DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a non-final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 19 September 2025. Claims 1, 3-16 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claim 2 is canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 September 2025 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection set forth in office action 30 June 2025 and reformulates rejection as a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of applicant’s argument.
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:
detection processing unit in claim 10
bypass setting processing unit in claim 10
travel processing unit in claim 10
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.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a detection processing unit:
" Each of the vehicle control device 11 and the detection processing device 12 includes control equipment such as a CPU, an ROM, and an RAM. The CPU is a processor that executes various arithmetic processes. The ROM is a non-volatile storage unit in which control programs such as BIOS and OS for causing the CPU to execute the various arithmetic processes are prestored. The RAM is a volatile or non-volatile storage unit that stores various pieces of information and is used as a temporary storage memory (work area) for the various processes executed by the CPU. Finally, the vehicle control device 11 and the detection processing device 12 control the work vehicle 10 by causing the CPU to execute the various control programs prestored in the ROM or the storage unit 19.", [¶ 55]
“As shown in FIG. 1, the detection processing device 12 includes various processing units such as an acquisition processing unit 121 and a detection processing unit 122”, [¶56] and Fig. 1
“Specifically, as shown in FIG. 1, the detection processing device 12 includes various processing units such as an acquisition processing unit 121 and a detection processing unit 122. The detection processing device 12 functions as the various processing units by causing the CPU to execute the various processes according to the automatic traveling program. Further, some or all of the processing units may be configured by an electronic circuit. Note that the automatic traveling program may be a program for causing a plurality of processors to function as the processing units”, [¶56] and Fig.1
¶ [0016], [0030], [0032]-[0035], and [0085].
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a bypass setting processing unit:
" Specifically, as shown in FIG. 1, the vehicle control device 11 includes various processing units such as a position acquisition processing unit 111, a travel processing unit 112, a bypass setting processing unit 113, and the like. Note that the vehicle control device 11 functions as the various processing units by causing the CPU to execute the various processes according to the automatic traveling program. Further, some or all of the processing units may be configured by an electronic circuit. Note that the automatic traveling program may be a program for causing a plurality of processors to function as the processing units ", [¶ 61] and Fig. 1
¶ [0015], [0016], [0018], [0021], [0023], [0034], [0040], and [0085].
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a travel processing unit:
" Specifically, as shown in FIG. 1, the vehicle control device 11 includes various processing units such as a position acquisition processing unit 111, a travel processing unit 112, a bypass setting processing unit 113, and the like. Note that the vehicle control device 11 functions as the various processing units by causing the CPU to execute the various processes according to the automatic traveling program. Further, some or all of the processing units may be configured by an electronic circuit. Note that the automatic traveling program may be a program for causing a plurality of processors to function as the processing units ", [¶ 61] and Fig. 1
¶ [0015], [0016], [0018], [0021], [0023], [0034], [0040], [0042], [0044], and [0085].
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.
Claims 1, 6-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2019101931 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112015176 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nishi teaches an automatic traveling method for causing a work vehicle to perform automatic traveling in a specific area (see at least [¶ 9]), the automatic traveling method executing processes of comprising: detecting an obstacle in a traveling direction of the work vehicle (see at least [¶ 60, (FIG. 5-english translation)]: ”obstacle driving mode setting unit 35 determines whether or not an obstacle C exists within the driving area S based on input information from the user, etc. (steps #1 and #2)”);
setting a bypass starting position, which is a starting position of a bypass route along which the work vehicle travels while bypassing the obstacle, and a bypass end position, which is an end position of the bypass route (see at least [¶ 63, FIG. 4]:” the obstacle traveling mode setting unit 35 sets the start point W1 and end point W2 of the non-working area V on the working path P1 and the avoidance path P3.”);
and causing the work vehicle to travel along the bypass route upon based on detection of the obstacle (see at least [¶ 53-55, FIG. 4]: ” obstacle traveling mode (see the left side in FIG. 4) corresponding to the first obstacle C1 is an avoidance path mode in which the tractor 1 automatically travels along an avoidance path P3 that avoids the first obstacle C1 … the obstacle traveling mode setting unit 35 sets one obstacle traveling mode selected from the multiple obstacle traveling modes for a portion of the target traveling path P corresponding to the location of the obstacle C”).
Nishi does not explicitly teach wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle.
Zhang, directed to a field operation path of an unmanned tractor teaches, wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle (Fig. 6 depicts an obstacle avoidance trajectory (bypass) consisting of 3 arcs AB, BC, and CD whose radii are greater than or equal to the minimum turning radius. The bypass start position is B and the bypass end position is C which are set based on the turning radius of the work vehicle, see at least, ¶84, Zhang).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nishii’s to incorporate the teachings of Zhang which teaches wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle since they are both related to Agricultural work machines and incorporation of the teachings of Zhang would reduce the rate of missed tillage and re-tillage and improve obstacle avoidance increasing work efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Nishi in view of Zhang teaches the automatic traveling method according claim 1,wherein, in a case where the obstacle is present on a straight route included in a preset travel route, the bypass route includes a parallel route parallel to the straight route at a position where the work vehicle passes a side of the obstacle (Fig. 4 depicts P3a an avoidance path parallel to the target working path P1, see at least [¶ 62]: “Figure 4, the avoidance path P3 has a straight parallel portion P3a parallel to the work path P1”, Nishi).
Regarding claim 7, 15 and 16, Nishi in view of Zhang teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 6 (re- claim 7), The automatic traveling system according to claim 10 (re-claim 15) and The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 11 (re-claim 16) wherein the bypass end position is set on the straight route based on a distance from the obstacle on a traveling direction side and a turning radius of the work vehicle (Fig. 4 depicts P3a an avoidance path parallel to the target working path P1, see at least [¶ 62]: “As shown in Figure 4, the avoidance path P3 has a straight parallel portion P3a parallel to the work path P1 at a position a predetermined distance away from the widthwise end of the first obstacle C1, and a curved connection portion P3b connecting the path length direction end of the parallel portion P3a to the end of the work path P1. Incidentally, the predetermined distance can be set using the minimum turning radius of the tractor 1, the left-right width of the tractor 1, etc.”).
Zhang, directed to a field operation path of an unmanned tractor teaches a distance to an end portion of the specific area (a section or width of the field edges must be reserved for turning the tractor around based off the turning radius, see at least [¶ 68, Zhang]: “Since unmanned tractors have a minimum turning radius, a certain width of the field must be reserved at the boundary of the plot as a turning area”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Nishi and Zhang to further incorporate the teachings of Zhang who teaches a distance to an end portion of the specific area to set the bypass end position on the parallel route when an obstacle avoidance path crosses into field edge reserved for turning the tractor around. The bypass end position would be forced to end on the parallel portion of the bypass route because it reached a field edge and the rest of the field edge is reserved for the vehicle to turn around and continue its next working path in the opposite direction. Doing so would increase safety of the overall system by avoiding obstacles appearing near the edges of the working area and respecting the boundary area reserved for turning around.
Regarding claim 8, Nishi in view of Zheng teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 7, the bypass end position is set on the parallel route and the bypass end position is set on the straight route and a reserved turning distance at the edge of the field boundary.
Zhang, directed to a field operation path of an unmanned tractor further teaches wherein, in a case where a sum of, the turning radius, and a half-length of a width of a work machine is equal to or less than a threshold (obstacles have a calculated small circle area Ro which is a function of the turn radius and the width of the vehicle, If a distance between an obstacle and the vehicle path is less than Ro+width/2, then the vehicle must perform an obstacle avoidance path around the obstacle, see at least [¶ 77, Zhang]: “Taking into account the minimum turning problem of unmanned tractors, the radius of the obstacle circle area is determined by the relationship between the minimum circumscribed circle radius, the minimum turning radius and the operating width of the agricultural machinery: when R ≥ r-w/2, the radius of the small obstacle circle area Ro＝R, otherwise [Ro＝r-w/2] … If the distance between the obstacle and the tractor is less than the safe distance, the obstacle threat is judged. … Whether obstacle avoidance is needed is determined based on the relationship between the operating width of the agricultural machinery, the radius of the small obstacle circle area, and the distance between the center of the minimum circumscribed circle and the operating path: when [Ro+w/2 ≤ d], there is no need to adopt an obstacle avoidance strategy and the tractor can travel along the original operating path; otherwise, if the unmanned tractor still travels along the original operating path, the agricultural machinery it carries will collide with small obstacles, so local obstacle avoidance path planning is required.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the invention of Nishi in view of Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Zhang which teaches wherein, in a case where a sum of the turning radius, and a half-length of a width of a work machine is equal to or less than a threshold to set the bypass end position on the parallel route when an obstacle is located less than a minimum distance from a turning edge of the field calculated by the sum of the turning radius of the vehicle, and additional turning radius and a half-length of a width of the vehicle. Accordingly, the bypass end position would be set on the straight route if the obstacle is located greater than the minimum distance from the turning edge. When the obstacle is closer than a minimum distance from the edge, the bypass end position would need to end on the parallel portion of the bypass route because it reached a field edge and the rest of the field edge is reserved for the vehicle to turn around and continue its next working path in the opposite direction. Doing so would increase safety of the overall system by avoiding obstacles appearing near the edges of the working area and respecting the boundary area reserved for turning around.
Regarding claim 9, Nishi in view of Zhang teaches the automatic traveling method according claim 1,wherein, in a case where the obstacle is detected in a first area in the specific area, the work vehicle is caused to travel along the bypass route (see at least [¶ 53-55, FIG. 4, Nishi]: ”obstacle traveling mode (see the left side in FIG. 4) corresponding to the first obstacle C1 is an avoidance path mode in which the tractor 1 automatically travels along an avoidance path P3 that avoids the first obstacle C1”), and in a case where the obstacle is detected in a second area in the specific area, the work vehicle is caused to decelerate or stop (Fig. 4 depicts when an obstacle C3 is detected, the ECU 16 stops the tractor to switch to manual control, also seen in Fig. 6 flowchart item 19, see at least [¶ 78-79, FIG. 4, Fig. 6, Nishi]: ” As shown on the right side of Figure 4, when traveling through a portion of the target driving path P where the manual switching mode corresponding to the third obstacle C3 is set … When the current position of the tractor 1 output by the positioning unit 19 reaches the starting point U1 of the manual switching area U, the on-board electronic control unit 16 stops the tractor 1 and cancels (interrupts) the automatic driving control, allowing the tractor 1 to be driven by the user or other driving operation (step #19)”).
Regarding claim 10, Nishi teaches an automatic traveling system for causing a work vehicle to perform automatic traveling in a specific area (see at least [¶ 9, Nishi]), the automatic traveling system comprising:
a detection processing unit configured to detect an obstacle in a traveling direction of the work vehicle (see at least [¶ 60, (FIG. 5-english translation)]:” obstacle driving mode setting unit 35 determines whether or not an obstacle C exists within the driving area S based on input information from the user, etc. (steps #1 and #2)”);
a bypass setting processing unit configured to set a bypass starting position, which is a starting position of a bypass route along which the work vehicle travels while bypassing the obstacle detected by the detection processing unit, and a bypass end position, which is an end position of the bypass route (see at least [¶ 63, FIG. 4]: ” the obstacle traveling mode setting unit 35 sets the start point W1 and end point W2 of the non-working area V on the working path P1 and the avoidance path P3.”);and a travel processing unit configured to cause the work vehicle to travel along the bypass route in a case where the obstacle is detected by the detection processing unit (see at least [¶ 53-55, FIG. 4]: ”obstacle traveling mode (see the left side in FIG. 4) corresponding to the first obstacle C1 is an avoidance path mode in which the tractor 1 automatically travels along an avoidance path P3 that avoids the first obstacle C1 … the obstacle traveling mode setting unit 35 sets one obstacle traveling mode selected from the multiple obstacle traveling modes for a portion of the target traveling path P corresponding to the location of the obstacle”).
Nishi does not explicitly teach wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle.
Zhang, directed to a field operation path of an unmanned tractor teaches, wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle (Fig. 6 depicts an obstacle avoidance trajectory (bypass) consisting of 3 arcs AB, BC, and CD whose radii are greater than or equal to the minimum turning radius. The bypass start position is B and the bypass end position is C which are set based on the turning radius of the work vehicle, see at least, ¶84, Zhang).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nishii’s to incorporate the teachings of Zhang which teaches wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle since they are both related to Agricultural work machines and incorporation of the teachings of Zhang would reduce the rate of missed tillage and re-tillage and improve obstacle avoidance increasing work efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Nishi discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the causing one or more processors to execute operations comprising(FIG. 2 depicts a terminal electronic control unit 30 and in-vehicle electronic control unit 16see at least [¶ 44, 50, 54, 55, FIG. 2-machine translation]): detecting an obstacle in a traveling direction of a work vehicle (see at least [¶ 60, (FIG. 5-english translation)]: ”obstacle driving mode setting unit 35 determines whether or not an obstacle C exists within the driving area S based on input information from the user, etc. (steps #1 and #2)”) autonomously traveling in a specific area (see at least [¶ 18]: ” obstacle driving modes include a vehicle speed limit mode having a driving mode in which the work vehicle is automatically driven along a target driving route while limiting the vehicle speed”);
setting a bypass starting position, which is a starting position of a bypass route along which the work vehicle travels while bypassing the obstacle, and a bypass end position, which is an end position of the bypass route (see at least [¶ 63, FIG. 4]:” the obstacle traveling mode setting unit 35 sets the start point W1 and end point W2 of the non-working area V on the working path P1 and the avoidance path P3.”); and
causing the work vehicle to travel along the bypass route based on detection of the obstacle (see at least [¶ 53-55, FIG. 4]: ” obstacle traveling mode (see the left side in FIG. 4) corresponding to the first obstacle C1 is an avoidance path mode in which the tractor 1 automatically travels along an avoidance path P3 that avoids the first obstacle C1 … the obstacle traveling mode setting unit 35 sets one obstacle traveling mode selected from the multiple obstacle traveling modes for a portion of the target traveling path P corresponding to the location of the obstacle C”).
Nishi does not explicitly teach wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle.
Zhang, directed to a field operation path of an unmanned tractor teaches, wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle (Fig. 6 depicts an obstacle avoidance trajectory (bypass) consisting of 3 arcs AB, BC, and CD whose radii are greater than or equal to the minimum turning radius. The bypass start position is B and the bypass end position is C which are set based on the turning radius of the work vehicle, see at least, ¶84, Zhang).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nishii’s to incorporate the teachings of Zhang which teaches wherein the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle since they are both related to Agricultural work machines and incorporation of the teachings of Zhang would reduce the rate of missed tillage and re-tillage and improve obstacle avoidance increasing work efficiency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2019101931 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112015176 A) as applied to claims 1, 6-11 and 15-16 and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (JPH0994006A).
Regarding claim 3, Nishi in view of Zhang teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the user inputs (see at least [¶ 55, Nishi]), while traveling along a preset travel route that is preset (Fig.4 depicts target travel route P, see at least [¶ 60, Fig. 4, Nishi]: “First, the target driving route P is set by the driving route setting unit 32”), the obstacle present on the travel route is input by the user(see at least [¶ 55, Nishi]: Regarding input of the location of obstacle C, for example, by positioning the tractor 1 at a location adjacent to the location of obstacle C … This allows the user to identify the location of obstacle C on the screen of the liquid crystal panel 4 based on the acquired position information of adjacent locations, etc., and input the identified location of obstacle C…. the location of obstacle C within the driving area S can be identified by a user's visual inspection, etc., and the identified location of obstacle C can be input to the liquid crystal panel 4”), the bypass starting position and the bypass end position are set based on a turning radius of the work vehicle (Fig. 4 depicts curved portions P3b connected to W1 and W2 – bypass starting and end positions, this curve is connected to the parallel portion of the avoidance path P3 which is determined based off minimum turn radius of the tractor, see at least [¶ 62, Fig. 4, Nishi]: “Figure 4, the avoidance path P3 has a straight parallel portion P3a parallel to the work path P1 at a position a predetermined distance away from the widthwise end of the first obstacle C1, and a curved connection portion P3b connecting the path length direction end of the parallel portion P3a to the end of the work path P1. Incidentally, the predetermined distance can be set using the minimum turning radius of the tractor 1, the left-right width of the tractor 1, etc.”).
Nishi in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach that the work vehicle detects the obstacle present on the travel route is detected by the work vehicle.
Tsuchiya, directed to unmanned agricultural work device utilizing a GPS, teaches the work vehicle detects the obstacle present on the travel route is detected by the work vehicle (see at least [¶15, Tsuchiya]: “If there is an obstacle in the traveling direction, it is detected by an obstacle sensor 8 such as an external recognition sensor equipped with an ultrasonic sensor, a camera, etc.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nishi and Zhang’s method of avoiding obstacles in a traveling path to incorporate the teachings of Tsuchiya which teaches the work vehicle detects the obstacle present on the travel route is detected by the work vehicle since they are both related to automatic traveling methods of avoiding obstacles and incorporation of the teachings of Tsuchiya would increase safety and reliability of the overall system by more accurately detecting the size and distances of obstacles using sensors in a traveling path in order to accurately plan a path to circumvent the obstacles. ([¶ 15, Tsuchiya]: “The automatic control means 2 calculates a driving route that avoids the obstacle based on the size and distance of the obstacle detected by the obstacle sensor”).
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2019101931 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112015176 A) and Tsuchiya et al. (JPH0994006A) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of MATSUDA; Takuro (US 20180024564 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nishi in view of Zhang and Tsuchiya teach the automatic traveling method according to claim 3.
Matsuda, directed to a target pathway generating device teach wherein, in a case where the obstacle is present on a turning route included in the travel route(Fig. 3 block S16: Obstacle Present in middle of curved path?, see at least [¶39, Fig. 3, Matsuda]: “the obstacle determination unit 34 determines whether or not a physical obstacle is present in the middle of the curved section 58 in Step S16”), the bypass starting position is set, in the traveling direction, in front of a turning starting position connected to the turning route on the travel route (Fig. 4 depicts a vehicle on a turning trajectory that avoids an obstacle 50. The bypass start position is set in front of the turn start indicated by line 54. The target pathway generating unit 38 generates a target pathway starting in front of line 54 extending to line 56 which is end of the turning path, see at least [¶42-44, Fig. 3 and 4, Matsuda]: “the curved path target pathway generating unit 38 generates a target pathway 62 based on the set virtual area 60 in Step S22. … upon determining that a curb 50 is present in the curved section 58 as an object to be avoided, the virtual boundary setting unit 36 extends a virtual area 60 as the virtual boundary from the curb 50 toward the curved path start position 54 and toward the curved path end position 56. Thereafter, the curved path target pathway generating unit 38 controls the distance between the drivable area”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Nishi in view of Zhang and Tsuchiya to incorporate the teachings of Matsuda which teaches wherein, in a case where the obstacle is present on a turning route included in the travel route, the bypass starting position is set, in the traveling direction, in front of a turning starting position connected to the turning route on the travel route since they are both related to automatic traveling methods of avoiding obstacles and incorporation of the teachings of Matsuda would increase safety and comfort of the overall autonomous driving system by smoothly handling obstacle avoidance on a variety of path profiles such as on a turning path. ([¶ 7, Matsuda]: “According to the target pathway of the present invention, it is possible to provide a target pathway generating device that suppresses discomfort imparted to the user, even when detecting an object to be avoided in the vicinity of a curved path”).
Regarding claim 5, Nishi in view of Zhang, Tsuchiya and Matsuda teach the automatic traveling method according to claim 4,
Matsuda, directed to a target pathway generating device further teaches wherein the work vehicle is caused to travel along the bypass route in a case where the obstacle is detected (Fig. 3 block S16, S20, S22: when obstacle is present in the middle of curved path, the target pathway generates a bypass route based on the virtual area that avoids the obstacle, see at least [¶41-42, Fig. 3, Matsuda]), and the work vehicle is caused to travel along the turning route in a case where the obstacle is not detected (Fig. 3 block S16, S18: when obstacle is not present in the middle of curved path, the target pathway is generated using normal control on the turning route, see at least [¶41-42, Fig. 3, Matsuda]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the invention of Nishi, Zhang, Tsuchiya, and Matsuda to incorporate the teachings of Matsuda who teaches wherein the work vehicle is caused to travel along the bypass route in a case where the obstacle is detected, and the work vehicle is caused to travel along the turning route in a case where the obstacle is not detected since they are both related to automatic traveling methods of avoiding obstacles and incorporation of the teachings of Matsuda would increase safety and comfort of the overall autonomous driving system by smoothly handling obstacle avoidance on a variety of path profiles such as on a turning path. ([¶ 7, Matsuda]: “According to the target pathway of the present invention, it is possible to provide a target pathway generating device that suppresses discomfort imparted to the user, even when detecting an object to be avoided in the vicinity of a curved path”).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2019101931 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112015176 A) as applied to claims 1, 6-11 and 15-16 and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (JPH0994006A).
Regarding Claim 12, 13 and 14, Nishi in view of Zhang teaches, the automatic traveling method according to claim 1 further comprising causing (re-claim 12) The automatic traveling system according to claim 10 wherein the travel processing unit is further configured to cause (re-claim 13) and the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 11 wherein the operations further comprise causing (re-claim 14).
Nishi in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach, the work vehicle to perform work while traveling along the bypass route.
Boyle, directed to a vegetation cutter for cutting vegetation around an obstacle teaches, the work vehicle to perform work while traveling along the bypass route (a vegetation cutter for cutting vegetation circumferent an obstacle and adapted to cut vegetation proximate to an obstacle while avoiding contact with the obstacle, see at least, ¶69, Boyle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nishi and Zhang’s method of traveling along a bypass route to incorporate the teachings of Boyle which teaches the work vehicle to perform work while traveling along the bypass route since they are both related to autonomous work vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Boyle would maximize coverage of the worked area while avoiding damaging of obstacles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664