DETAILED ACTION
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 Remarks
Claim Objections
The objections provided in the Office Action dated 02/13/2026 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 6/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The rejection provided in the Office Action dated 02/13/2026 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 6/11/2026 cancelling the rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection provided in the Office Action dated 02/13/2026 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 6/11/2026 cancelling the rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s statement on Page 8 that, “Berridge does not contemplate the headlands area being too small to facilitate a complete turn outside of work boundary 104”, Examiner notes first, this fact is wholly irrelevant to the present rejection; this feature does not appear within the claims. The term “headland area” or similar does not even appear within independent claim 1 or any of its dependent claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, this appears to merely relate to the intent or purpose behind a feature, as evidenced by the absence of the condition being recited within the claims as noted. Second, this appears to be a mischaracterization of Berridge. Berridge states in [0039] “For example, an EOR turn path 140 between two different guidance lines 112 may be defined in a variety of different ways, such as along paths of different shapes and/or lengths. Such different path shapes/lengths can be characterized as different turn path types, thereby allowing an operator to select a desired turn path type based on, for instance … available space within the headlands area 108, and/or the like”.
With respect to Applicant’s statement on Page 8 that, “Berridge does not … contemplate reversing”, this has been discussed in past Office Actions and Applicant continues to fail to demonstrate that Berridge does not disclose this feature under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms. See again 8. through 11. of the Office Action dated 02/13/2026.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to Berridge alone appear reliant on the intent of the features of Berridge. Intent is not of consideration, rather the claim limitations are. What is at issue is what Berridge does regardless of intent with respect to what is actually recited in the claims. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments appear to address Applicant’s paraphrased perceived characterizations of Berridge rather than the actual rejection provided.
Finally, and regardless of the above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to Applicant’s opening arguments regarding Kakkar, it is wholly unclear how the recitations of Kakkar do not read exactly on the present claim language. Examiner refers to past discussions of the breadth of the terminology and phrasing used in the claim limitations, for example and in particular “within” and “backward travel”. See again 7. and 8. of the Office Action dated 02/13/2026.
Furthermore, the present claim language is actually broader than previously recited with respect to the turning route itself, and only narrower in a precondition thereof. The limitations are no longer with respect to “backward travel of the work vehicle that ends within” either “the inner region” or “the outer region”, but instead of a condition of “after traveling on one of a pair of work routes of the work vehicle that ends within” either “the inner region” or “the outer region”. In other words, the turning route itself is no longer limited to backward travel of the turning route ending at a particular location, but instead now only requires backward travel after a particular preceding condition, which consequently broadens the claim significantly in most respects.
Kakkar discloses entering turning conditions either in a forward or reverse gear, the reverse gear disclosure fulfilling the requirements of both preconditions as now amended, as Applicant still does not define “within” such that a point on a boundary does not read as being within both regions demarcated by said boundary.
Then, Kakkar discloses travelling backward, and travelling forward as part of the turn. Travelling forward is even for the same claimed purpose (which is not a positively recited limitation) of “to turn on to [another work route] of a pair of work route”.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Kakkar explicitly teaches away from this”, it is unclear the argument being made. Figures 2A, 2B, and their associated disclosures for example of [0036] and [0037] were not relied upon in the rejection in any manner. Furthermore, Kakkar clearly recites the turn type(s) required by the claim in [0043]. [0036] and [0037] additionally appear irrelevant to the present limitations, the present limitations reciting nothing with respect to a distance between current swathes and [0043] appears to demonstrate that the motivation for a disclosed turn type that reads on the limitations is in line with the argued motivation (with respect to Berridge) of limited headland area, in relation to [0036] and [0037]. [0036] and [0037] do not appear to teach away from the use of a turn type of [0043], especially in the context of the claim limitations. Additionally, these arguments appear to be with respect to Kakkar itself and in isolation, and fail to show in any manner how they teach away from use of any of the turn types of Kakkar in Berridge. If anything, these recitations appear to explicitly provide a clear reason for why turn types of Kakkar would be desirable to be provided in the system of Berridge. For example, when geometric conditions require, such as a “two segment turn” that “may allow the entire trajectory of the turn to be confined witih in the headland even if the headland has a relatively narrow width W”.
