DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 11/05/2025. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 4-5 and 16-20 are canceled;
Claims 21-23 are newly added;
Claims 1, 3, 6-15 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-3, 6-15 and 21-23 are pending;
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Amended claims 1-3 and 6-9 and newly submitted claims 21-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct embodiment:
Embodiment A: control of illumination device of vehicle based upon geospatial region having a boundary. (Claims 1-3 and 6-9)
Embodiment B: control of illumination device of a vehicle based upon communication link between vehicles. (Claims 10-15)
Embodiment C: control of illumination device of a vehicle based upon “directional feeding of vehicle. (Claims 21-23)
The embodiments are independent or distinct because the criteria for the control of the illumination device require different field of search. In addition, these embodiments are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6-9 and 21-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection to claims 3, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the first agricultural machine” and “the second agricultural machine” which renders the claim indefinite, as there is a lack of antecedent basis for said term.
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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2024/0391380A1 hereinafter “Maitre” in view of US2024/0369214A1 hereinafter “Julien”
Regarding claim 10, Maitre discloses a computer-implemented method (¶82L1-22: computer-usable program code) for controlling illumination (¶19L14-15: the vehicle includes a light control system implemented to perform method) from a vehicle (¶17L2-3: a vehicle is any form of motorized transport), the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining that a communication link is established between a first agricultural machine and a second agricultural machine (¶51L1-3: the detection module detects that a first vehicle and a second vehicle are in a virtual connection mode); and
altering illumination provided by at least one light from a first illumination condition to a second illumination condition (¶52L1-15: control the light element such that the lighting element emanates light in a manner that uniquely identifies the virtual connection mode and that is distinct from lighting element operation in a non-virtual connection mode) different from the first illumination condition in response to the determination that the communication link has been established between the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine. (¶52L1-15: the command module control an lighting element of the first vehicle based on the virtual connection mode)
Maitre does not expclitly disclose the first/second vehicles are “agricultural vehicle”.
Julien discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling illumination from an agricultural vehicle (¶15L1-2: a vehicle lighting system; ¶35L6-7: the vehicle is a forage harvester), the computer-implemented method comprising:
a first agricultural machine (¶35L6-7: the vehicle is a forage harvester) and a second agricultural machine (¶36L10: a tractor)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to utilize the tracker/forage harvester disclosed by Julien as the vehicle disclosed by Maitre.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Maitre recognizes that the vehicle can be any form of motorized transport. (¶17L2-3: a vehicle is any form of motorized transport)
Regarding claim 11, Maitre in view of Julien hereinafter “Maitre/Julien” discloses in Maitre the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein altering illumination provided by the at least on one light of at least one of the first agricultural vehicle and the second agricultural vehicle from the first illumination condition to the second illumination condition different from the first illumination condition in response to the determination that the communication link has been established includes
alter one of a direction of illumination and an amount of illumination output from the at least one light.(¶32L1-13: project an image onto the other vehicle in the virtual connection; the vehicle is lead vehicle, the projected surface may be the hood of the second vehicle; the vehicle is the following vehicle, the projected surface may be a trunk or rear-facing body panel of the lead vehicle)
Regarding claim 12, Maitre/Julien discloses in Maitre the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein
altering one of the direction of illumination and the amount of illumination from the at least one light includes one of activating and deactivating the at least one light. (¶30L12-15: activate the exterior lighting element to emanate a pattern beam uniquely associated with the virtual connection)
Regarding claim 13, Maitre/Julien discloses in Maitre the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein altering illumination provided by the at least on one light of at least one of the first agricultural vehicle and the second agricultural vehicle from the first illumination condition to the second illumination condition different from the first illumination condition in response to the determination that the communication link has been established includes
altering illumination of a light directed towards the first agricultural vehicle. (¶32L1-13: project an image onto the other vehicle in the virtual connection; the vehicle is lead vehicle, the projected surface may be the hood of the second vehicle; the vehicle is the following vehicle, the projected surface may be a trunk or rear-facing body panel of the lead vehicle)
Regarding claim 14, Maitre/Julien discloses in Maitre the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein
the communication link is a wireless communication link. (¶37L1-5: communication system include wireless communication)
Regarding claim 15, Maitre/Julien discloses in Maitre the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising:
altering illumination provided from the at least one light from the second illumiation condition in response to loss or discontinuation of the communication link between the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine. (¶52L1-15: control the light element such that the lighting element emanates light in a manner that uniquely identifies the virtual connection mode and that is distinct from lighting element operation in a non-virtual connection mode)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot, as the claim is withdrawn in view of the restriction by original presentation set forth in the current office action.
Furthermore, Prior Art US2024/0092249A1 discloses the claimed limitation of the amended claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights