either the fix solution or the float solution; and in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), paragraph [0064], “GNSS-based positioning methods include differential GNSS (DGNSS)”] based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., by the GNSS receivers 5C, 5D in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘628)]; and
the work vehicle with a run processing unit [e.g., the automatic travel control unit 40 in FIG. 2 of Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036)] for causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing the work vehicle positioned by the positioning processing unit [e.g., paragraph [0102] in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), “In the work vehicle V, the automatic travel control unit 40 cannot start automatic travel control until the front and rear GNSS receivers 5C and 5D are in the high-accuracy positioning state, and the automatic travel control can be started when the front and rear GNSS receivers 5C and 5D are in the high-accuracy positioning state.”], wherein
the run processing unit prohibits the automatic run when [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when the answer at Step #8 in FIG. 12 becomes No e.g., after implicitly/obviously having previously been Yes, to lead to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12] the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when automatic travel has been commanded (paragraph [0077]) to enter FIG. 11 and the answer at Step #2 and Step #5 in FIG. 11, or at Step #2 and Step #5 and Step #8, has previously been Yes, leading to the “start” of automatic travel control (paragraphs [0099], [0102]); that is, the work vehicle being set/commanded to start and/or starting the automatic travel control] and when the positioning method is switched to a second positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when the answer in the third determination process at Step #8 in FIG. 12 becomes No, because positioning states of either the front or rear GNSS receiver 5C and 5D is the low-accuracy (FLOAT) positioning state (paragraph [0089]), leading to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12] which has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), paragraph [0085], “a low-accuracy positioning state (FLOAT state) with a positioning accuracy of several tens of centimeters to a high-accuracy positioning state (FIX state) with a positioning accuracy of several centimeters”];
per claim 11, a computer-readable non-transitory medium [e.g., in the positioning unit 5, in the automated travel control unit 40, etc., at paragraphs [0055], [0060], [0063], etc. in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036)] storing an automatic run program for causing one or more processors to execute operations comprising:
positioning [e.g., in the positioning unit 5 in FIG. 2 of Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036)] a work vehicle by a given positioning method [e.g., in Yoshino (‘594) the positioning by RTK methods using either the fix solution or the float solution; and in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), paragraph [0064], “GNSS-based positioning methods include differential GNSS (DGNSS)”] based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., by the GNSS receivers 5C, 5D in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘628)];
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing a work vehicle position [e.g., paragraph [0102] in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), “In the work vehicle V, the automatic travel control unit 40 cannot start automatic travel control until the front and rear GNSS receivers 5C and 5D are in the high-accuracy positioning state, and the automatic travel control can be started when the front and rear GNSS receivers 5C and 5D are in the high-accuracy positioning state.”]; and
prohibiting the automatic run when [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when the answer at Step #8 in FIG. 12 becomes No e.g., after implicitly/obviously having previously been Yes, to lead to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12] the work vehicle is set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when automatic travel has been commanded (paragraph [0077]) to enter FIG. 11 and the answer at Step #2 and Step #5 in FIG. 11, or at Step #2 and Step #5 and Step #8, has previously been Yes, leading to the “start” of automatic travel control (paragraphs [0099], [0102]); that is, the work vehicle being set/commanded to start and/or starting the automatic travel control] and when the positioning method is switched to a second positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), when the answer in the third determination process at Step #8 in FIG. 12 becomes No, because positioning states of either the front or rear GNSS receiver 5C and 5D is the low-accuracy (FLOAT) positioning state (paragraph [0089]), leading to the automatic travel suspension process at Step #17 in FIG. 12] which has a difference in positioning accuracy from the first positioning method [e.g., in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), paragraph [0085], “a low-accuracy positioning state (FLOAT state) with a positioning accuracy of several tens of centimeters to a high-accuracy positioning state (FIX state) with a positioning accuracy of several centimeters”];
per claim 12, depending from claim 1, wherein [e.g., the examiner considers the following limitations to be contingent/conditional, which need not be shown in a method claim (see Claim Interpretation section above)] if the first positioning method is a DGNSS method [e.g., Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) apparently does not reveal any DGNSS method used in the embodiment of paragraphs [0033] to [0117]], then the second positioning method is an RTK method [e.g., since there is no DGNSS in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036), there is also no such “RTK method” that meets the claim language in Nakabayashi et al. (JP, ‘850)], and if the first positioning method is the RTK method [e.g., the particular RTK method which is used as claimed when the DGNSS method is the first positioning method, which there is none of/for, in Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036)], then the second positioning method is the DGNSS method [e.g., Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) apparently does not reveal any DGNSS method];
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
While claims 13 and 14 are indefinite and cannot be grammatically parsed by the examiner with reasonable certainty, similar definite claims in which the recited first positioning method and second positioning method are different ones of a DGNSS method or a RTK method would appear to distinguish over the applied prior art if formulated (as system claim and medium claims, per claims 10 and 11) in the manner similar to that shown for claim 1 in footnote “7” above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 See MPEP 2173.05(b), IV.
2 In this respect, for convenience, the examiner uses the corresponding U.S. 371 application, which published as US 2022/0408628 A1, as an effective translation of the WO document.
3 Quoting the MPEP: “New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.”
4 See MPEP 2173.05(b), IV.
5 In this respect, all recitations of “the positioning method” in the dependent claims 2 through 7 are similarly unclear.
6 prohibit (prəˈhɪbɪt) vb (tr)
1. to forbid by law or other authority
2. to hinder or prevent
. . .
[From: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014. Retrieved 12 April 2025.]
7 For example, in an attempt to advance prosecution, the examiner believes this version of claim 1 would appear to be definite under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and distinguish over the applied prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Claim 1: An automatic run method comprising:
positioning a work vehicle by a first positioning method and a second positioning method based on a signal received from a satellite, wherein the first positioning method and the second positioning method are different ones of a DGNSS method or a RTK method;
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing the work vehicle's position; and
prohibiting the automatic run when the work vehicle is ready [[set]] to start the automatic run and a start instruction has been received, via an operation unit for receiving the start instruction, from an operator of the work vehicle positioning of the work vehicle from the first positioning method to the second positioning method
8 Corresponds to Japan Patent Registration 7458918 B2.
9 Here, the examiner merely notes that, in the specification (see published paragraph [0005]), “positioning” is not used in the sense of moving something (moving the work vehicle), but is rather used in the sense of “locating” (or determining/recognizing the position/location of) something (e.g., determining the position/location of the work vehicle).
10 The examiner merely notes that the “machine body 10” or “vehicle 10” (see FIG. 1) is sometimes referred to as an “aircraft 10” in the machine translation.
11 This is a backup rejection, since applicant has argued that “[n]either Nakabayashi nor Kellar disclose” . . . “the presence of both conditions of (1) the work vehicle being set to start the automatic run by a first positioning method, and (2) switching from the first positioning method to a second positioning method, are what trigger the prohibition of the automatic run” (see bottom of page 10 of the Remarks filed 11 December 2025), which the examiner disagrees with, and “the propriety of [the 103 Nakabayashi/Kellar] rejection [thus] depends on a particular interpretation of a claim” (MPEP 2120, I., (A)), as detailed below.
12 U.S. patent application 17/620726 is a “371 of PCT/JP2020/023851”, which published as the Suzuki et al. (WO, ‘036) reference.
13 Now U.S. Patent 12,193,347 B2.
14 All references to paragraphs and quotations in the claim mapping herein below are to US Patent Application Publication 2022/0408628, as being an effective English translation of P.C.T., WO 2020/256036 A1.
15 All references to paragraphs and quotations herein below are to US Patent Application Publication 2022/0408628, which corresponds to/is a 371 of WO 2020/256036 A1, and is used as an English translation thereof.