Furthermore, it is wholly unclear what Applicant is referring to when Applicant argues “thus, it would not make sense to combine Kakkar's two- segment method with the very bulb-shaped turn of Berridge that Kakkar discourages for narrow headlands”, as the most obvious argument appears to be directly refuted by the verbatim recitations of Kakkar leading into this statement, and furthermore, the argument up to this point appeared to instead be directed towards Applicant arguing that Kakkar did not teach the limitations (see “this” on Page 10 which only has antecedent basis of the recitation of the claim limitations argued in the preceding paragraph) rather than of teaching away from a combination with Berridge regardless of if the feature is disclosed by Kakkar.
If Applicant is arguing that the two turn types are discouraged from both being available in turn type selection, Examiner notes that both Berridge and Kakkar disclose the use of different turning types for different conditions as appropriate, and Kakkar explicitly discloses the use of a bulb-shaped turn method similar to that of Berridge in addition to the two-segment turn, and additionally explicitly discloses the use case for each. There is no discouragement of the available use of both turn types and in fact the exact opposite. Both references clearly disclose the advantages to having a multitude of varying turn types available.
If applicant is arguing the combination of two turning methods together into one, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar provided in the rejection is of using the turning types/options of Kakkar in Berridge, not of combining or blending disparate turning options of the various disclosures into new undescribed turning option.
Finally, and alternatively, Applicant does not appear to address the other portions of Kakkar which were recited, only appearing to address a small portion of the turn types referred to, in specific those illustrated in Figures 3A and 3B.
Claim 4
With respect to Claim 4, Claim 1, which Claim 4 depends from, was already rejected with respect to an “operator interface 52”. For clarity, Examiner has noted the operator interface and provided recitation to at least one paragraph discussing related display in the updated rejection. Examiner identifies in the current and previous rejection that the breadth of the terms is sufficient as presently provided to be covered by what is disclosed. Again, Applicant does not claim how or what makes a display form different, define the term “display form”, or even the nature of “displaying”. The “might” indicated as “posits” by Applicant, is in fact a clear statement of various items which each may each be interpreted as “different display forms” in the context that Applicant does not provide what a display form is, how/what makes it different, or even what constitutes display thereof.
Claims 5 – 6
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejection of record.
First, they appear to refer to the mere intent of the laps, not the actual nature of the laps themselves, and are thus non-limiting. See use of “for” rather than an explicit recitation of the nature of the laps.
Additionally, even if interpreted as limiting, the phrasing of “traveling along the outer periphery of the work area” is especially broad. The broad nature of the phrasing used has been clearly pointed out in prior rejections and do not appear addressed in Applicant’s arguments. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outer periphery of the work area”. See the 112(b) rejection below. Second, there are any number of portions of the work area that may be considered an outer periphery, and any number of travel paths that may be considered as “traveling along”, as neither the outer periphery, nor “traveling along” are defined. Examiner believes that Applicant is attempting to claim the subject matter of “work route Rb” illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, however the present claim language is not nearly so narrow as that described and illustrated under the plain meaning of the terms used. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to Claim 6, Applicant argues that a “condition” is required for “the system to become capable”. No such limitation is found in the claim, and furthermore Examiner explicitly provides that the “condition” (“based on”) is met “Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms as constructed, selecting baseline information which predicates the number as shown above with respect to Claim 5 is a form of selecting the predetermined number”. The claim recites “enabling acceptance …”, therefore everything following is under the limitation of “enabling”, which as noted is extremely broad. Furthermore, the nature of “based on” is not claimed, and is especially broad. Applicant’s arguments in general appear to be that even broad interpretation of the claims “would still not result” in reading on the limitation, but does not actually demonstrate in any manner how that is not the case, as is clearly outlined in the rejection.
Claim 18
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 18 appear wholly reliant on those already made above with respect to Claim 1 which are already addressed.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites the “the route setting method of claim 12”. Claim 12 recites “a route setting system” rather than a method. It should read “the route setting system of claim 12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
The adjectives “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. have been interpreted as indicating that two items might, but are not required to be, different. It is common claim construction practice to use these adjectives for ease of referring to items while maintaining a potential distinction which might be further claimed in further limitations and dependent claims. The adjectives, under the broadest reasonable interpretation do not require a particular chronological order, difference, etc. except where Applicant’s specification sets for such an explicit definition or the claim otherwise specifies as such.
The phrase “turning” on its own has been interpreted as referring to the act of turning or performing any maneuver containing some level of turning. This is with respect specifically to Claim 7, wherein the claim recites the limitation “enables turning, without traveling backward prior to turning”.
Both the claims and specification are variable with respect to the term “turning”. Specifically, Claim 1 recites two “predetermined turning route” wherein both “includes backward travel of the work vehicle”. Furthermore, Figures 8 and 9 illustrate “turning methods” (See [0067] and [0068] of Applicant’s originally filed specification), however these both include turning backward as part of the turning method. [0065] however indicates a “turning start position after travelling backward”, however based on [0067] and [0068] this is likely referreing to the same. It thus appears to be an arbitrary demarcation without further specifying what constitutes “turning” and what does not, particularly wherein “turning route”, etc. are claimed and disclosed.
It thus presently appears that what might be considered “turning” and consequently, “prior to”, is relatively arbitrary as “turning” might be considered with respect to a whole turn maneuver/method or a component thereof.
112(f)
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:
Setting processing unit in Claim 12.
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 § 112(b)
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, 3 – 7, 11 – 13, 15 – 16, 18, and 21, 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 13, the claims recite the limitations “one of a pair of work routes” and “the other of a pair of work routes” twice. These limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis and clarity. In the case of both, it is unclear if “one” and “other” refers to a singular work route of the referred to “pair of work routes”, or to one or other “pair of work routes” as the claim previously clearly recites “each pair of work routes of a plurality of work routes”. In the case of “the other”, the other referres to “a pair of work routes” rather than a specific pair of work routes such that it may be clear which might even be “other”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitations are instead interpreted as reading:
“one work route of a pair of work routes” and “the other work route of the same pair of work routes of the work vehicle that ends within the inner region” in the first instance, and
“one work route of a pair of work routes” and “the other work route of the same pair of work routes of the work vehicle that ends within the outer region”.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the outer periphery”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is instead interpreted as reading “an outer periphery”.
Regarding Claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 11, 15 – 16, 18, and 21, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 11, 15 – 16, 18, and 21 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections provided herein.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3 – 7, 11 – 13, 15 – 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berridge et al. (US 20210405644 A1) in view of Kakkar et al. (US 20210339768 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Berridge teaches:
A route setting method comprising:
receiving a first user operation selecting a predetermined turning route from among a plurality of predetermined turning routes (See at least [0039] “In several embodiments, the specific shape, length, etc. of the EOR turn path 140 generated may vary depending on a selected turn path type for executing EOR turns during the performance of the agricultural operation. For instance, in one embodiment, the operator may be allowed to select a given turn path type from a number of different predetermined turn path types … By providing various options for different turn path types, the operator may select the desired turn path type (e.g., via the operator interface 52) to best suit his/her needs given the current operating conditions, based on one or more parameters of the agricultural machine 10 and/or in view of the agricultural operation being performed.” and Figure 3);
setting the predetermined turning route that is selected for each pair of work routes of a plurality of pairs of work routes included in a work area (See at least [0038] “Upon reaching an end point 120 of a first path 122 defined along one of the guidance lines 122 during the performance of an agricultural operation, the agricultural vehicle 12 may proceed to a starting point 124 of a second path 126 defined along a different guidance line 122 by following an end-of-row (EOR) turn path 140 during the execution of an EOR turn”, [0039] above, and Figure 3) where a work vehicle is configured to autonomously travel (See at least [0029] “In an automatic or semi-automatic mode of operation, the vehicle steering system 48 may be controlled automatically by the vehicle control system 42”), wherein the work area includes an inner region (See at least work area 106 and 206) and an outer region surrounding the inner region (See at least headlands area 108 and 208); and
setting a target route along which the work vehicle is configured to autonomously travel within the work area, the target route including the plurality of pairs of work routes and each of the respective predetermined turning routes set for the plurality of pairs of work routes; (See again at least [0038], [0039], and Figure 3), wherein a first portion of the target route is within the inner region and is configured to direct the work vehicle to travel reciprocally back and forth, and wherein a second portion of the target route is in the outer region and is configured to direct the work vehicle to travel around the inner region (See at least Figures 3 and 4B); and
controlling the work vehicle to autonomously travel along the target route (See at least [0022] “Alternatively, the vehicle 12 may have a cab-free configuration, such as when the vehicle 12 is configured as an autonomous vehicle” and [0029] “The vehicle steering system 48 may be controlled by the operator in a manual mode of operation. In an automatic or semi-automatic mode of operation, the vehicle steering system 48 may be controlled automatically by the vehicle control system 42”),
wherein the plurality of predetermined turning routes include a first predetermined turning route and a second predetermined turning route (See again at least [0039]),
…
Berridge, under BRI discloses, but under the likely intended interpretation does not disclose, but Kakkar clearly discloses and is thus relied upon in the interest of compact prosecution:
…
wherein the first predetermined turning route includes backward travel after traveling on one of a pair of work routes of the work vehicle that ends within the inner region (See at least Figure 3A, 3B, and [0032] which disclose that a vehicle may begin a given turn in the forward or reverse gear. Furthermore, per [0052] “the shape of the trajectory may adaptively change depending on the shape of the guidance line”. Finally, see the “headland-following (HF)” ([0052]), “move-to-start-of-turn (MST)” ([0061]), “move-to-end-of-swath-before-turn (MESBT)” ([0065]), “move-to-beginning-of-next-swath-after-turn (MBSAT)” ([0066]), and “turn-within-boundary (TWB)” ([0068]) options/features. These collectively allow for huge variety including various turns meeting the criteria of the limitations. For more specific examples, see at least Figures 4A – 4C, and 5A – 5B, 9A, 10, and 11), and travelling forward to (Indication of intended purpose of the preceding) turn on to the other of a pair of work routes (See again immediately preceding), and
wherein the second predetermined turning route includes backward travel after traveling on one of a pair of work routes of the work vehicle that ends within the outer region (See again immediately preceding), and traveling forward to turn on to the other of a pair of work routes (See again immediately preceding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the turning methods/options/features as taught by Kakkar in the same of Berridge with a reasonable expectation of success. Having a most appropriate turning option can save time, fuel, and damage to crops or avoid other machines and structures (See [0004] of Berridge).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method according to claim 1,
Berridge further teaches:
further comprising accepting the first user operation for each of a plurality of outer periphery edges forming the work area (See again [0039] above, Figure 3, and variously work boundary 104, 204 as well as field 102, 202. Examiner notes that the nature of this claim is not particularly claimed).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method according to claim 3,
Berridge further teaches:
further comprising displaying a first outer periphery edge in a different display form on an operation screen than a second outer periphery edge (See again “operator display 52” and [0020] “Upon generation of the boundary-based EOR turn path, the computing system may, in several embodiments, be configured to automatically guide the agricultural machine along the EOR turn path to execute the associated EOR turn. In addition to such automatic guidance (or as an alternative thereto), the computing system may be configured to display the boundary-based EOR turn path to the operator, such as by presenting the EOR turn path within a field map displayed to the operator via an associated display device”.
Examiner notes that the nature of a “display form” or the “displaying” itself is not claimed leaving the claim particularly open to broad interpretation. Examiner finds Figures 3, 4A, and 4B to illustrate outer periphery edges forming a work area in “different display forms”, wherein that might include simply displaying them in different locations, with different curvatures, line widths, line types, etc. Furthermore, the turn paths are shown connected to the boundaries which is a clear means of showing different turns for different edges).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method according to claim 1,
Berridge further teaches:
further comprising
receiving a second user operation selecting a number of laps for (Indication of intent of the preceding) traveling along the outer periphery of the work area (Examiner notes that as presently claimed, this limitation does not appear to limit the claim such that it must reflect the form of work route Rb in Figure 3 of Applicant’s drawings. The plain meaning of lap is particularly broad, the nature of “in the outer region” and “for rotating travel” if recited positively rather than as intended purpose or use are both likewise broad. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is clear from Applicant’s choice of the term “lap” rather than repeating an existing term that “lap” is not exclusive of other previously recited terms, such as “work paths” or “turning routes.
See at least Figure 3 which clearly illustrates that the work vehicle 10 performs a lap in the headlands area 108, and that the number of such laps (turns) is predicated upon the number of guidance lines 112, 212 which are determined by a user operation. See at least [0037] which illustrates processes by which the user participates in generation of the guidance lines. See also [0039] which makes clear that this user operation is distinct from determining the nature of the turns or laps).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method according to claim 5,
Berridge further teaches:
further comprising enabling acceptance of the first user operation based on a predetermined number being selected as the number of laps by the second user operation (Examiner notes that the nature of a predetermined number being selected is not claimed with any particularity. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms as constructed, selecting baseline information which predicates the number as shown above with respect to Claim 5 is a form of selecting the predetermined number. Furthermore, the nature of “enabling acceptance” is particularly open to broad interpretation. Examiner considers the ability to input information leading to the generation of the guidance lines, and consequently their number, as therefore enabling the receiving of a further input of a turning method (a first user operation) related to two of them).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method according to claim 6,
Berridge further teaches:
wherein the predetermined number is such a number that a total working width corresponding to the predetermined number is less than a width that enables turning, without traveling backward prior to turning, from a first work route to a second work route in the inner area (Examiner notes that the claim appears to only hold a loose relationship with that of the predetermined number. For example, the claim does not state that the predetermined number is selected in such a manner that the condition noted must occur, or similar. Instead, the claim merely indicates that the number results in such a condition. Furthermore, the nature of the correspondence is not claimed and by nature of being related to work in the same area shares a correspondence. Additionally, and separately the nature of “total working width” is not specified, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term may refer to any width related to the working of the work vehicle. Additionally, “travelling backward” is not necessarily the same as “travelling in reverse”, and furthermore, a subject for “travelling backward” is omitted and therefore open to interpretation. “Backward” requires a reference for forwards, and for example may be defined with respect to “the first work route” as indicated under one reading of the claim. Additionally, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar already discloses various means of “backwards”. Finally, Examiner takes official notice that the performance of backing up in order to make a turn wherein the available width of the lane/headlands/road/etc. is less than that of the minimum turning radius of the vehicle in question is common knowledge in the art of driving a vehicle and is known under the general term of a multi-point term.
In light of the above, without further clear and positive recitation narrowing the limitations above, it is Examiner’s opinion that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations Berridge teaches this limitation. Berridge teaches a headlands area which is a form of total working width. Berridge does not limit the headlands area to any particular size, and indeed indicates defining it ([0036]). The number of guidance lines and headlands area is directly related to how much of the overall field is designated as the work boundary 104, 204 and thus share a correspondence/relationship. Finally, Berridge teaches a detailed control over setting the turns, which given the also free directions by which guidance lines might be defined, presumably covers turns involving directions which are “backward” in some manner (See latter half of [0039])).
Therefore, if not already taught by Berridge, and furthermore not considered already incorporated into the combination of Berridge and Kakkar, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the common knowledge of the well-understood and routine multi-point turn in the turn options of Berridge in order to have available a turn method known for use in accomplishing a turn wherein the available (headland) area is smaller than the minimum turn radius of the (work) vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method according to claim 1,
Berridge further teaches:
further comprising permitting acceptance of the first user operation after autonomous traveling of the work vehicle starts (See at least [0028] “The vehicle speed system 46 may be controlled by the operator in a manual mode of operation. In an automatic or semi-automatic mode of operation, the vehicle speed system 46 may be controlled automatically or semi-automatically by the vehicle control system 42” and [0035] “In several embodiments, the field map 100 may be configured to be presented to the vehicle operator (e.g., via the display 66 of the operator interface 52) during the performance an agricultural operation within the field 102 (e.g., planting, tilling, spraying, harvesting, and/or the like). For instance, the field map 100 may be presented to the operator to display swath or guidance lines, end-of-row turn paths, and/or other relevant information as an agricultural operation is being performed within the field 102”).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the claims recite essentially the same limitations of Claim 12 above with respect to the application of prior art and said limitations are rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above. This position of equivalency is supported by at least Applicant’s Remarks filed 01/08/2026 which argues the claims together and states they “recite similar elements as claim 1, and are patentable for at least the same reasons”.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting system of claim 12,
Berridge further teaches:
wherein the first starting point of the first predetermined turning route is positioned within the inner area such that a portion of the inner area adjacent to the first starting point remains unworked subsequent to the work vehicle autonomously traveling along the first predetermined turning route (Examiner notes that at this point in the claims the term “inner area” has not been defined with any particularity. The only limitation to it is the plain meaning, that of it being an inner region of the work area. A smaller or larger area than that defined by work boundary 104 might be chosen as the boundary, which would therefore expand or shrink what is arbitrarily considered an “inner area”. Therefore, this limitation might be met simply due to the open and undefined nature of the claim terms as presently constructed.
Furthermore, Examiner notes the term “adjacent to” is particularly broad.
Alternatively, and furthermore, see at least [0029] “When the vehicle 12 or implement 14 reaches the starting point 124 of the second path 126 (or at a location immediately before or after such starting point 124), the implement 14 is then lowered, turned on, and/or otherwise engaged to allow for the continuation of the agricultural operation as the vehicle 12 proceeds across the work area 106 along the second path 126” (emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method of claim 1,
Berridge further teaches:
wherein the second starting point of the second predetermined turning route is positioned such that a portion of the work vehicle exits the work area while the work vehicle autonomously travels along the second predetermined turning route (While Berridge teaches that turns might be defined based on “available space within the headlands area 108”, Berridge does not teach that turns are limited thereto. Furthermore, Berridge clearly teaches that the definition of a headland is mostly arbitrary “The headlands area 108 may, for example, be defined between the work boundary 102 of the field 102 and an outer field boundary 110 defining the outline or otherwise forming the outer perimeter of the field 102. The outer field boundary 110 may be a physical boundary for the field 102 (e.g., a fence, creek, ravine, road, etc.) or may correspond to a virtual boundary defining the outer perimeter of the field 102”. Therefore, under Applicant’s presently constructed claims which only loosely defines “work area”, this condition is readily met. Examiner might readily and arbitrarily take Figure 3 or Figure 4a and draw a new arbitrary boundary for, or otherwise subdivide the headlands such that the illustrated turn would cause at least a portion of the work vehicle to protrude. In fact, Figure 3 appears to be illustrated such that implement 14 would cross the over the dashed line of 102 while making turn path 140).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method according to claim 1,
There is little practical distinction between this limitation and those of Claim 1 which already recite selecting from a plurality of predetermined turning routes which included the first and second turning routes. With respect to prior art, Berridge has already been shown to teach selecting a turning route and in combination with Kakkar that these routes are among the body of potential routes. See again Claim 1 or [0039] in particular of Berridge.
where the predetermined turning route selected by the first user operation is the first predetermined turning route or the second predetermined turning route.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berridge et al. in view of Kakkar et al., or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Berridge et al. in view of Kakkar et al., further in view of Ogura et al. (US 20200348690 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Berridge and Kakkar teaches:
The route setting method of claim 1,
Berridge further discloses:
further comprising:
displaying a first indication representing at least a portion of the target route; and
displaying a second indication overlaid on the first indication and representing the autonomous work vehicle such that the second indication or the first indication moves relative to the other as the autonomous work vehicle travels along the target route (See at least [0035] “Referring now to FIG. 3, a schematic view of a portion of a field map 100 showing an agricultural machine 10 (including an agricultural vehicle 12 and an implement 14) within a field 102 is illustrated in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter. In several embodiments, the field map 100 may be configured to be presented to the vehicle operator (e.g., via the display 66 of the operator interface 52) during the performance an agricultural operation within the field 102 (e.g., planting, tilling, spraying, harvesting, and/or the like). For instance, the field map 100 may be presented to the operator to display swath or guidance lines, end-of-row turn paths, and/or other relevant information as an agricultural operation is being performed within the field 102” and Figure 3).
In light of Figure 3 which shows the vehicle on an apparent heading, and particularly in light of the state of the art of computerized navigation and display of information thereof, that both the route and the progress of the vehicle are displayed. However, as it is not entirely explicit, Examiner alternatively provides Ogura et al. which teaches [0057] “Worked sections in the preset travel path R for the autonomous travel work vehicle 1 and the accompanying travel work vehicle 100 are filled in so that the remaining sections of the route are easily distinguishable from the entire route. Alternatively, unworked sections and worked sections of the route may be indicated with different colors. Alternatively, the autonomous travel work vehicle 1 and the accompanying travel work vehicle 100 may be shown as animated images on the operation route to indicate their current operating positions”.
Wherein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the location of the vehicle on the route as taught by Ogura with a reasonable expectation of success. The display of the current position of a vehicle on a navigation route is well-known, understood, and routine. Such information can be invaluable to a vehicle operator or supervisor to determine progress and location of a vehicle along a route.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Also, Kimura et al. (JP 2019168812 A), Ueda et al. (US 20200409371 A1), Nishii et al. (US 20200363811 A1), Runde et al. (US 20180373256 A1), and Potier et al. (US 20170188505 A1) which teach autonomous work vehicles making planned turns in headland areas.
Also, US 20230011137 A1, US 20210000006 A1, and US 20200029490 A1, in particular US 20230011137 A1 assigned to Bear Flag Robotics, Inc. directed to autonomous agricultural vehicles, the particular application being directed to path generation.
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 MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights