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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on February 2, 2026 Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-20 & 22-23 are currently pending. Claim 21 is cancelled. Claim 23 is new.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. Nos. 63/381,187 & 63/381178 are acknowledged. Examiner notes that the current claims do not appear to be fully supported by the provisional application and further notes that the Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non- provisional application dated June 14, 2023 and the provisional applications dated October 27, 2022, respectively. No action on the part of the Applicant is requested at this time.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on February 2, 2026 have overcome the prior art of record. All amended claims are no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Claim 21 is cancelled. Claim 23 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-12, filed January 21, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-20, & 22-23 under 35 USC 102 & 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2014/0224377 A1, to Bonefas.
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.
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, 10-12, 14-15, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0215394 A1, to Wang et al., hereafter Wang in view of US 2014/0224377 A1, to Bonefas, hereafter Bonefas ‘377.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses An work machine system including a leading vehicle configured to unload material into a receiving vehicle during an unloading operation, the receiving vehicle being configured to be propelled by a following vehicle, the work machine system comprising (Wang [0033] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Wang discloses a harvester (i.e. leading vehicle) unloading into a transport vehicle (i.e. follow vehicle) which is towing (i.e. propelling) a loading receptacle (i.e. receiving vehicle) for the crop):
a receiving vehicle sensor mounted to the leading vehicle, the receiving vehicle sensor being configured to detect a receiving vehicle reference point and generate a sensor signal responsive to the detected receiving vehicle reference point (Wang [0044], Examiner Note: Wang discloses a longitudinal distance control dynamic compensator 54, which is able to calculate a velocity set point for transport vehicle, and therefore the loading receptacle velocity (i.e. receiving vehicle reference point) with respect to the harvester and set the transport vehicle velocity to the set point (i.e. generating sensor signal response to the detected vehicle reference point))…
…at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the work machine system to (Wang [0039], Examiner Note: Wang discloses a microprocessor and a memory which performs instructions):
identify a first offset value that is indicative of a location of the receiving vehicle reference point relative to a first reference point on the leading vehicle (Wang [0033] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Wang discloses the auto-guidance system with an integrated longitudinal positional control system (i.e. leading vehicle reference locator system) which determines the target lateral distance, LAD, which is the lateral distance from a reference point on the harvester to a reference point of the receiving vehicle);
identify a second offset value that is indicative of a location of a second reference point on the following vehicle relative to the first reference point on the leading vehicle (Wang [0033] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Wang discloses the auto-guidance system with an integrated longitudinal positional control system (i.e. following vehicle reference locator system) which determines the target longitudinal offset value, LOD, which is the longitudinal distance from a reference point on the harvester to a reference point of the transport vehicle);
identify a calibrated offset value indicative of a location of the receiving vehicle reference point relative to the second reference point on the following vehicle based on the first offset value and the second offset value (Wang, [0048] & Figs. 6-9, Examiner Note: Wang discloses using the auto-guidance control system (i.e. receiving vehicle parameter locator system) which uses the LOD and LAD offset values in order to calculate the required location of the spout when unloading (i.e. the receiving vehicle location)); and
control the unloading operation based on the calibrated offset value (Wang [0048], Examiner Note: Wang discloses unloading from the spout after calculating lateral and longitudinal offset values using lateral and longitudinal error, also known as trim, values. These values dictate the location of the discharge tube (i.e. unloading control system)).
However, Wang does not specifically disclose …wherein the receiving vehicle reference point comprises a structural portion of the receiving vehicle;…
Bonefas ‘377, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the receiving vehicle reference point comprises a structural portion of the receiving vehicle (Bonefas ‘377 [0051], Examiner Note: Bonefas teaches including reference points which can be located on the container of the receiving vehicle (i.e. structural portion of receiving vehicle));…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the control system to control a transport vehicle during a harvest of Wang with the reference point location of Bonefas in order to more accurately transfer the agricultural material to the storage container rather than the ground (Bonefas ‘377 [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377, as shown above, teaches The work machine system of claim 1
Wang further discloses wherein the following vehicle and the receiving vehicle comprise a following vehicle/receiving vehicle pair (Wang [0033] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Wang discloses a harvester (i.e. leading vehicle) unloading into a transport vehicle (i.e. follow vehicle) which is towing (i.e. propelling) a loading receptacle (i.e. receiving vehicle) for the crop) wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the work machine system to: output the calibrated offset value corresponding to the following vehicle/receiving vehicle pair for storage in a data store (Wang [0042]-[0045] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Wang discloses receiving target longitudinal and target latitudinal distance as well as the allowed longitudinal and latitudinal deviation which corresponds to a distance error range (i.e. calibrated offset value) of the loading receptacle with respect to the leading vehicle).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377, as shown above, teaches The work machine system of claim 1 wherein the instruction when executed cause the work machine system to:
Wang further discloses an operator prompt generator configured to generate an operator prompt on an operator interface on the leading vehicle, the operator prompt prompting an operator to position the receiving vehicle relative to the leading vehicle so the receiving vehicle sensor can detect the receiving vehicle reference point (Wang [0061]-[0062] & Fig. 13, Examiner Note: Wang teaches a user interface which can be provided for the harvester operator to dictate the Vehicle-to-vehicle distance trim control, which is a component of the calibrated offset value of the loading receptacle).
Regarding Claim 10, in view of Bonefas ‘377, as shown above, teaches The work machine system of claim 2
Wang further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the work machine system to: identify the following vehicle/receiving vehicle pair (Wang [0042] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Wang discloses receiving transport vehicle information (i.e. following/receiving vehicle pair information, since they are connected)) and obtain, from the data store, the calibrated offset value corresponding to the identified following vehicle/receiving vehicle pair (Wang [0042]-[0045] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Wang discloses receiving target longitudinal and target latitudinal distance as well as the allowed longitudinal and latitudinal deviation which corresponds to a distance error range (i.e. calibrated offset value) of the loading receptacle with respect to the leading vehicle. [0039] discloses a memory in which data related to the control process would be stored and retrieved (e.g. calibrated offset value)).
Regarding Claim 11, in view of Bonefas ‘377, as shown above, teaches The work machine system of claim 10
Wang further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the work machine system to: obtain a following vehicle position signal indicative of a position of the following vehicle relative to the leading vehicle (Wang [0043], Examiner Note: Wang discloses obtaining longitudinal and latitudinal offset values using the GPS positions of both the transport vehicle and harvester) and
to determine a position of the receiving vehicle based on the calibrated offset value obtained from the data store and the following vehicle position signal (Wang [0042]-[0045] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Wang discloses receiving target longitudinal and target latitudinal distance as well as the allowed longitudinal and latitudinal deviation which corresponds to a distance error range (i.e. calibrated offset value) of the loading receptacle with respect to the leading vehicle).
With respect to Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Claims 4-9, 13, 16-18, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0215394 A1, to Wang in view of US 2014/0224377 A1, to Bonefas, hereafter Bonefas ‘377 as applied to claims 1 & 14 above, and further in view of US 2014/0311113 A1, to Bonefas, hereafter Bonefas ‘113.
Regarding Claim 4, as shown above, in view of Bonefas ‘377, as shown above, teaches The work machine system of claim 1
However, Wang does not specifically disclose wherein the receiving vehicle sensor comprises: an optical sensor configured to capture an image of a portion of the receiving vehicle; and an image processor configured to identify a location of the receiving vehicle reference point in the captured image, and the instructions, when executed, cause the work machine system to obtain a location and orientation of the optical sensor on the leading vehicle and to identify the first offset value based on the location of the receiving vehicle reference point in the captured image and based on the location and orientation of the optical sensor on the leading vehicle..
Bonefas ‘113, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the receiving vehicle sensor comprises: an optical sensor configured to capture an image of a portion of the receiving vehicle (Bonefas [0017]-[0018] Examiner Note: Bonefas teaches an imaging device 10 which may comprise a camera used to take images of the storage container (i.e. receiving vehicle), 4); and an image processor configured to identify a location of the receiving vehicle reference point in the captured image (Bonefas [0029], Examiner Note: Bonefas teaches using image data to determine the size (i.e. receiving vehicle parameter) and position of the storage container); and the instructions, when executed, cause the work machine system to obtain a location and orientation of the optical sensor on the leading vehicle (Bonefas ‘113 [0017]-[0018] & [0029], Examiner Note: Bonefas ‘113 teaches using images, which indicate the position and orientation, of a camera on the leading vehicle) and to identify the first offset value based on the location of the receiving vehicle reference point in the captured image and based on the location and orientation of the optical sensor on the leading vehicle (Bonefas ‘113 [0126], Examiner Note: Bonefas ‘113 teaches identifying and using the known location of the camera on the combine with respect to the relative location to the storage container (i.e. first offset value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the control system to control a transport vehicle during a harvest of Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377 with the optical sensor and image processing of Bonefas ‘113 in order to mitigate the negative impact in which it is difficult for the system to sense relative system between a harvester and grain cart (Bonefas ‘113 [0003]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377 teaches The work machine system of claim 1, wherein the instruction when executed cause the work machine system to:
Wang further discloses obtain a first vehicle location based on a location of a position sensor on the following vehicle (Wang [0042], Examiner Note: Wang discloses a gps position of the transport vehicle) and a second vehicle location based on a location of a position sensor on the leading vehicle (Wang [0042], Examiner Note: Wang discloses a gps position of the harvester) and
identify, as the calibrated offset value, a location of the receiving vehicle reference point relative to the location of the position sensor on the following vehicle based on the first offset value, the first vehicle location, and the second vehicle location (Wang [0043], Examiner Note: Wang discloses obtaining longitudinal and latitudinal offset values using the GPS positions of both the transport vehicle and harvester).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377 teaches The work machine system of claim 1
However, Wang does not specifically disclose wherein the receiving vehicle sensor comprises at least one of: a RADAR sensor, or a LIDAR sensor.
As shown above, Bonefas teaches using a camera as the receiving vehicle sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would be able to use a camera and RADAR or a LIDAR sensor interchangeably or in combination since both devices are capable of detecting the shape, size, and location of a storage container.
Regarding Claim 9, Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377 teaches The work machine system of claim 1
However, Wang does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the work machine system to: display an image of the receiving vehicle; and detect operator interaction with the image of the receiving vehicle, the operator interaction identifying the receiving vehicle reference point in the image of the receiving vehicle.
Bonefas ‘113 teaches wherein the receiving vehicle sensor comprises: an operator display device configured to display an image of the receiving vehicle (Bonefas [0100]-[0101], Examiner Note: Wang discloses a display for the user of the system which shows images of the storage cart); and an operator interaction detector configured to detect operator interaction with the image of the receiving vehicle, the operator interaction identifying the receiving vehicle parameter in the image of the receiving vehicle (Bonefas ‘113 [0100]-[0105], Examiner Note: Bonefas teaches the operator being able to interact with the graphical user interface to adjust fill strategy and fill height of the storage cart).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the control system to control a transport vehicle during a harvest of Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377 with the optical sensor and image processing of Bonefas ‘113 in order to notify the tractor operator and display specific instructions required by the automated unloading system [0091]).
With respect to Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 9, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 9. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 9.
With respect to Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
With respect to Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
With respect to Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 22, Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377 teaches The work machine system of claim 1,
The modification does not specifically teach wherein the structural portion of the receiving vehicle comprises a boundary of a receiving area of the receiving vehicle
Bonefas ‘113 further teaches wherein the structural portion of the receiving vehicle comprises a boundary of a receiving area of the receiving vehicle (Bonefas ‘113 [0067] & Fig. 7, Examiner Note: Bonefas ‘113 teaches several receiving areas of the receiving vehicle)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the control system to control a transport vehicle during a harvest of Wang in view of Bonefas ‘377 with the optical sensor and image processing of Bonefas ‘113 in order to mitigate the negative impact in which it is difficult for the system to sense relative system between a harvester and grain cart (Bonefas ‘113 [0003]).
With respect to Claim 23, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 22, and it has been determined that claim 23 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 22. Therefore, claim 23 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached on (571)-270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669