Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/207,538

WORK METHOD, WORK SYSTEM AND WORK PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 08, 2023
Examiner
FEACHER, LORENA R
Art Unit
3625
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Yanmar Holdings Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
29%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 8m
To Grant
61%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 29% of cases
29%
Career Allow Rate
118 granted / 410 resolved
-23.2% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 8m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
444
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
36.5%
-3.5% vs TC avg
§103
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 410 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Status of Claims Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26, 2026 has been entered. This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 01/26/2026. Claims 1, 11 and 12 have been amendment. Claim 13 has been added. Claims 1 – 13 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment has been considered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s remarks/arguments have been considered. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 6, filed 01/26/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant argues, “ the cited portions of Suzukawa and Megumi, individually or in combination, fail to disclose "the supply interval is a distance between positions in the field at which the agricultural materials are supplied to the field ... controlling, by a vehicle control device of the work vehicle, the work vehicle to ... supply the agricultural materials to the field based on the supply interval while automatically traveling along the first work route," as in claim 1.” (pg. 7) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Suzukawa discloses the replenishment interval is set by the working distance (see pg. 8, para 8). Further, the working distance for supply interval is set on a setting screen (see pg. 9, para 7; pg. 10, para 4). Thus Suzukawa does teach and suggest this limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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(a) 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. Claims 1, 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzukawa et al. (JP 7591997 B2) further in view of Megumi et al. (WO 2021/145009). Claim 1: Suzukawa discloses: A work method for supplying agricultural materials to a field by a work vehicle, the work method comprising: (see at least pg. 4, ¶0004-¶0005, supply settings for supply of materials) obtaining, by a vehicle control device of the work vehicle, a supply interval of the agricultural materials, wherein the supply interval is a distance between positions in the field at which the agricultural materals are supplied to the field; (see pg. 8, ¶0008, the replenishment interval is set by the working distance; see also pg. 7 pg. 9, ¶0007, working distance for supply interval is set on a setting screen; see also pg. 10, ¶0004 ) setting a work starting reference position that is a reference position for setting a work starting position where supply work of the agricultural materials is started; and (see at least pg. 4, ¶0004-¶0005, supply point; see also pg. 5, ¶0004, supply setting indicating points on a roundtrip path with start and end; see also pg. 9, ¶0008 – pg. 10, ¶0001-¶0004; see pg. 8, ¶0008, the replenishment interval is set by the working distance) controlling the work vehicle to supply the agricultural materials to the field along a first work route from among the plurality of work routes based on the supply interval, the controlling starting from the work starting position corresponding to the first work route. (see at least pg. 8, ¶0001-¶0007, automatic driving control system; see also pg. 8, ¶0008, planting start position) While Suzukawa discloses the above limitations, Suzukawa does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Megumi does disclose: setting the work starting position corresponding to each of a plurality of work routes based on the supply interval and the work starting reference position. (see at least pg. 75, the starting point guidance route SGL is set parallel to the seedling supply side and it is preferable that the starting point guidance path SGL is set at intervals from the outer orbital path ORL and the inner orbital path IRL ) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa with the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi in order to manage the traveling paths of work vehicles (Abstract). Claim 5: Suzukawa and Megumi discloses claim 1. Suzukawa further discloses: The work method according to claim 1, wherein, for the plurality of work routes, the work starting reference position is set at a position where the agricultural materials are first supplied on a work route in which the supply work is first performed. (see at least pg. 4, ¶0004-¶0005, supply point; see also pg. 5, ¶0004, supply setting indicating points on a roundtrip path with start and end; see also pg. 9, ¶0008 – pg. 10, ¶0001-¶0004) Claim 11 for a system and Claim 12 for a work program substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and are rejected based on the same rationale. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzukawa et al. (JP 7591997 B2) in view of Megumi et al. (WO 2021/145009) further in view of Yoshida et al. (CN 111345146 A). Claim 2: While Suzukawa and Megumi discloses claim 1, Suzukawa further discloses further comprising: setting a plurality of virtual work straight lines that are arranged from the work starting reference position and based on the supply interval, (see at least pg. 4, ¶0003-¶0005, supply point is a position located in a straight line on the internal shuttle path) , Suzukawa nor Megumi explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Yoshida does disclose: and wherein, in each of the plurality of work routes, the work starting position is set on a virtual work straight line of the plurality of virtual work straight lines. (see at least pg. 25, paras 6-7, straight line path intersects (e.g. orthogonal to ) a virtual line connecting one end and the other end of an agricultural field) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa and the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi with the seedling work machine and setting start position of Yoshida to facilitate autonomous operation of a work machine. Claim 3: While Suzukawa, Megumi and Yoshida discloses claim 2, neither Suzukawa nor Megumi explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Yoshida does disclose: wherein, for each work route of the plurality of work routes, each of the plurality of the virtual work straight lines is set so as to extend in a direction orthogonal to a working direction of the supply work on the work route. , (see at least pg. 25, paras 6-7, straight line path intersects (e.g. orthogonal to ) a virtual line connecting one end and the other end of an agricultural field) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa and the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi with the seedling work machine and setting start position of Yoshida to facilitate autonomous operation of a work machine/ Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzukawa et al. (JP 7591997 B2) in view of Megumi et al. (WO 2021/145009) further in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2021168695 A) (Hereinafter Yoshida II). Claim 4: While Suzukawa and Megumi discloses claim 1, Suzukawa nor Megumi explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Yoshida II does disclose: The work method according to claim 1, wherein the work starting reference position is set based on behavior information on the work vehicle. (see at least pg. 3, para 6, starting points can be automatically set based on specific vehicle behavior) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa and the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi with the setting start points based on vehicle behavior of Yoshida II to provide the ability to adjust the starting point if there is a detection of potentially negative impact of vehicle behavior to the seedling process (see pg. 3, para 6). Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzukawa et al. (JP 7591997 B2) in view of Megumi et al. (WO 2021/145009) further in view of Hiramatsu (WO 2018/055922 A1). Claim 6: While Suzukawa and Megumi discloses claim 5, Suzukawa nor Megumi explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Hiramatsu does disclose: wherein the set work starting reference position is maintained even in a case where the work vehicle suspends the supply work in the field. (see at least pg. 13, para 6, tractor temporarily deviates from travel route to replenish and continues along route and where the start and end position does not change) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa and the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi with the deviation for supply of Hiramatsu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzukawa et al. (JP 7591997 B2) in view of Megumi et al. (WO 2021/145009) further in view of Zhang (CN 107817794 A). Claim 8: While Suzukawa and Megumi disclose claim 1, Suzukawa nor Megumi explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Zhang does disclose: The work method according to claim 1,wherein among a plurality of virtual work straight lines, the work starting position is set on a virtual work straight line in a vicinity of a position of the work vehicle at a time when a work starting operation is obtained. (see at least pg. 1, para 5 – pg. 2, para 1, the software will automatically mark the multiple lines parallel to AB line according to tractor 1 starting at point A) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa and the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi with the multiple lines parallel to straight line of Zhang to assist with tractor staying within the boundary of the straight line. Claim 9: While Suzukawa, Megumi and Zhang disclose claim 8 and, Suzukawa nor Megumi explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Zhang does disclose: The work method according to claim 8, wherein among the plurality of the virtual work straight lines, the work starting position is set on a virtual work straight line that is closest in a working direction of the supply work from a position of the work vehicle at the time when the work starting operation is obtained. (see at least pg. 1, para 5 – pg. 2, para 1, the software will automatically mark the multiple lines parallel to AB line according to tractor 1 starting at point A) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa and the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi with the multiple lines parallel to straight line of Zhang to assist with tractor staying within the boundary of the straight line. Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzukawa et al. (JP 7591997 B2) in view of Megumi et al. (WO 2021/145009) further in view Yoshida et al. (CN 111345146 A) further in view of Zhang (CN 107817794 A). Claim 10: While Suzukawa, Megumi and Yoshida disclose claim 2, and Yoshida further discloses virtual straight lines (pg. 25, paras 6-7, straight line path intersects (e.g. orthogonal to ) a virtual line connecting one end and the other end of an agricultural field) ,neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Zhang does disclose: The work method according to claim 2, further comprising: identifying, on each work route of the plurality of work routes in which the work starting reference position has been set, a virtual work straight line of the plurality of virtual work straight lines corresponding to an ending position of the supply work and wherein the work starting position corresponding to each of the plurality of the work routes is set based on the identified virtual work straight line and the work starting reference position. (see at least pg. 1, para 5 – pg. 2, para 1, the software will automatically mark the multiple lines parallel to AB line according to tractor 1 starting at point A) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa, the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi and the seedling work machine and setting start position of Yoshida with the multiple lines parallel to straight line of Zhang to assist with tractor staying within the boundary of the straight line. Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzukawa et al. (JP 7591997 B2) in view of Megumi et al. (WO 2021/145009) further in view of Kitamoto et al. (CN 113228362). Claim 13: While Suzukawa and Megumi disclose claim 1, and further comprising [driving rotation], by the vehicle control device, of the work machine such that the work machine supplies the agricultural materials to the field along the first work route according to the supply interval, [the driving rotation] of the work machine starting from the work starting position corresponding to the first work route. (see at least pg. 8, ¶0001-¶0007, automatic driving control system; see also pg. 8, ¶0008, planting start position), neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Kitamoto does disclose: further comprising driving rotation, by the vehicle control device, of the work machine [such that the work machine supplies the agricultural materials to the field along the first work route according to the supply interval,] the driving rotation of the work machine starting [from the work starting position corresponding to the first work route.] (see at least pg. 7, ¶0001, ¶0006-¶0007, rotating speed detecting; see also Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the supply setting means of Suzukawa and the setting of starting point guidance path set at intervals of Megumi with the rotational speed detection of Kitamoto to provide a measure to help monitor the state of the vehicle. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied: Ishikawa (JP2020156328 A) discloses predicting agricultural material replenishment point in a farm field using the relationship between the travel path and the material seedling replacement point. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 or faxed to 571-273-8300. Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window: Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314. /Renae Feacher/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 08, 2023
Application Filed
May 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 22, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12567014
PATRON PRESENCE BASED WORKFORCE CAPACITY NOTIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12450669
PROCESS FOR SENSING-BASED CROP NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT USING LIMITING-RATE ESTIMATION AND YIELD RESPONSE PREDICTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12437320
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF GENERATING EXISTING CUSTOMER LEADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 2025
Patent 12387168
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY INVOKING A DELIVERY REQUEST FOR AN IN-PROGRESS ORDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Patent 12380511
ASSIGNING MOBILE DEVICE DATA TO A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 05, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
29%
Grant Probability
61%
With Interview (+32.3%)
4y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 410 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month