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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 7 and 10 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shirafuji et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0232750 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Shirafuji discloses a travel system for a work machine, comprising:
a traveling apparatus that prompts the work machine to travel (V1, FIG. 1 and FIG. 5); and
a controller (46, FIG. 3) that records, (stores an automatic travel target path P ¶ 64) as an actually traveled course, a course actually traveled by the work machine (“Start work on path in last work” is interpreted to be an actual travelled route from a previous time ¶ 170) from a start of travel of the work machine to an end of travel of the work machine moving forward or backward (start work in forward travel mode, FIG. 6 and End point ¶ 94), wherein
when the work machine shifts its movement from forward movement to backward movement (forward-reverse switching ¶ 64), the controller prompts the work machine to travel backward under automated steering along the actually traveled course recorded (FIG. 5 depicts the steered paths P and see also Steering Control Section 46C, FIG. 3), or when the work machines shifts its movement from backward movement to forward movement, the controller prompts the work machine to travel forward under automated steering along the actually traveled course recorded.
Regarding claim 2, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, wherein the controller, based on a command issued by an operator, prompts the work machine to travel under automated steering using the actually traveled course recorded earlier as a target travel course (Start work on path in last work, FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, wherein the controller detects that the work machine starts to travel and sets a starting point of the actually traveled course (S, FIG. 5), and
the controller detects that the work machine ceases to travel and sets an ending point of the actually traveled course (P2, FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine wherein the controller determines that the work machine starts to travel based on forward movement started by the work machine (Start Work in Forward travel mode, FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, wherein the controller determines that the work machine starts to travel based on backward movement started by the work machine (¶¶ 50, 63-64).
Regarding claim 6, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, wherein the controller determines that the work machine starts to travel based on a traveling speed of the work machine being greater than or equal to a threshold (low speed stage ¶ 50, set speed ¶ 57, ¶ 63).
Regarding claim 7, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, wherein the controller determines that the work machine starts to travel based on a moving distance of the work machine being greater than or equal to a threshold (¶ 97).
Regarding claim 10, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, wherein the controller, based on a command issued by an operator, prompts the work machine to travel under automated steering using the actually traveled course recorded earlier as a target travel course (FIG. 5 and ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 11, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine wherein the controller prompts the work machine to travel under automated steering based on a command issued by an operator requesting backward movement (¶ 64).
Regarding claim 12, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for the work machine, further comprising a memory in which a plurality of the actually traveled courses recorded by the controller are storable, wherein the controller selects the actually traveled course used as the target travel course from the plurality of the actually traveled courses stored in the memory (¶ 64).
Regarding claim 13, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machin further comprising an input device that receives an input from an operator for selection of the actually traveled course used as the target travel course from the plurality of the actually traveled courses stored in the memory (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, wherein the controller decides the target travel course including a course obtained by extension of the actually traveled course (P2, FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 15, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, further comprising a display device on which the target travel course is displayable (50, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Shirafuji discloses the travel system for a work machine, further comprising an output device that outputs the actually traveled course recorded earlier (5, FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Shirafuji discloses a control method for a work machine (V1, FIG. 1), comprising:
prompting the work machine to travel (V1, FIG. 1 and FIG. 5);
recording, as (stores an automatic travel target path P ¶ 64) an actually traveled course, a course actually traveled by the work machine (“Start work on path in last work” is interpreted to be an actual travelled route from a previous time ¶ 170) from a start of travel of the work machine to an end of travel of the work machine moving forward or backward (start work in forward travel mode, FIG. 6 and End point ¶ 94); and
when the work machine shifts its movement from forward movement to backward movement (forward reverse switching ¶ 64), prompting the work machine to travel backward under automated steering along the actually traveled course recorded (FIG. 5 depicts the steered paths P and see also Steering Control Section 46C, FIG. 3), or when the work machines shifts its movement from backward movement to forward movement, the controller prompts the work machine to travel forward under automated steering along the actually traveled course recorded.
Regarding claim 18, Shirafuji discloses the control method for a work machine further comprising:
detecting that the work machine starts to travel and setting a starting point of the actually traveled course (Start work in forward travel mode, FIG. 6);
detecting that the work machine ceases to travel and setting an ending point of the actually traveled course (work stop point p2 and tractor stops ¶ 94);
prompting, based on a command issued by an operator, the work machine to travel under automated steering using the actually traveled course recorded earlier as a target travel course (automatic travel ¶ 78 and FIG. 5); and
selecting the actually traveled course used as the target travel course from a plurality of the actually traveled courses stored in a memory (start work on path in last work, FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Shirafuji discloses the control method for a work machine, further comprising: receiving an input from an operator for selection of the actually traveled course used as the target travel course from the plurality of the actually traveled course stored in the memory (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Shirafuji discloses the control method for a work machine, further comprising:
detecting that the work machine starts to travel and setting a starting point of the actually traveled course (Start work in forward travel mode, FIG. 6);
detecting that the work machine ceases to travel and setting an ending point of the actually traveled course (work stop point p2 and tractor stops ¶ 94);
prompting, based on a command issued by an operator, the work machine to travel under automated steering using the actually traveled course recorded earlier as a target travel course (automatic travel ¶ 78 and FIG. 5); and
deciding the target travel course including a course obtained by extension of the actually traveled course (start work on path in last work, FIG. 6).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirafuji et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0232750 A1) as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 8, Shirafuji is silent to the travel system for a work machine, further comprising a memory in which the actually traveled course recorded by the controller is storable, wherein when a first actually traveled course of the work machine overlaps with the actually traveled course already stored in the memory, the controller determines not to store the first actually traveled course in the memory. However, the claimed aspect of the controller not storing the actual traveled course to the memory when the work machine overlaps with a previous travelled course as predictable and routine to those skilled in the art. For instance, no new functionality of the controller can be determined based on the limitation of not storing the travel course since one with ordinary skill in the art would interpret the limitations as a redundant function. In other words, recognizing a duplicate path and not storing the information is a redundancy in order to save memory space.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shirafuji to wherein when a first actually traveled course of the work machine overlaps with the actually traveled course already stored in the memory, the controller determines not to store the first actually traveled course in the memory to save storage space in the memory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Shirafuji fails to disclose or render obvious that, when the tractor V1 shifts its movement, the controller prompts the tractor V1 to travel under automated steering along the actually traveled course recorded. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Shirafuji, whether taken individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious at least "when the work machine shifts its movement from forward movement to backward movement, the controller prompts the work machine to travel backward under automated steering along the actually traveled course recorded, or when the work machine shifts its movement from backward movement to forward movement, the controller prompts the work machine to travel forward under automated steering along the actually traveled course recorded," as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments as Shirafuji teaches “…transmission unit control section 46B that executes control related to the vehicle speed and the forward-reverse switching of the tractor V1; a steering control section 46C that executes control related to steering; a work device control section 46D that executes control related to the work device such as the sowing device 3; a display control section 46E that executes control related to the display and notification on the liquid crystal monitor 37 and the like; an automatic travel control section 46F that executes control related to automatic travel; a non-volatile vehicle-mounted storage section 46G that stores an automatic travel target path P (see FIG. 5) generated according to a travel area in a field, and the like; and the like. Each of the control sections 46A to 46F is constructed of an electronic control unit, in which a microcontroller and the like are integrated, various control programs, and the like. The control sections 46A to 46F are connected in a mutually communicable manner via a Controller Area Network (CAN).” (See ¶ 64). Furthermore, the “or” clause that precedes the argued limitations is being interpreted as an optional limitation which is not being read into the claim or given any patentable weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663