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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed 4/30/2026. Claim(s) 1-13 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of the most recent Office action have been removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026, pg(s) 5-7, in regards to the prior art rejections to the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Barrick (US 20210056721 A1) cited on Applicant IDS filed 1/27/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“travel control unit” in claim(s) 12-13, described in Applicant’s specification as “the control device 13 operates as a travel control unit 45”, [0032], “The control device 13 is configured by a computer such as a CPU, and as shown in FIG. 3, is connected to a storage unit 40 such as a ROM, a RAM, a hard disk drive, or a flash memory, and to a communication unit 41 that communicates with an external instrument.”, [0026].
“work control unit” in claim(s) 12-13, described in Applicant’s specification as “the control device 13 operates as…a work control unit 46”, [0032], “The control device 13 is configured by a computer such as a CPU, and as shown in FIG. 3, is connected to a storage unit 40 such as a ROM, a RAM, a hard disk drive, or a flash memory, and to a communication unit 41 that communicates with an external instrument.”, [0026].
“detection unit” in claim(s) 12-13, described in Applicant’s specification as “the control device 13 operates as…a finish detection unit 47 (detection unit)”, [0032], “The control device 13 is configured by a computer such as a CPU, and as shown in FIG. 3, is connected to a storage unit 40 such as a ROM, a RAM, a hard disk drive, or a flash memory, and to a communication unit 41 that communicates with an external instrument.”, [0026].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barrick (US 20210056721 A1) in view of Sasamoto et al. (US 20200305338 A1).
Regarding claim 13, and similarly claims 1 and 12, Barrick teaches A work system of a work vehicle, comprising:
(“controller 202”, Fig. 6, [0048]) that perform work travel in a field (“modern farm practices demand a smooth, level field with small clods of soil in the fall and spring of the year. In this regard, residue must be cut, sized and mixed with soil to encourage the residue to decompose and not build up following subsequent passes of machinery. To achieve such soil conditions, it is known to utilize rolling baskets, such as crumbler reels, to produce smaller, more uniform clod sizes and to aid in the mixing of residue. However, the ability of an operator to assess the effectiveness of a tillage operation in breaking down soil clods and/or otherwise providing desired surface conditions for the field is quite limited.”, [0003], “The track assemblies 18, 20 may, in turn, be configured to support the vehicle 10 relative to the ground and move the vehicle 10 in the direction of travel 14 across the field…an operator's cab 22 may be supported by a portion of the frame 16 and may house various input devices for permitting an operator to control the operation of one or more components of the vehicle 10 and/or the implement 12.”, [0022], “the frame 28 may support a cultivator 48, which may be configured to till or otherwise break the soil over which the implement 12 travels to create a seedbed.”, [0024], see also [0024-0025, 0032], “the controller 202 may be configured to execute one or more automated control actions adapted to adjust the monitored surface conditions, such as by increasing the downforce or downpressure on the tines 54 and/or the baskets 56 of the implement 12 when it is determined that the clod sizes are too large (e.g., when the determined size or average size of the soil clods exceeds a given threshold or falls outside a desired range) in an attempt to reduce the clod sizing.”, [0048]); and
a detection unit (“controller 202”, Fig. 6, “a controller 202 configured to analyze the images captured by the imaging device 150 to evaluate or assess the surface conditions within the field”, [0044]) that detects a finish level of work at work positions in the field after performing the work travel (“the light 162 transmitted from the light source 160 may be directed towards the adjacent side of one or more soil clods 180A, 180B disposed on the field surface 108, thereby allowing a corresponding shadow (indicated by hatched area 182A, 182B in FIG. 5) to be created or cast along the field surface adjacent the opposed side of each soil clod 180A, 180B (i.e., the side facing away from the light source 160).”, [0038], “in the illustrated embodiment, the light 162 transmitted from the light source 160 is being directed towards two soil clods 180A, 180B located on the field surface 108 within the shielded surface area 140, thereby creating two corresponding shadows 182A 182B cast along the opposed sides of the soil clods 1804, 180B. In such an embodiment, the imaging device 150 may be configured to capture images (e.g., from the perspective shown in FIG. 5) of the soil clods 180A, 180B and the adjacent shadows 1824, 182B. The images captured by the imaging device 150 may then be analyzed (e.g., using suitable image processing algorithms and/or computer-vision techniques) to identify relevant dimensional parameters of the soil clods 1804, 180B…As a result, based on the images captured by the imaging device 104 and the resulting image analysis, surface features of the field, such as soil clods 182A, 1823 positioned on the field surface 108, can be assessed in a three-dimensional space, thereby allowing the overall size or volume (referred to simply as “size” for sake of simplicity and without intent to limit) of each surface feature to be more accurately estimated or determined.”, [0040]).
Barrick teaches “an operator's cab 22 may be supported by a portion of the frame 16 and may house various input devices for permitting an operator to control the operation of one or more components of the vehicle 10 and/or the implement 12.” [0022], but does not explicitly teach
a travel control unit.
However, Sasamoto teaches
a travel control unit (“control device 12”, Fig. 1)…that perform work travel in a field (“the tractor 1 includes a detector device 11 and a controller device 12. The detector device 11 is a device configured to detect the state of the tractor 1, and a device including sensors such as an accelerator pedal sensor, a shift lever detector sensor, a crank position sensor, a fuel sensor, a water temperature sensor, an engine revolving sensor, a steering angle sensor, an oil temperature sensor, an axle revolving sensor, an operation extent detector sensor and including switches such as an ignition switch, a parking brake switch, a PTO switch, and an operation switch. The controller device 12 is a device for controlling the tractor, and includes a CPU or the like. The controller device 12 controls the traveling system of the tractor 1 and the working system of the tractor 1 based on the detection values detected by the detector device 11 and the like.”, [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Barrick with the teachings of Sasamoto such that the work vehicle of Barrick comprises a travel control unit, as suggested by Sasamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to increase user experience by implementing “automatic traveling, [where] the tractor…travels while automatically steering the steering or the like along [a] scheduled traveling route” [0061], as taught by Sasamoto.
Regarding claim 2, Barrick in view of Sasamoto teaches The work method according to claim 1, and Barrick further teaches further comprising a display step for displaying the detected finish level on a predetermined display screen (“in one embodiment, the controller 202 may notify the operator of one or more parameters associated with the surface conditions being monitored, such as the size of the soil clods results from the current agricultural operation.”, [0048], “the control module 220 may be configured to provide a notification to the operator of the vehicle/implement 10/12 indicating that the monitored surface condition is not at a desired level, such as when the determined clod size exceeds a desired clod/size range. For instance, in one embodiment, the control module 220 may cause a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator via an associated user interface 222 provided within the cab 22 of the vehicle 10.”, [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Barrick in view of Sasamoto teaches The work method according to claim 2, and Sasamoto further teaches wherein
in the display step, an already-worked region in the field, in which the work travel has been performed, is displayed on the display screen, and the work positions in the already-worked region are displayed together with the finish level detected at the work positions (“On the other hand, when the work judgment portion 87 determines that the tractor 1 has completed the agricultural work, the display portion 82 of the display device 80 displays that the work has been completed in accordance with the work plan, as shown in FIG. 11B.”, [0103], see also [0104]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Barrick with the teachings of Sasamoto such that the display step of Barrick comprises displaying an already-worked region in the field and the work positions in the already-worked region, as suggested by Sasamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to display an evaluation result of work travel in the field, as suggested by Sasamoto [0005].
Regarding claim 4, Barrick in view of Sasamoto teaches The work method according to claim 1, and Barrick further teaches further comprising a setting step for setting a finishing level that is planned as a work result of the work travel (“In addition to notifying the operator (or as an alternative thereto), the controller 202 may be configured to execute one or more automated control actions adapted to adjust the monitored surface conditions, such as by increasing the downforce or downpressure on the tines 54 and/or the baskets 56 of the implement 12 when it is determined that the clod sizes are too large (e.g., when the determined size or average size of the soil clods exceeds a given threshold or falls outside a desired range) in an attempt to reduce the clod sizing.”, [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Barrick in view of Sasamoto teaches The work method according to claim 1, and Barrick further teaches wherein
in the work travel step, a vehicle speed of the work vehicle when performing the work travel is controlled based on the finish level detected in an already-worked region where the work travel has been preformed (“the control module 220 may be configured to execute an automated control action designed to adjust the operation of the implement 12. For instance, in one embodiment, the controller 220 may be configured to increase or decrease the operational or ground speed of the implement 12 in an attempt to adjust the monitored surface condition(s).”, [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Barrick in view of Sasamoto teaches The work method according to claim 1, and Barrick further teaches wherein
in the work travel step, work is performed by a work machine provided in the work vehicle when performing the work travel, and a (“the control module 220 may be configured to execute an automated control action designed to adjust the operation of the implement 12. For instance, in one embodiment, the controller 220 may be configured to increase or decrease the operational or ground speed of the implement 12 in an attempt to adjust the monitored surface condition(s).”, [0057]).
Barrick teaches a speed of an implement is adjusted based on the finish level, but does not explicitly teach controlling a rotation speed.
However, Sasamoto further teaches
a rotation speed of the work machine when performing the work travel is controlled based on the detected finish level (“the controller device 12 detects the operation extent of the operation tool for moving the coupler portion 8 up and down with the operation extent detector sensor, performs the control to move the coupler portion 8 up and down based on the operation extent, and control a revolving speed of the diesel engine based on the operation extent detected by the accelerator pedal sensor.”, [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Barrick with the teachings of Sasamoto such that the work travel step of Barrick comprises controlling a rotation speed of the work machine, as suggested by Sasamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would achieve the predictable result of controlling a speed of the implement by controlling a rotation speed of an engine of the work vehicle. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Regarding claim 10, Barrick in view of Sasamoto teaches The work method according to claim 2, and Sasamoto further teaches wherein
in the display step, the finish level of a previous work is displayed (“The agriculture support device 90 includes a display controller portion 97…The display controller portion 97 causes the external terminal 15 to display an agricultural map that is obtained by visualizing the agricultural map data stored in the map data storage portion 93. As shown in FIG. 6, the agricultural map includes…a work history map F18 obtained by visualizing the work history data”, [0069]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Barrick with the teachings of Sasamoto such that the display step of Barrick comprises displaying the finish level of a previous work, as suggested by Sasamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to display an evaluation result of work travel in the field, as suggested by Sasamoto [0005], combined with historical work data showing where the work vehicle has traveled [0044].
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrick (US 20210056721 A1) in view of Sasamoto et al. (US 20200305338 A1) in view of Burnley et al. (US 20230119306 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Barrick in view of Sasamoto teaches The work method according to claim 1, and Sasamoto further teaches further comprising:
a route setting step for setting, with respect to an already-worked region in the field in which a previous work travel has been performed, a route in which a current work travel is to be performed, (“the work plan may be corrected by the display device 80. For example, the display device 80 includes the corrector portion 89. The corrector portion 89 includes electrical/electronic components or circuitry provided in the display device 80, computer programs stored in the display device 80, or the like. When a predetermined operation is performed on the display device 80, for example, when a correction button displayed on the work plan screen M3 is selected, the corrector portion 89 allows the work plan to be corrected. When the correction of the work plan by the corrector portion 89 is permitted, the corrector portion 89 accepts the input of the work plan inputted by operation of the display device 80, and rewrites any one of the agricultural work, the model number of the agriculture machine, the model, the name, the work date, and the scheduled traveling route R1, the work width, and the lapping width into the newly inputted contents.”, [0137]); and
an autonomous travel step for performing the current work travel by autonomous travel based on the route that has been set (“After the correction of the work plan, the corrector portion 89 transmits the corrected work plan to the communicator device 60A together with information representing that the work plan has been corrected. The communicator device 60A transmits the corrected work plan to the support device 90. The communicator portion 95 of the support device 90 receives the corrected work plan, and the support device 90 stores the corrected work plan received above.”, [0137], “The automatic traveling data is data representing the scheduled traveling route R1.”, [0044], “The automatic traveling data can be acquired by the agriculture support device 90. In particular, when the work creator portion 91 creates the scheduled travel route R1 as described above, the automatic travel data can be acquired by setting the created scheduled travel route R1 as the automatic travel data.”, [0047]).
Further, Burnley teaches
a route setting step for setting, with respect to an already-worked region in the field in which a previous work travel has been performed, a route in which a current work travel is to be performed, based on the finish level (“Agricultural system 108 illustratively provides functionality that allows the operator in each harvester 102, 104, and 106 to specify a turn pattern (such as spiral in or spiral out) and a land size (such as the number of navigation paths in the land). Agricultural system 108 also allows the operator to engage a learning system which automatically learns the turn pattern and land size. Agricultural system 108 then automatically determines the next navigation path through the field by analyzing coverage data (such as to ensure that the next path is not already harvested and that the unloading auger on the harvester is over already-harvested area) and to automatically generate turns until the specified or learned land size has been completely worked. At the completion of a land, agricultural system 108 can also automatically identify the next pass for starting the next land. Agricultural system 108 allows the operator to switch patterns at any time to continue a previous pattern, upon enabling the automatic turn system.”, [0026]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Barrick with the teachings of Sasamoto such that the method of Barrick further comprises setting a route for current work travel with respect to previous work travel that’s been performed, and autonomously performing the current work travel based on the set route, as suggested by Sasamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to increase user experience by implementing “automatic traveling, [where] the tractor…travels while automatically steering the steering or the like along [a] scheduled traveling route” [0061], as taught by Sasamoto.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Barrick in view of Sasamoto with the teachings of Burnley such that the performing the current work travel by autonomous travel of Barrick is based on a route in which a current work travel is to be performed set with respect to an already-worked region in the field in which a previous work travel has been performed, as suggested by Burnley, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to automatically control the vehicle “to ensure that the next path is not already harvested” [0026], as taught by Burnley.
Regarding claim 8, Barrick in view of Sasamoto and Burnley teaches The work method according to claim 7, and Barrick further teaches wherein
in the work travel step, a vehicle speed when performing a current autonomous travel in the already-worked region is controlled based on the finish level previously detected in the already-worked region (“the control module 220 may be configured to execute an automated control action designed to adjust the operation of the implement 12. For instance, in one embodiment, the controller 220 may be configured to increase or decrease the operational or ground speed of the implement 12 in an attempt to adjust the monitored surface condition(s).”, [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Barrick in view of Sasamoto and Burnley teaches The work method according to claim 7, and Barrick further teaches wherein
in the autonomous travel step, work is performed by a work machine provided in the work vehicle when performing the autonomous travel (“the control module 220 may be configured to execute an automated control action designed to adjust the operation of the implement 12. For instance, in one embodiment, the controller 220 may be configured to increase or decrease the operational or ground speed of the implement 12 in an attempt to adjust the monitored surface condition(s).”, [0057]), and
a region (see “operational or ground speed of the implement 12”, [0057] citation above).
Barrick teaches a speed of an implement is adjusted based on the finish level, but does not explicitly teach controlling a rotation speed.
However, Sasamoto further teaches
a rotation speed of the work machine when performing the work travel is controlled based on the detected finish level (“the controller device 12 detects the operation extent of the operation tool for moving the coupler portion 8 up and down with the operation extent detector sensor, performs the control to move the coupler portion 8 up and down based on the operation extent, and control a revolving speed of the diesel engine based on the operation extent detected by the accelerator pedal sensor.”, [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Barrick in view of Sasamoto and Burnley with the teachings of Sasamoto such that the autonomous travel step of Barrick comprises controlling a rotation speed of the work machine, as suggested by Sasamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would achieve the predictable result of controlling a speed of the implement by controlling a rotation speed of an engine of the work vehicle. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrick (US 20210056721 A1) in view of Sasamoto et al. (US 20200305338 A1) in view of Ueno et al. (JP 2020156389 A).
Regarding claim 11, Barrick in view of Sasamoto teaches The work method according to claim 1, wherein
However, Barrick teaches “It is well known that to attain the best agricultural performance from a piece of land, a farmer must cultivate the soil, typically through a tillage operation. Common tillage operations include plowing, harrowing, and sub-soiling.” [0002].
Further, Ueno teaches
in the work travel step, plowing work is performed by a plowing harrow provided in the work vehicle when performing the work travel (“The tractor 10 shown in FIG. 1 can be fitted with various types of implements 3, such as a rotary, harrow, loader, plow, or box scraper, on the vehicle body 11 as needed, and can perform various tasks using the implements 3 supported by the vehicle body 11. FIG. 1 shows an example in which a harrow for plowing is used as the work implement 3.”, [0022]), and
in the detection step, the finish level is detected based on a rotation angle of a leveling plate of the plowing harrow (“The leveling board rotation angle sensor 82 detects the rotation angle of the leveling board 75 (in other words, how much the leveling board 75 moves up and down when leveling the ground). The leveling board rotation angle sensor 82 is, for example, a potentiometer that detects the rotation angle of the leveling board 75 or a link attached to its rotation shaft. Based on the detection result of the leveling plate rotation angle sensor 82, for example, the size of the soil mass in the field after plowing can be detected. That is, when the clod of soil remaining after plowing is large, the leveling plate rotation angle sensor 82 rotates largely up and down. On the other hand, if the clods of soil remaining after plowing are small, the leveling plate rotation angle sensor 82 rotates slightly up and down. Therefore, based on the magnitude and frequency of rotation of the leveling plate rotation angle sensor 82, information about the size of the soil clods remaining in the field after tillage can be obtained.”, [0049]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Barrick in view of Sasamoto with the teachings of Ueno such that the work performed by the work vehicle of Barrick is plowing work performed by a plowing harrow comprising a leveling plate, as suggested by Ueno, and that the finish level of Sasamoto is detected based on the rotation angle of the leveling plate, as suggested by Ueno, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that the finish level of the vehicle can be determined by “information about the size of the soil clods remaining in the field after tillage” [0049], as taught by Ueno.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 1/27/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights