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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 29 October 2025have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least Wu as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
3. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2019/0150357) in view of Cella et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2023/0281527).
Regarding claims 11, Wu discloses system for remote operation of an agricultural machine, the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors positioned at the agricultural machine, each of the plurality of sensors configured to provide information at least during an operation of the agricultural machine, the plurality of sensors comprising at least an agricultural sensor and a functional sensor (P172, etc);
a remote system having a plurality of output devices, the remote system being separate from the agricultural machine (P184, etc);
at least one processor (P5, 45-48, etc);
a memory device coupled with the at least one processor, the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to (P5, 45-48, etc):
determine whether information from any of the plurality of sensors is assigned, based on operator preferences (P183, etc), an amplified output (P172, 130, 183, etc; P183: remote operator exercises instructions such as “setting the parameters of the image sensor units 50 (e.g. zoom, exposure time, operation mode video or still shots)”; zoom and exposure time qualify as amplification); and
generate a remote operation environment at the remote system, the remote operation environment comprising an output of information from at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors, wherein the output of information comprises, when the information is assigned the amplified output, an amplification of the output (P183, etc) by at least one output device of the plurality of output devices (P184, etc).
Wu does not disclose the remote system having a plurality of output devices comprising a display and a haptic feedback device. Wu discloses instead a display inside the vehicle or a portable display (P54, etc).
In the same field of endeavor, Cella discloses the remote system having a plurality of output devices comprising a display and a haptic feedback device (P440, 450-455, 4179, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to include a display and a haptic feedback device, as taught by Cella, in order to facilitate operator interaction with and/or analysis of the sensor information (Wu P183-184; Cella P440, 450-455, 4179, etc), with predictable results.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 17, see the rejection for claim 11 above.
Cella further discloses determining whether information from at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors has been designated for priority over information from at least another sensor of the plurality of sensors (P1126, 45, 1099, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to do so, as taught by Cella, in order to optimize collection and/or user understanding of the sensor information (P1126, 45, 1099, etc), with predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Wu in view of Cella further discloses that the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to generate a signal for the at least one output device to output information that has been designated for priority before information that has not been designated for priority is outputted by the at least one output device (Cella P1126, 45, 1099, etc).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Wu in view of Cella further discloses an optical sensor configured to capture one or more images of at least a portion of an area located around the agricultural machine, the display being configured to output the one or more images captured by an optical sensor (P172, 130, etc), and wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to generate a signal for amplification by the at least one output device of an output of information determined to be assigned the amplified output (P172, 130, etc).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Wu in view of Cella further discloses that the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: determine which information from the plurality of sensors is to be compared to a predetermined threshold; and generate a signal that prevents information that is determined to not exceed the predetermined threshold from being outputted by the at least one output device (P172, 87, 89, 98, 150, 180, 182, etc).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Wu in view of Cella further discloses that the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to receive an adjustment signal from an input device of the remote system indicating an instruction to adjust the predetermined threshold, and, in response to receipt of the adjustment signal, adjust the predetermined threshold (P172, 87, 89, 98, 150, 180, 182, etc).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Wu in view of Cella further discloses that the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine which information from the plurality of sensors is not to be compared to the predetermined threshold and generate a signal for the at least one output device to output information that is determined to not be compared to the predetermined threshold (P172, 87, 89, 98, 150, 180, 182, etc).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Wu in view of Cella further discloses that the plurality of sensors further includes a condition sensor comprising at least an odor sensor (Cella P95, 1246, 1252, 4293, claim 4, etc).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Wu in view of Cella further discloses that the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to receive a signal from an input device at the remote system that assigns one or more of the plurality of output devices to information from one or more of the plurality of sensors (Cella P440, 450-455, 4179, etc).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Wu in view of Cella further discloses receiving a signal from an input device of the remote system designating information from one or more of the plurality of sensors as information that is not to be communicated at the remote system by any of the plurality of output devices (Cella P440, 450-455, 4179, etc).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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 Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
January 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights