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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
2. Applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. The application is filed on 12/01/2023 but claims the benefit of U.S. provisional application number 63/429712 filed on 12/02/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 16:
Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim is a method claim.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of generating using signal data to indicates presence or absence of an object. This limitation, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating using detection data to indicates an object”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “generating using detection data to indicates an object” language, the claim encompasses a user simply determining and generating using detection data to indicates an object in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generating using detection data to indicates an object does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites two additional elements: “evaluating the detection data signal to determine if the object is detected by the object detection sensor; generating a safety control signal based on the evaluation of the detection data signal” performs the evaluating /determination step. The evaluating /determination step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering and manipulating data), and amounts to mere data gathering or manipulations, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The work vehicle that performs the evaluating /determination step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the evaluating/ determination step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (evaluating the detection data and generating safety control signal).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (evaluating the detection data and generating safety control signal). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determination step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the driver circuit is anything other than a generic, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or determination of data over a driver circuit is a well understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the determining step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 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.
5. 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(a) 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-11, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IWASE (US 20240023473 A1) (hereinafter IWASE) in view of Pawlicki (US 20160257308 A1) (hereinafter Pawlicki).
Regarding claim 1, IWASE discloses a safety system for a towed implement, the safety system (para 09, work vehicle that detected obstacle while safety of work vehicle is secured, para 110, work vehicle 10 determined (tracked), safety of work vehicle 10, para 115, work machine 14 that is towed by the work vehicle 10) comprising:
an implement frame structured to be towed by a work vehicle (Fig. 2, para 32, The work machine 14 is cultivator, mower, plow, fertilizer, sprayer puddling machine, or seeder, which can be removably mounted to the work vehicle 10, para 115, work machine 14 that is towed by the work vehicle 10);
an object detection sensor affixed to the implement frame and having a field of view sized to capture an image scene in proximity to the implement frame (para 27, Fig. 1 and 2, work vehicle 10 includes a vehicle control device 11, work machine 14, a camera 15, positioning device 17, obstacle sensors 18, and a detection processing device 19, para 34, obstacle sensors 18 detect obstacles in detection areas, FIG. 4 monitored (detection area) for controlling the travel of the work vehicle 10, para 56, work vehicle 10 acquires travel route R and travels automatically in the field F along travel route R, para 60, FIG. 4, R1 of a predetermined distance between adjacent detection areas K1 and K4 (i.e. proximity), para 41, camera 15 captures images of the subject),
the object detection sensor structured to generate a scene signal representing the image scene captured by the object detection sensor (para 41, camera 15 captures images, generates images and transmits images to detection processing device 19, para 52, acquisition processing part 111 acquires captured images from cameras 15, para 90, control part 21 causes terminal 20 to display image captured by camera 15 of obstacle detection position); and
a safety control system configured to generate a safety control signal based on a detection data signal, the detection data signal based on a determination of whether an object is detected in the scene signal (Abstract, When obstacle is detected in the detection area, processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle, para 06, The traveling processing part executes a travel restriction of the work vehicle when the obstacle is detected (i.e., based on determination) in detection area, para 37, When detection processing device 19 detects obstacles in the areas K11, K21, K31, and K41 while work vehicle 10 travelling, vehicle control device 11 executes travel restriction to stop work vehicle 10, para 110, position of obstacles as viewed from work vehicle 10 determined (tracked), safety of work vehicle 10 can be ensured).
IWASE specifically fails to disclose the detection data signal having a positive object detection indication if the object is within the image scene of the object detection sensor and a negative object detection indication if the object is not detected within the image scene of the object detection sensor.
In analogous art, Pawlicki discloses the detection data signal having a positive object detection indication if the object is within the image scene of the object detection sensor and a negative object detection indication if the object is not detected within the image scene of the object detection sensor (para 03, systems analyze images captured by a camera or sensor to estimate whether object is adjacent to equipped vehicle and systems generate positive detections, where system indicates that a vehicle is adjacent to, or negative detections, where system indicates that no object adjacent to vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE to use captured image data to determine distance from equipped vehicle to the detected other vehicle that is present exterior of the equipped vehicle and within exterior field of view as taught by Pawlicki to use system to processes the image data to determine if they correspond with physical characteristics objects to determine object at or toward vehicle and to reduce possibility of false positive or negative signals to improve detection of objects [Pawlicki, para 008].
Regarding claim 2, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein the safety control signal includes a warning indication if the detection data signal includes the positive object detection indication (para 58, raveling processing part 113 executes a travel restriction to restrict travel of the work vehicle 10 when detection processing part 112 detects an obstacle, detection processing device 19 issues an external alert).
Regarding claim 3, IWASE fails to discloses the safety system of claim 2, wherein the warning indication is one of an audible warning and a visual warning.
In analogous art, Pawlicki discloses the safety system of claim 2, wherein the warning indication is one of an audible warning and a visual warning (para 05, he driver interface for these systems may be in the form of a visual warning (such as an indicator light) and/or audible warning (typically a rumble strip sound)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE to use captured image data to determine distance from equipped vehicle to the detected other vehicle that is present exterior of the equipped vehicle and within exterior field of view as taught by Pawlicki to use warning system includes an imaging sensor mounted at vehicle and operable to capture an image of a scene and a control for providing a warning signal to a driver of the vehicle in response to an image captured by sensor to warn driver for detected object to improve safety of work vehicle [Pawlicki, para 026].
Regarding claim 4, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein the safety control signal includes a powered motion inhibit signal used to prohibit motion of the work vehicle (para 37, When detection processing device 19 detects obstacles in areas while work vehicle 10 is travelling, vehicle control device 11 executes travel restriction to stop work vehicle 10, para 41, camera 15 captures images, generates images and transmits images to detection processing device 19).
Regarding claim 5, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, which further includes a plurality of object detection sensors, at least one of the plurality of object detection sensors oriented with a field of view toward a portion of the implement frame, at least another of the plurality of object detection sensors oriented with a field of view away from the implement frame (para 24, work vehicle 10 automatically travel along travel route R that is generated for farm field F in advance on basis of position information on current position of work vehicle 10, calculated by positioning device 17).
Regarding claim 6, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein the safety control system is configured to initiate a persistence counter if the detection data signal includes the positive object detection indication (para 94, automatic traveling process executed and automatic traveling process initiated by vehicle control device 11, para 06, The traveling processing part executes a travel restriction of the work vehicle when the obstacle is detected in the first detection area).
Regarding claim 7, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein the scene signal includes information indicative of a position of the object (para 101, detection processing device 19 specifies the position coordinates of the obstacle (obstacle position) relative to a reference point (e.g., center point), para 54, obstacle detection position is position coordinates indicating an obstacle detection position ).
Regarding claim 8, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 7, wherein the safety control system is further configured to determine the position based on the information indicative of position of the object, and where the safety control system is further configured to determine an intrusion of the object into a safety zone by comparing the position to a predetermined boundary of the safety zone (para 64, FIG. 6 indicate the position coordinates of the obstacle in a period during which the obstacle is positioned, para 110, position of the obstacles as viewed from the work vehicle 10 can be determined (tracked), safety of work vehicle 10 can be ensured, para 139, travel restriction can be kept at the required minimum by narrowing detection area during turning while false detection can be reduced, and thus safety can be enhanced.
Regarding claim 9, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein the safety control system is configured to generate the detection data signal based on a determination if an object is detected in the scene signal (para 109, detects the obstacle based on the detection information and executes a travel restriction of the work vehicle when an obstacle is detected in the detection area).
Regarding claim 10, IWASE fails to discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein at least one lighting device is affixed to the implement frame, the lighting device structured to emit a light to illuminate an area in proximity to the implement frame and provide lighting conditions useful to aid the object detection sensor.
In analogous art, Pawlicki discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein at least one lighting device is affixed to the implement frame, the lighting device structured to emit a light to illuminate an area in proximity to the implement frame and provide lighting conditions useful to aid the object detection sensor (para 05, systems may be in form of a visual warning (such as an indicator light) and/or audible warning (typically a rumble strip sound, para 22, control operable to adjust target zone in response to an adjustment input, adjustment input comprises an output an ambient light sensor, a headlamp control, para 55, Control 16 adjust or adapt reduced data set or target zone in response to output or signal from ambient light sensor (which detects the ambient light intensity present at or around the subject vehicle)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE to use captured image data to determine distance from equipped vehicle to the detected other vehicle that is present exterior of the equipped vehicle and within exterior field of view as taught by Pawlicki to warns a driver with indicator light if the other object is detected in driver's corresponding blind spot; and warns driver with an audible warning if there is a object detected in the driver's blind spot.to improve safety of work vehicle [Pawlicki, para 026].
Regarding claim 11, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein the object detection sensor can be one of a camera, lidar, radar, or ultrasonic sensor. (para 33, obstacle sensors 18 are sensors that detect obstacles in predetermined detection areas by using infrared, ultrasonic, or the like., obstacle sensors 18 may be lidar sensors or lasers, or sonar sensors measure distances to targets by using ultrasonic waves to monitor the surroundings of the work vehicle 10 and detect obstacles).
Regarding claim 13, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein the object detection sensor is connected to the implement frame via a moveable mount such that movement of the moveable mount also creates movement in the object detection sensor, and further comprising an actuator structured to move the moveable mount (para 45, control part 171 to execute a positioning process and data such as positioning information and movement information, para 65, determines whether or not a detection area exists in the direction of relative movement of the obstacle B as viewed from the work vehicle 10 on the basis of the position of the obstacle B).
Regarding claim 15, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, wherein the safety control system includes a safety interlock that is engaged to prohibit initiation of work vehicle movement if the safety control system determines that an object is detected in the scene signal (Abstract, When an obstacle is detected in the detection area, a traveling processing executes travel restriction of a work vehicle, para 07, when obstacle enters the area from the detection area while travel restriction is imposed on work vehicle; and continuing travel restriction of the work vehicle when the obstacle is determined to be going to enter the detection area).
Regarding claim 16, IWASE discloses a method for determining a safe working condition of an implement configured to be towed by a work vehicle (para 09, work vehicle that detected obstacle while safety of work vehicle is secured, para 110, work vehicle 10 determined (tracked), safety of work vehicle 10, para 115, work machine 14 that is towed by the work vehicle 10, para 32, The work machine 14 is cultivator, mower, plow, fertilizer, sprayer puddling machine, or seeder, which can be removably mounted to the work vehicle 10, para 115, work machine 14 that is towed by the work vehicle 10), the method comprising:
generating, using a scene signal captured by an object detection sensor affixed to the implement, a detection data signal that indicates a presence or absence of an object in a sensor proximity of the implement (FIGS. 1 and 2, work vehicle 10 includes vehicle control device 11, traveling device 13, work machine 14, a camera 15, positioning device 17, obstacle sensors 18, and detection processing device 19, FIG. 4 monitored (detection area) for controlling travel of work vehicle 10, para 34, obstacle sensors 18 detect obstacles in detection areas or area to be monitored (detection area), para 41, camera 15 capture images of subject, generates frame images and transmits images to the detection processing device 19, para 60, FIG. 4, detection area R1 of a predetermined distance between adjacent detection areas K1 and K4 (i.e. proximity));
evaluating the detection data signal to determine if the object is detected by the object detection sensor (Fig. 1, detection processing device 19 for evaluating detection data, para 49, control devices such as CPU that executes arithmetic processes (i.e., for evaluating or processing detection data), para 45, control part 171 is computer system includes processors program to execute processing data for analysis (i.e., evaluating detection data), para 41, camera 15 captures images and transmits images to detection processing device 19 for processing, para 53, detection processing 112 determines whether detection area contains an obstacle on basis of information);
generating a safety control signal based on the evaluation of the detection data signal (para 77, control part 21 use CPU to execute various processes with control programs (i.e. for evaluate data), para 06, executes a travel restriction of work vehicle when obstacle is detected (i.e, generating safety control signal), para 110, position of obstacles determined (tracked), safety of work vehicle 10 can be ensured to restrict travelling (i.e., by generating a safety control signal), para 109, detects obstacle based on detection information (i.e., based on the evaluation), determines obstacle signal and generate travel restriction); and
in response to the safety control signal, performing at least one of: (1) inhibiting movement of the work vehicle and implement (para 49, control device 11 controls operation of work vehicle 10 in response to control data (i.e. in response to control signal), para 37, When detection processing device 19 detects obstacles in areas while work vehicle 10 is travelling, vehicle control device 11 executes travel restriction to stop work vehicle 10 (i.e. inhibiting movement in response to the safety control signal), claim 1, page 11, detecting obstacle based on detection information; executing a travel restriction of work vehicle when obstacle is detected in detection area).
IWASE specifically fails to disclose a method for determining a safe working condition in response to the safety control signal, generating a warning indication to an operator.
In analogous art, Pawlicki discloses a method for determining a safe working condition in response to the safety control signal, generating a warning indication to an operator (para 43, Control 16 to activate warning indicator to alert driver that object is present and in response to send alert that object being detected, para 87, control 116 detect and monitor or track objects, and to provide a warning or alert signal to a driver of vehicle in response to detected images, para 26, control for providing a warning signal to a driver of vehicle in response to image detected of vehicle or object.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE to use captured image data to determine distance from equipped vehicle to the detected other vehicle that is present exterior of the equipped vehicle and within exterior field of view as taught by Pawlicki to use system to processes the image data to determine if they correspond with physical characteristics objects to determine object at or toward vehicle and to reduce possibility of false positive or negative signals to improve detection of objects [Pawlicki, para 008].
Regarding claim 18, IWASE fails to discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising providing lighting in the sensor proximity of the implement.
In analogous art, Pawlicki discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising providing lighting in the sensor proximity of the implement (para 05, systems may be in form of a visual warning (such as an indicator light) and/or audible warning (typically a rumble strip sound, para 22, control operable to adjust target zone in response to an adjustment input, adjustment input comprises an output an ambient light sensor, a headlamp control, para 55, Control 16 adjust or adapt reduced data set or target zone in response to output or signal from ambient light sensor (which detects the ambient light intensity present at or around the subject vehicle)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE to use captured image data to determine distance from equipped vehicle to the detected other vehicle that is present exterior of the equipped vehicle and within exterior field of view as taught by Pawlicki to warns a driver with indicator light if the other object is detected in driver's corresponding blind spot; and warns driver with an audible warning if there is a object detected in the driver's blind spot.to improve safety of work vehicle [Pawlicki, para 026].
Regarding claim 20, IWASE discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising determining an intrusion of the object into a safety zone (para 64, FIG. 6 position coordinates of the obstacle in a period during which the obstacle is positioned, para 110, position of the obstacles as viewed from the work vehicle 10 can be determined (tracked), the safety of the work vehicle 10 can be ensured).
8. Claims 12, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IWASE (US 20240023473 A1) (hereinafter IWASE) in view of Pawlicki (US 20160257308 A1) (hereinafter Pawlicki) and further in view of STANHOPE (US 20190014723 A1) (hereinafter STANHOPE).
Regarding claim 12, IWASE discloses the safety system of claim 1, further comprising safety control system is configured to inhibit the safety control system determines that an object is detected in the scene signal (para 37, control device 11 executes a travel restriction to stop the work vehicle 10, para 58, processing device executes a travel restriction to restrict automatic travel of the work vehicle 10 when the detection processing part 112 detects an obstacle).
IWASE and Pawlicki fails to discloses an actuatable device connected with the implement frame, and wherein the safety control system is configured to inhibit the actuatable device if determines that an object is detected in the scene signal.
In analogous art, STANHOPE discloses an actuatable device connected with the implement frame, and wherein the safety control system is configured to inhibit the actuatable device if determines that an object is detected in the scene signal (para 64, obstacle is detected within obstacle collision zone 60 during movement operation, operation terminated to prevent collision, terminate operation by preventing motion), para 70, controller to abort or terminate operation from instructions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE and Pawlicki for performing automatic wing movement operations for agricultural implements for avoiding obstacle collisions when actuating a wing assembly of an agricultural implement as taught by STANHOPE to use controller to access the vision-related data received from the vision sensor and determine whether a wing movement operation can be executed without collision between the agricultural implement and an obstacle based on the vision-related data to improve safety of work vehicle [STANHOPE, para 07].
Regarding claim 14, IWASE and Pawlicki fails to discloses the safety system of claim 13, wherein the safety control system is configured to transmit a command signal to the actuator to move the moveable mount and thus move the object detection sensor.
In analogous art, STANHOPE discloses the safety system of claim 13, wherein the safety control system is configured to transmit a command signal to the actuator to move the moveable mount and thus move the object detection sensor (para 19, sensor(s) may then be analyzed or assessed to determine whether any obstacles are present, controller may be configured to control the operation of the implement (e.g., by controlling the implement's actuators) and/or the work vehicle (e.g., by controlling the vehicle's actuators) to execute the desired or requested wing movement operation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE and Pawlicki for performing automatic wing movement operations for agricultural implements for avoiding obstacle collisions when actuating a wing assembly of agricultural implement as taught by STANHOPE to use vision data to be analyzed or assessed to determine whether obstacles are present within obstacle collision zone that would be collided with when actuating assemblies of implement to perform a desired or requested wing movement operation and to prevent collision with work vehicle [STANHOPE, para 19].
Regarding claim 17, IWASE discloses When the detection processing device 19 detects obstacles, vehicle control device 11 executes a travel restriction to stop the work vehicle 10 [037].
IWASE and Pawlicki fails to discloses inhibiting movement further comprises engaging a safety interlock of the work vehicle from being started.
In analogous art, STANHOPE discloses inhibiting movement further comprises engaging a safety interlock of the work vehicle from being started (para 64, movement operation, operation terminated to prevent collision with the newly detected obstacle, movement operation may be terminated by halting active motion of the wing assemblies 36, 38 and/or by preventing further motion of the wing assemblies 36, 38, para 32, controller (e.g., either automatically or via input from the operator) that the requested operation should not be performed or should be terminated, para 70, controller 102 may be configured to abort or terminate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE and Pawlicki for performing wing movement operations for agricultural implements for avoiding obstacle collisions when actuating a wing assembly of agricultural implement as taught by STANHOPE to use controller to access vision-related data received from vision sensor and determine whether a wing movement operation executed without collision between agricultural implement and obstacle based on the vision-related data to improve safety of work vehicle [STANHOPE, para 07].
Regarding claim 19, IWASE and Pawlicki fails to discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising adjusting a moveable mount to change an orientation of the object detection sensor.
In analogous art, STANHOPE discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising adjusting a moveable mount to change an orientation of the object detection sensor (para 06, determined that wing movement operation can be executed without collision, actively controlling operation of component configured to facilitate initiation of wing movement operation, para 19, actuating wing assemblies of the implement to perform a desired or requested wing movement operation (e.g., folding/unfolding of wing assemblies and/or raising/lowering of the wing assemblies)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of acquires detection information from obstacle sensor which detects an obstacle in a detection area, and when an obstacle is detected in detection area, a traveling processing part executes travel restriction of a work vehicle disclosed by IWASE and Pawlicki for performing automatic wing movement operations for agricultural implements for avoiding obstacle collisions when actuating a wing assembly of agricultural implement as taught by STANHOPE to use vision data to be analyzed or assessed to determine whether obstacles are present within obstacle collision zone that would be collided with when actuating assemblies of implement to perform a desired or requested wing movement operation and to prevent collision with work vehicle [STANHOPE, para 19].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mirza Alam whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-6:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for Published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRZA F ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688