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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the claim amendments overcome the specification objection, which is withdrawn. However, a new specification objection (e.g., the specification now fails to provide antecedent basis for the new claim terminology, “an automated travel control”) is instituted herein.
Second, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome by applicant’s claim amendments, with new rejections in this respect being instituted based on the claim amendments. In this respect, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 12 to 14 is withdrawn upon further consideration by the examiner, although an objection is added for claim 12 resulting from an unmarked (underlining/strikethrough) claim change, with the examiner understanding (in claims 12 to 14) that “the DGNSS method” and “the RTK method” as recited are merely distinguishable (types of) positioning methods that stand alone in their own right, and are not necessarily tied or limited (other than by immediate and explicit conditions recited in the claims) to only the claimed first or second positioning methods.
Third, applicant’s claim amendments cause the examiner to change the prior art rejection, to now use Ozaki et al. (JP, 2020-135802), cited by applicant on 17 April 2025, as the new primary reference, where Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) teaches in FIG. 8 that autonomous travel is permitted to proceed for “X seconds” (e.g., 10 seconds) when/after the positioning state (method) changes from DGPS (differential GPS) to SGPS (single or normal GPS), as is now claimed by applicant e.g., in the independent claims.
For example, FIG. 6 in the equivalent (371) U.S. Publication 2022/0159898 is reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image1.png
576
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this respect, regarding the amendment to claim 10, the examiner notes that this claim is significantly broader than the other independent claims in that it does not require the limitation(s) related to the “given time”, unlike claims 1 and 11, and could apparently be (now) rejected by the examiner using a number of other references already of record, including perhaps Friend (2017/0010363), Vollath et al. (2012/0229332), Yoshino (2019/0049594), etc. However, for the sake of convenience, and due to the change in claim scope of claim 10, the examiner chooses to use Ozaki et al. (Japan, 2020-135802) as a primary reference to also/additionally reject claim 10, as he is using it to reject claims 1 and 11.
Further in this respect, the examiner understands that support for claim 2, as it now depends from amended claim 1, can be found at published paragraphs [0122] and [0126] of the specification.
Accordingly, 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)1. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis for the following new claim terminology should be provided in the specification, without adding new matter, so that the meaning of the claim term may be ascertainable by reference to the description: “when the work vehicle is under automated travel control” (as recited in the amended independent claims).
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claim 12[2] is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 12, line 3, “the DGNSS method” should read, “a DGNSS method” for grammatical correctness (cf. claims 13 and 14, and the previous version of claim 12), and ii) in claim 12, line 4, “the RTK method” should read, “a RTK method” for grammatical correctness (cf. claims 13 and 14, and the previous version of claim 12). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 to 3 and 5 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, line 8, and in claim 11, line 8, “[is] under automated travel control” is indefinite and not reasonably certain3 from the teachings of the specification that clarifies no metes and bounds for any “automated travel control”. For example, if the work machine is “ready” for the automatic run (“ready for starting the automatic run” at paragraph [0106]), but has not yet started the automatic run (e.g., is not yet moving/running/traveling?), then is this “under automated travel control” as claimed (see e.g., published paragraph [0053], [0100], etc. of the specification), or (alternately or additionally) does “under automated travel control” require or include that the work machine is automatically running under/has already started the automatic run (travel?) and is not just or no longer “ready” for it (see published paragraph [0101])? See also published paragraphs [0106], [0126], [0131], and [0132]. See MPEP 2173.02, I., “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
In claim 7, lines 3ff, “the positioning method” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis (e.g., is this referring to the first positioning method, the second positioning method, maybe some other positioning method that might be selected, etc.?) and is unclear.
In claim 8, lines 3ff, “a given time” is now indefinite, because “a given time” is already recited in claim 1, and so it is unclear whether the “given time” in claim 8 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the given time now recited in claim 1. In this respect, the use of the indefinite article (“a”) before given time in claim 8 might suggest that the given times can be different, but a definite article (“the” is used before “given time”) at published paragraph [0128] of the specification might indicate that the given times are meant to be the same. This is unclear. See MPEP 2173.02, I.
In claim 9, line 4, “a given time” is now indefinite, because “a given time” is already recited in claim 1, and so it is unclear whether the “[a] given time” in claim 9 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the given time now recited in claim 1. In this respect, the use of the indefinite article (“a”) before given time in claim 9 might suggest that the given times can be different, but a definite article (“the” is used before “given time” ) at published paragraph [0128] of the specification might indicate that the given times are meant to be the same. This is unclear. See MPEP 2173.02, I.
In claim 9, line 6, “the given time” is indefinite, with insufficient antecedent basis (e.g. is this referring back to the “a given time” of claim 9, line 4, or to the “a given time” of claim 1, line 6?
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, 5, 6, 8, and 10 to 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al.4 (Japan, 2020-135802; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Nakagawaa et al. (2017/0160748).
Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) reveals:
per claim 1, an automatic run method [e.g., for performing autonomous driving using a satellite positioning system; paragraph [0001]] comprising:
positioning a work vehicle [e.g., the rice transplanter 1] by a first positioning method and a second positioning method based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., using i) DGPS[5] as obviously a first positioning method when accuracy in Level 3 (or higher) is guaranteed and ii) SGPS[6] as obviously a second positioning method when the accuracy state corresponds to Level 2 or lower, e.g., in FIGS. 6 and 8[7]];
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing the work vehicle's position [e.g., paragraph [0021], “The rice transplanter 1 automatically drives while determining its own position using a satellite positioning system.”]; and
permitting [e.g., when in FIG. 8 the rice transplanter transitions from Level 3 (the second positioning state with e.g., the second positioning accuracy) to Level 2 (the third positioning state e.g., with the third positioning accuracy), as shown in FIG. 8] the automatic run [e.g., paragraph [0036], “At Level 2, initiating autonomous driving is prohibited, but continuing autonomous driving is permitted”, where “Level 2 corresponds to a state where, after transitioning from DGPS to SGPS, the duration of the SGPS state is within X seconds (third positioning state)”, where X may be 10 seconds (paragraph [0046]), whereby the duration of the Level 2 SGPS state (where initiating autonomous driving is prohibited but continuing autonomous driving is permitted) is (e.g., at most) e.g., 10 seconds] until a given time elapses [e.g., X seconds in paragraph [0036], which may be 10 seconds (paragraph [0046]] when the work vehicle is under an automated travel control by the first positioning method and the positioning of the work vehicle is switched from the first positioning method to the second positioning method [e.g., when, as shown and described e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 6 and 8, the positioning state transitions from Second Positioning State (Level 3) to the Third Positioning State (Level 2), wherein the Third Positioning State (Level 2) is within X seconds after the transition to SGPS state (FIG. 6), that is within X seconds after the transition to the Third Positioning State (Level 2) e.g., from the Second Positioning State (Level 3); see also paragraphs [0064], [0065], etc.; wherein the Third Positioning State (Level 2) obviously has a (maximum, “within”) duration of e.g., 10 seconds while the SGPS state continues];
It may be alleged that Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘602) does not expressly reveal that the described states (that is, the DGPS state constituting the First, Second, and Third Positioning States, and the SGPS state constituting the Fourth and Fifth Positioning States) are “positioning method[s]” although the examiner understands that any positioning state or result (e.g., a geolocation having an accuracy) that uses DGPS or GPS (SGPS) techniques is in fact or implicitly signifies a positioning method that solves equations (positioning solution) based on received satellite signals in order to determine the geolocation of the receiver, and would have been understood as such by one having ordinary skill in this art (MPEP 2141.03), even without further teaching..
However, in the context/field of an improved parallel travel work system, Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) teaches at paragraph [0039] that, “As a positioning method using the GPS, various methods such as independent positioning, relative positioning. DGPS (differential GPS) positioning and RTK-GPS (real time kinematic GPS) positioning are mentioned, and either of these methods can be used.”
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) work vehicle so that the positioning states of the work vehicle that were based on a satellite positioning systems would have been implemented by using GPS [the GPS/SGPS/DGPS] positioning methods (for performing calculations, determining geolocations using solution methods, etc.), as taught by Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) and as implicit in/obvious from Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) himself even without further teaching, in order to use conventional and known GPS solution methods for performing the [SGPS/DGPS] satellite positioning, 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 Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) work vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, an automatic run method [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), for performing autonomous driving using a satellite positioning system; paragraph [0001]] comprising:
positioning a work vehicle [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), the rice transplanter 1] by a first positioning method and a second positioning method based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., to obtain positioning states in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), using i) DGPS[8] as obviously a first positioning method when accuracy in Level 3 (or higher) is guaranteed and ii) SGPS[9] as obviously a second positioning method when the accuracy state corresponds to Level 2 or lower, e.g., in FIGS. 6 and 8[10]; and with the SGPS/DGPS states and with e.g., the First, Second, and Third Positioning States in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) obviously being implemented using GPS [SGPS/DGPS] positioning methods (e.g., the Second Positioning State being obviously implemented using a first DGPS positioning method, the Third Positioning State being obviously implemented using a second normal/single (SGPS) positioning method; and by obviously using the (e.g., SGPS/DGPS) positioning methods, as taught by Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) at paragraphs [0039], etc., to obtain/determine the positioning states in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802)];
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing the work vehicle's position [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), paragraph [0021], “The rice transplanter 1 automatically drives while determining its own position using a satellite positioning system.”]; and
permitting [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), when in FIG. 8 the rice transplanter transitions from Level 3 (the second positioning state with e.g., the second positioning accuracy) to Level 2 (the third positioning state e.g., with the third positioning accuracy), as shown in FIG. 8, such that the automatic driving may continue (FIG. 6)] the automatic run [e.g., paragraph [0036], “At Level 2, initiating autonomous driving is prohibited, but continuing autonomous driving is permitted”, where “Level 2 corresponds to a state where, after transitioning from DGPS to SGPS, the duration of the SGPS state is within X seconds (third positioning state)”, where X may be 10 seconds (paragraph [0046]), whereby the duration of the Level 2 SGPS state (where initiating autonomous driving is prohibited but continuing autonomous driving is permitted) is (e.g., at most) e.g., 10 seconds] until a given time elapses [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), X seconds in paragraph [0036], which may be 10 seconds (paragraph [0046]] when the work vehicle is under an automated travel control by the first positioning method and the positioning of the work vehicle is switched from the first positioning method to the second positioning method [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), when, as shown and described e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 6 and 8, the positioning state transitions from Second Positioning State (Level 3) to the Third Positioning State (Level 2), wherein the Third Positioning State (Level 2) is within X seconds after the transition to SGPS state (FIG. 6), that is within X seconds after the transition to the Third Positioning State (Level 2, SGPS state) e.g., from the Second Positioning State (Level 3, DGPS state); see also paragraphs [0064], [0065], etc.; wherein the Third Positioning State (Level 2) obviously has a (maximum, “within”) duration of e.g., 10 seconds while the SGPS state continues after the transition to the SGPS state; and with the (e.g., SGPS/DGPS) positioning methods, as taught by Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) at paragraphs [0039], etc., obviously used to obtain/determine the positioning states];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, 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 after the positioning method is switched from the first positioning method to the second positioning method [e.g., paragraph [0036] in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), “The reason Level 2 allows continued autonomous driving is that even if positioning accuracy deteriorates, if the system returns to a DGPS state in a relatively short time, stable autonomous driving can be maintained even if autonomous driving continues”; it would have been obvious in view of the suggestion of Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) at paragraph [0036] that when the positioning state returned to the Second Positioning State (DGPS state) within X seconds after the positioning state had transitioned to the SGPS state, autonomous travel in the Second Positioning State would have continued stably, in order to maintain stable autonomous driving];
per claim 6, depending from claim 1, wherein the automatic run is prohibited 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., paragraph [0036] in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), “Level 1 corresponds to a state where the SGPS state has been maintained for more than X seconds after transitioning from the DGPS state . . . At Level 1, both starting and continuing automatic driving are prohibited, and pressing the AUTO button 51 will not initiate automatic driving”; see also paragraph [0050] and the emergency stop that is required in the case of Level 1];
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, further comprising: prohibiting the automatic run 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 Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), 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 (as one example of a given time) off];
per claim 10, an automatic run system [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), the vehicle and its systems for performing autonomous driving using a satellite positioning system; paragraph [0001]] comprising:
a work vehicle [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), the rice transplanter 1] with a positioning processing unit [e.g., the position measuring device 43b in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802); e.g., paragraphs [0030], etc.] for positioning the work vehicle by a positioning method based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., to obtain positioning states in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), using i) DGPS[11] as obviously a first positioning method when accuracy in Level 3 (or higher) is guaranteed and ii) SGPS[12] as obviously a second positioning method when the accuracy state corresponds to Level 2 or lower, e.g., in FIGS. 6 and 8[13]; and with the SGPS/DGPS states and with e.g., the First, Second, and Third Positioning States in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) obviously being implemented using GPS [SGPS/DGPS] positioning methods (e.g., the Second Positioning State being obviously implemented using a first DGPS positioning method, the Third Positioning State being obviously implemented using a second normal/single (SGPS) positioning method; and by obviously using the (e.g., SGPS/DGPS) positioning methods, as taught by Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) at paragraphs [0039], etc., to obtain/determine the positioning states in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802)]; and
the work vehicle with a run processing unit [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), the processing unit 62 and the automatic travel control unit 63] for causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing the work vehicle positioned by the positioning processing unit [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), paragraph [0021], “The rice transplanter 1 automatically drives while determining its own position using a satellite positioning system.”], wherein
the run processing unit permits [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), when in FIG. 8 the rice transplanter transitions from Level 3 (the second positioning state with e.g., the second positioning accuracy) to Level 2 (the third positioning state e.g., with the third positioning accuracy), as shown in FIG. 8, such that the automatic driving may continue (FIG. 6)] the automatic run [e.g., paragraph [0036], “At Level 2, initiating autonomous driving is prohibited, but continuing autonomous driving is permitted”, where “Level 2 corresponds to a state where, after transitioning from DGPS to SGPS, the duration of the SGPS state is within X seconds (third positioning state)”, where X may be 10 seconds (paragraph [0046]), whereby the duration of the Level 2 SGPS state (where initiating autonomous driving is prohibited but continuing autonomous driving is permitted) is (e.g., at most) e.g., 10 seconds] when the work vehicle is under an automated travel control by a first positioning method and the positioning of the work vehicle is switched from the first positioning method to a second positioning method [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), when, as shown and described e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 6 and 8, the positioning state transitions from Second Positioning State (Level 3) to the Third Positioning State (Level 2), wherein the Third Positioning State (Level 2) is within X seconds after the transition to SGPS state (FIG. 6), that is within X seconds after the transition to the Third Positioning State (Level 2, SGPS state) e.g., from the Second Positioning State (Level 3, DGPS state); see also paragraphs [0064], [0065], etc.; wherein the Third Positioning State (Level 2) obviously has a (maximum, “within”) duration of e.g., 10 seconds while the SGPS state continues after the transition to the SGPS state; and with the (e.g., SGPS/DGPS) positioning methods, as taught by Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) at paragraphs [0039], etc., obviously used to obtain/determine the positioning states];
per claim 11, a computer-readable non-transitory medium storing an automatic run program [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), the ROM of the control unit 60 for storing the operation programs, etc. necessary for the rice transplanter 1 to operate automatically; e.g., paragraphs [0031], [0032], etc.] for causing one or more processors to execute operations comprising:
positioning a work vehicle [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), the rice transplanter 1] by a given positioning method based on a signal received from a satellite [e.g., to obtain positioning states in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), using (e.g., as given positioning method(s)) i) DGPS[14] as obviously a first positioning method when accuracy in Level 3 (or higher) is guaranteed and ii) SGPS[15] as obviously a second positioning method when the accuracy state corresponds to Level 2 or lower, e.g., in FIGS. 6 and 8[16]; and with the SGPS/DGPS states and with e.g., the First, Second, and Third Positioning States in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) obviously being implemented using GPS [SGPS/DGPS] positioning methods (e.g., the Second Positioning State being obviously implemented using a first DGPS positioning method, the Third Positioning State being obviously implemented using a second normal/single (SGPS) positioning method; and by obviously using the (e.g., SGPS/DGPS) positioning methods, as taught by Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) at paragraphs [0039], etc., to obtain/determine the positioning states in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802)];
causing the work vehicle to automatically run based on position information showing a work vehicle position [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), paragraph [0021], “The rice transplanter 1 automatically drives while determining its own position using a satellite positioning system.”]; and
permitting [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), when in FIG. 8 the rice transplanter transitions from Level 3 (the second positioning state with e.g., the second positioning accuracy) to Level 2 (the third positioning state e.g., with the third positioning accuracy), as shown in FIG. 8, such that the automatic driving may continue (FIG. 6)] the automatic run [e.g., paragraph [0036], “At Level 2, initiating autonomous driving is prohibited, but continuing autonomous driving is permitted”, where “Level 2 corresponds to a state where, after transitioning from DGPS to SGPS, the duration of the SGPS state is within X seconds (third positioning state)”, where X may be 10 seconds (paragraph [0046]), whereby the duration of the Level 2 SGPS state (where initiating autonomous driving is prohibited but continuing autonomous driving is permitted) is (e.g., at most) e.g., 10 seconds] until a given time elapses [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), X seconds in paragraph [0036], which may be 10 seconds (paragraph [0046]] when the work vehicle is under an automated travel control by a first positioning method and the positioning of the work vehicle is switched from the first positioning method to a second positioning method [e.g., in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), when, as shown and described e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 6 and 8, the positioning state transitions from Second Positioning State (Level 3) to the Third Positioning State (Level 2), wherein the Third Positioning State (Level 2) is within X seconds after the transition to SGPS state (FIG. 6), that is within X seconds after the transition to the Third Positioning State (Level 2, SGPS state) e.g., from the Second Positioning State (Level 3, DGPS state); see also paragraphs [0064], [0065], etc.; wherein the Third Positioning State (Level 2) obviously has a (maximum, “within”) duration of e.g., 10 seconds while the SGPS state continues after the transition to the SGPS state; and with the (e.g., SGPS/DGPS) positioning methods, as taught by Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) at paragraphs [0039], etc., obviously used to obtain/determine the positioning states];
per claim 12, depending from claim 1,
wherein if the first positioning method is the DGNSS method, then the second positioning method is the RTK method [e.g., this limitation is apparently contingent/conditional in the method, and need not be shown by the examiner, and “the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (Schulhauser; see MPEP 2111.04, II.)], and
if the first positioning method is the RTK method, then the second positioning method is the DGNSS method [e.g., this limitation is apparently contingent/conditional in the method, and need not be shown by the examiner, and “the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (Schulhauser; see MPEP 2111.04, II.)];
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al. (Japan, 2020-135802; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Nakagawaa et al. (2017/0160748) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vollath et al. (2012/0229332).
Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) as implemented or modified in view of Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) work vehicle may not expressly reveal a reception processing unit an operation from an operator to select the positioning method, although he teaches that an operation member 50 is provided with an AUTO button 51 and with A and B buttons 53, 54, and that when the AUTO button is operated by the operator, autonomous travel is started and stopped, and the positioning method/state is obviously selected for use when the autonomous travel is started. Additionally, the A and B buttons register the positions of start and end points of the reference route at which the autonomous travel is started and stopped (paragraph [0036]), and registering the positions of these points would have obviously required that a positioning method (e.g., DGPS, or even SGPS in certain cases) be selected.
However, in the context/field of an improved auto-steering system using GNSS fixes, Vollath et al. (‘332) teaches in conjunction with FIGS. 3, 4, etc. that different levels (e.g., gold, silver bronze) of positioning accuracies (related to e.g., the DGPS, RTK, etc. methods) may be selected by a user (e.g., paragraph [0051], “if the user selects Silver RTK”), and if the positioning quality falls below the criteria for the selected accuracy mode, the autosteering is disabled and the user is notified via a suitable display (paragraph [0050).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) work vehicle so that the operator would have operated the button(s) of the operation member 50 to select a/an (available) positioning method (e.g., DGPS, etc.) to obtain/utilize positioning state(s) for registering points and starting autonomous travel, and so that the operation member (50) would have additionally given the user an ability to select positioning accuracy criteria of a position accuracy mode (e.g., obviously Silver DGPS and others), as taught by Vollath et al. (‘332) in conjunction with FIGS. 3, 4, etc., and when the positioning quality (accuracy) fell below the criteria for the selected accuracy mode, the autosteering would have been disabled and the user notified via a suitable display, as taught by Vollath et al. (‘332), in order to give the user additional control over when (e.g., at what accuracy/ies) autonomous travel would be permitted/enabled or prohibited/disabled, 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 Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) work vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, further comprising: receiving to a reception processing unit [e.g., at the operation member 50 in Ozaki et al. (JP, 802), to select the buttons 51, 53, 54 for starting autonomous travel and for point registration, and to select the criteria of a selected accuracy mode as taught by Vollath et al. (‘332)] an operation from an operator to select the positioning method [e.g., to obtain the positioning state(s) in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) (e.g., using available positioning methods such as DGPS) when the buttons are selected; and to select the accuracy mode (e.g., obviously Silver DGPS in FIG. 4) as taught by Vollath et al. (‘332) below which autosteering will be disabled];
Claims 12 to 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al. (Japan, 2020-135802; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Nakagawaa et al. (2017/0160748) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 11 above, and further in view of Friend (2017/0010363).
Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) as implemented or modified in view of Nakagawaa et al. (‘748) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) work vehicle does not reveal the limitations related to the relationship(s) between the DGNSS (e.g., which is another name for differential GPS) and RTK methods, although he specifically teaches that that the invention is not limited to using DGPS, and at paragraph [0022] teaches, “In this embodiment, an example is shown in which DGPS (Differential GPS), which is an example of DGNSS (Differential GNSS), is used as the satellite positioning system. It is not limited to DGPS; other satellite positioning systems such as RTK (Real-time Kinematic) and SBAS (Geostationary Satellite Augmentation System) can also be used.”
However, in the context/field of an improved machine positioning system, Friend (‘363) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 4 that four levels of satellite positioning accuracy may be used (RTK fixed, RTK float, “differential mode” [a.k.a. DGNSS], and “autonomous [positioning] mode” [a.k.a. SGPS or single GPS/GNSS, where the positioning solution does not rely on external aids]) in conjunction with operation of the work machine, with RTK providing greater accuracy than differential mode.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) work vehicle so that the first through fourth positioning states/accuracies would have obviously been the RTK fixed, RTK float, “differential mode”, and “autonomous mode”, as taught by Friend (‘363) and as suggested by Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) himself at paragraph [0037], and so that when the positioning accuracy transitioned from the third to the fourth accuracy (that is, when the positioning method transitioned from the “differential mode” to “autonomous mode”, as taught by Friend (‘363), autonomous travel would have been stopped (prohibited/interrupted), as taught by Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), in order to provide greater accuracy than could be obtained by differential mode(s) alone, 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 Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) work vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 12, depending from claim 1,
wherein if the first positioning method is the DGNSS method, then the second positioning method is the RTK method [e.g., when the second positioning state/method in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) was either the RTK float or the differential mode, as taught by Friend (‘363) in conjunction with FIG. 4, and the third positioning state/method was obviously then the differential mode or the autonomous mode, respectively, as taught by Friend (‘363); and when the transition obviously occurred in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) either from the second positioning state to the third positioning state (from Level 3 to Level 2), or from the third positioning state to the second positioning state (Level 2 to Level) and autonomous travel would have “continue[d]” or proceeded, as shown in FIG. 6], and
if the first positioning method is the RTK method, then the second positioning method is the DGNSS method [e.g., when the second positioning state/method in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) was either the RTK float or the differential mode, as taught by Friend (‘363) in conjunction with FIG. 4, and the third positioning state/method was obviously then the differential mode or the autonomous mode, respectively, as taught by Friend (‘363); and when the transition obviously occurred in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) either from the second positioning state to the third positioning state (from Level 3 to Level 2), or from the third positioning state to the second positioning state (Level 2 to Level) and autonomous travel would have “continue[d]” or proceeded, as shown in FIG. 6];
per claim 13, depending from claim 10, wherein
if the first positioning method is a DGNSS method, then the second positioning method is an RTK method [e.g., when the second positioning state/method in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) was either the RTK float or the differential mode, as taught by Friend (‘363) in conjunction with FIG. 4, and the third positioning state/method was obviously then the differential mode or the autonomous mode, respectively, as taught by Friend (‘363); and when the transition obviously occurred in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) either from the second positioning state to the third positioning state (from Level 3 to Level 2), or from the third positioning state to the second positioning state (Level 2 to Level) and autonomous travel would have “continue[d]” or proceeded, as shown in FIG. 6], and
if the first positioning method is the RTK method, then the second positioning method is the DGNSS method [e.g., when the second positioning state/method in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) was either the RTK float or the differential mode, as taught by Friend (‘363) in conjunction with FIG. 4, and the third positioning state/method was obviously then the differential mode or the autonomous mode, respectively, as taught by Friend (‘363); and when the transition obviously occurred in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) either from the second positioning state to the third positioning state (from Level 3 to Level 2), or from the third positioning state to the second positioning state (Level 2 to Level) and autonomous travel would have “continue[d]” or proceeded, as shown in FIG. 6];
per claim 14, depending from claim 11, wherein
if the first positioning method is a DGNSS method, then the second positioning method is an RTK method [e.g., when the second positioning state/method in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) was either the RTK float or the differential mode, as taught by Friend (‘363) in conjunction with FIG. 4, and the third positioning state/method was obviously then the differential mode or the autonomous mode, respectively, as taught by Friend (‘363); and when the transition obviously occurred in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) either from the second positioning state to the third positioning state (from Level 3 to Level 2), or from the third positioning state to the second positioning state (Level 2 to Level) and autonomous travel would have “continue[d]” or proceeded, as shown in FIG. 6], and
if the first positioning method is the RTK method, then the second positioning method is the DGNSS method [e.g., when the second positioning state/method in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) was either the RTK float or the differential mode, as taught by Friend (‘363) in conjunction with FIG. 4, and the third positioning state/method was obviously then the differential mode or the autonomous mode, respectively, as taught by Friend (‘363); and when the transition obviously occurred in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802) either from the second positioning state to the third positioning state (from Level 3 to Level 2), or from the third positioning state to the second positioning state (Level 2 to Level) and autonomous travel would have “continue[d]” or proceeded, as shown in FIG. 6];
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 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.”
2 Here, the examine merely notes that applicant has apparently (perhaps unintentionally?) changed the claim language of claim 12 without appropriate markings as required by 37 CFR 1.121. However, since this limitation is a contingent/conditional limitation in a method claim, it apparently does not affect the examiner’s interpretation of the claim scope. See MPEP 2111.04, II. See also paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Office action dated 10 March 2026 for an explanation and advice concerning this (contingent/conditional limitation) issue.
3 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
4 Corresponds to U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0159898 A1 and U.S. Patent 11,758,833 B2, as well as WIPO publication P.C.T. WO 2020/174881 A!.
5 Differential GPS. (See the Wikipedia literature cited herewith.)
6 Single GPS. (See e.g., the Goad literature cited herewith.)
7 The examiner below provides a Google machine translation of the FIG. 6 image in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), understanding that U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0159898 provides a higher-quality translation of this FIG.:
PNG
media_image2.png
732
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
8 Differential GPS.
9 Single GPS.
10 The examiner below provides a Google machine translation of the FIG. 6 image in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), understanding that U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0159898 provides a higher-quality translation of this FIG.:
PNG
media_image3.png
732
1060
media_image3.png
Greyscale
11 Differential GPS.
12 Single GPS.
13 The examiner below provides a Google machine translation of the FIG. 6 image in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), understanding that U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0159898 provides a higher-quality translation of this FIG.:
PNG
media_image3.png
732
1060
media_image3.png
Greyscale
14 Differential GPS.
15 Single GPS.
16 The examiner below provides a Google machine translation of the FIG. 6 image in Ozaki et al. (JP, ‘802), understanding that U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0159898 provides a higher-quality translation of this FIG.:
PNG
media_image3.png
732
1060
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights