DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 19 December 2025.
Claims 3, 5, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 14-18 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1 & 2, 8, 9 & 10 have been canceled.
Claims 3-7 & 11-18 are currently pending and Claims 3-7 & 11-13 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-7 & 11-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 3-7 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiniger et al. US 2007/0021913 A1, hereafter Heiniger in view of Runde et al. US 2018/0373257 A1, hereafter Runde.
Claim 3
Heiniger discloses:
A method for adaptively controlling a speed of a vehicle in a work area comprising: (para. 0016 & 0055) selecting a plurality of points in an imminent path of the vehicle during a work operation; fitting a curve to the selected plurality of points (Para. 0053: a best-fit polynomial correction applied to a guide line segment 82a in response to multiple, logged GPS data points 78 between swath start and end points A and B. The logged points A, B and 78 have slight crosstrack errors.”); comparing a radius of the curve to a threshold (para. 0055: “The system 2 can automatically adjust for varying travel speeds, swath widths, equipment performance considerations, field conditions, etc. when determining minimum and maximum turning radii. For example, increasing speed generally increases minimum turning radius.”); determining a current path of the vehicle from readings captured by a GNSS unit installed on the vehicle, the current path of the vehicle determined by fitting a curve to a plurality of points recently travelled by the vehicle (para. 0053: “FIG. 2B shows another set of data points 80, which can be logged with the GPS functions of the system 2, and which are connected by an initial guide path 82b. FIG. 2C shows a guide path 82c resulting from the application of a correction based on a spline fit curve, which passes through all of the logged data points 80. FIGS.”);
and repeating the steps of determining a current path of the vehicle from readings captured by a GNSS unit installed on the vehicle, the current path of the vehicle determined by fitting a curve to a plurality of points recently travelled by the vehicle, […].( para. 0053 & Fig. 0013). Note: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to obviously try to repeat the process for each pass and turn. Figure 13 of Heiniger discloses keyhole-shaped and e-shaped turns (170, 172) made by the vehicle during each pass. The system can automatically adjust travel speeds when determining minimum and maximum turning radii to accommodate hands free turning.
Heiniger does not disclose the following, however Runde does teach:
and reducing the speed of the vehicle when the radius is less than the threshold (para. 0045: “When the future path segment has a radius of curvature less than this value, then the speed of the tractor is set to the established vehicle using the curvature threshold for that curvature just as the vehicle reaches that segment. The lateral error threshold is a value that should the current lateral error exceeds this value, the wheel speed requests are reduced, or ramped down, until the lateral error stabilizes…”) calculating an error between the current path of the vehicle and a desired path of the vehicle; reducing the speed of the vehicle when the error exceeds a threshold (para. 0045: “When the future path segment has a radius of curvature less than this value, then the speed of the tractor is set to the established vehicle using the curvature threshold for that curvature just as the vehicle reaches that segment. The lateral error threshold is a value that should the current lateral error exceeds this value, the wheel speed requests are reduced, or ramped down, until the lateral error stabilizes…”; increasing the speed of the vehicle when the error is less than the threshold (para. 0045: “When the future path segment has a radius of curvature less than this value, then the speed of the tractor is set to the established vehicle using the curvature threshold for that curvature just as the vehicle reaches that segment. The lateral error threshold is a value that should the current lateral error exceeds this value, the wheel speed requests are reduced, or ramped down, until the lateral error stabilize, after which the wheel speed requests are increased, or ramped back, up to the desired value.”;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Runde with the technique of Heiniger to automatically controlling the ground speed of a work vehicle moving through a field having a working area and a headland area such the tractor is able to more quickly return to the intended track or curved path, which improves production efficiencies (Runde para. 0053). Therefore, the design incentives of increased efficiency provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 4 & 6
Heiniger discloses:
The method of claim 3 wherein the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle controlled by mission plan software running on a processor connected to the vehicle (para. 0044 & 0046).
Claim 5
Heiniger discloses:
A method for adaptively controlling a speed of a vehicle in a work area comprising: (para. 0016 & 0055) determining a current path of the vehicle from readings captured by a GNSS unit installed on the vehicle, the current path of the vehicle determined by fitting a curve to a plurality of points recently travelled by the vehicle; (para. 0045: “Another optional component comprises a mapping module 32, which performs mapping functions and provides a graphic display showing field areas treated, current travel paths and other information. For example, the system 2 can calculate the area of a field using the GPS coordinates of the field perimeter, which information can be processed, stored and displayed with the mapping module 32.” & Para. 0053: a best-fit polynomial correction applied to a guide line segment 82a in response to multiple, logged GPS data points 78 between swath start and end points A and B. The logged points A, B and 78 have slight crosstrack errors.”);
and repeating the steps of determining a current path of the vehicle from readings captured by a GNSS unit installed on the vehicle, the current path of the vehicle determined by fitting a curve to a plurality of points recently travelled by the vehicle, […].( para. 0053 & Fig. 0013). Note: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to obviously try to repeat the process for each pass and turn. Figure 13 of Heinoger discloses keyhole-shaped and e-shaped turns (170, 172) made by the vehicle during each pass. The system can automatically adjust travel speeds when determining minimum and maximum turning radii to accommodate hands free turning.
Heiniger does not disclose the following, however Runde does teach:
calculating an error between the current path of the vehicle and a desired path of the vehicle; reducing the speed of the vehicle when the error exceeds a threshold (para. 0045: “When the future path segment has a radius of curvature less than this value, then the speed of the tractor is set to the established vehicle using the curvature threshold for that curvature just as the vehicle reaches that segment. The lateral error threshold is a value that should the current lateral error exceeds this value, the wheel speed requests are reduced, or ramped down, until the lateral error stabilizes…”; increasing the speed of the vehicle when the error is less than the threshold (para. 0045: “When the future path segment has a radius of curvature less than this value, then the speed of the tractor is set to the established vehicle using the curvature threshold for that curvature just as the vehicle reaches that segment. The lateral error threshold is a value that should the current lateral error exceeds this value, the wheel speed requests are reduced, or ramped down, until the lateral error stabilize, after which the wheel speed requests are increased, or ramped back, up to the desired value.”;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Runde with the technique of Heiniger to automatically controlling the ground speed of a work vehicle moving through a field having a working area and a headland area such the tractor is able to more quickly return to the intended track or curved path, which improves production efficiencies (Runde para. 0053). Therefore, the design incentives of increased efficiency provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 7
Heiniger discloses:
The method of claim 5 wherein the current path of the vehicle comprises the instantaneous location of the vehicle (para. 0050: “Relatively low processor overhead is involved because the system 2 is only comparing the acquired GPS signals corresponding to its current position to the logged data points corresponding to the specific line segment being driven.”).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Heiniger & Runde teach the limitations of claim 5. Heiniger teaches the steps of determining the current path of the vehicle from readings captured by the GNSS unit installed on the vehicle, in para. 0045: “Another optional component comprises a mapping module 32, which performs mapping functions and provides a graphic display showing field areas treated, current travel paths and other information. For example, the system 2 can calculate the area of a field using the GPS coordinates of the field perimeter, which information can be processed, stored and displayed with the mapping module 32.” & Para. 0053: a best-fit polynomial correction applied to a guide line segment 82a in response to multiple, logged GPS data points 78 between swath start and end points A and B. The logged points A, B and 78 have slight crosstrack errors.”); Heiniger does not disclose the following, however Runde does teach:
calculating the error between the current path of the vehicle and the desired path of the vehicle, and setting the speed of the vehicle as a function of the error are repeated continuously as the vehicle operates (para. 0045: “When the future path segment has a radius of curvature less than this value, then the speed of the tractor is set to the established vehicle using the curvature threshold for that curvature just as the vehicle reaches that segment. The lateral error threshold is a value that should the current lateral error exceeds this value, the wheel speed requests are reduced, or ramped down, until the lateral error stabilizes…” Para. 0054: “Once started, the ECU 60 determines a vehicle position from the GPS 56 at block 244 and determines vehicle wheel speed and direction at block 246. Acceleration and deceleration settings are determined at block 248 and a desired path of the vehicle is determines at block 260.” & Para. 0061)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Runde with the technique of Heiniger to automatically controlling the ground speed of a work vehicle moving through a field having a working area and a headland area such the tractor is able to more quickly return to the intended track or curved path, which improves production efficiencies (Runde para. 0053). Therefore, the design incentives of increased efficiency provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Heiniger & Runde teaches the limitations of claim 10. Heiniger teaches the steps of determining the current path of the vehicle from readings captured by the GNSS unit installed on the vehicle in para. 0045: “Another optional component comprises a mapping module 32, which performs mapping functions and provides a graphic display showing field areas treated, current travel paths and other information. For example, the system 2 can calculate the area of a field using the GPS coordinates of the field perimeter, which information can be processed, stored and displayed with the mapping module 32.” & Para. 0053: a best-fit polynomial correction applied to a guide line segment 82a in response to multiple, logged GPS data points 78 between swath start and end points A and B. The logged points A, B and 78 have slight crosstrack errors.”); Heiniger does not disclose the following, however Runde does teach:
calculating the error between the current path of the vehicle and the desired path of the vehicle, setting the speed of the vehicle as a function of the error, and increasing the speed of the vehicle when the error is less than the threshold are repeated continuously as the vehicle operates (para. 0045: “When the future path segment has a radius of curvature less than this value, then the speed of the tractor is set to the established vehicle using the curvature threshold for that curvature just as the vehicle reaches that segment. The lateral error threshold is a value that should the current lateral error exceeds this value, the wheel speed requests are reduced, or ramped down, until the lateral error stabilize, after which the wheel speed requests are increased, or ramped back, up to the desired value.” Para. 0054: “Once started, the ECU 60 determines a vehicle position from the GPS 56 at block 244 and determines vehicle wheel speed and direction at block 246. Acceleration and deceleration settings are determined at block 248 and a desired path of the vehicle is determines at block 260.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Runde with the technique of Heiniger to automatically controlling the ground speed of a work vehicle moving through a field having a working area and a headland area such the tractor is able to more quickly return to the intended track or curved path, which improves production efficiencies (Runde para. 0053). Therefore, the design incentives of increased efficiency provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiniger & Runde in further view of “Chapter 5 - Elements of Process Control”, hereinafter Berk.
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Heiniger & Runde teaches the limitations of claim 5. Runde teaches setting the speed of the vehicle as a function of the error (see at least Runde para.0045 The lateral error threshold is a value that should the current lateral error exceeds this value, the wheel speed requests are reduced, or ramped down, until the lateral error stabilizes, after which the wheel speed requests are increased, or ramped back, up to the desired value.) Runde does not teach the following, however Berk does teach:
determining a desired speed and setting the speed of the vehicle at desired speed - alpha * error (see at least Berk 5.6.2: In proportional (P) control, the magnitude of the correction signal m is proportional to the error e. m = K e + M The proportionality factor K is called proportional gain. The constant M is known as the controller bias, because it represents the magnitude of the correction signal when no correction is needed (e=0)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heiniger & Runde to use the basic equation for proportional controllers, as described by Berk to adjust the vehicle speed proportionally to the gain factor multiplied by the error, adding the bias, or default control value M for the advantage of eliminating oscillation in the controller and adapt the corrective action on the speed controller proportional to the error (see at least Berk 5.6.2).
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6907336 B2 by Gray teaches work area border definition system.
US 2016/0084275 A1 by Kaneko teaches a speed modulation system based upon slope for a work vehicle.
US 2021/0302187 A1 by Nagavelli teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle to use prior path data to derive a target path and compare to the current vehicle path.
US 2008/0109196 A1 by Remme teaches a land use and survey system to consider terrain, ground cover, and spatial relationships for route identification and zoning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KITO R ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights