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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 02/16/2026. Claim 1 was previously pending, of which claim 1 has been amended, no claim has been cancelled, and claim 16 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 & 16 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 3-8, filed on 02/16/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. The arguments that claim 1 is not taught by Hanrieder, McLoughlin, Rodriguez, Walker, and Lekutai are not persuasive. The argument that claim 1 is not taught by Hanrieder is not persuasive. Hanrieder does disclose “a communication…”, “…a RF circuitry to transmit and receive communications;”, & “wherein the communication…”. Hanrieder clearly teaches radio circuitry (1010) which is shown in paragraph [0091] and in figure 11 of Hanrieder. This radio circuitry (1010) is used to receive and transmit radio frequency signals which is used for communication amongst other vehicles such as agricultural vehicles. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to implement Hanrider for this limitation since Hanrieder clearly teaches both agricultural vehicles (16, 18, 20) and these agricultural vehicles (16, 18, 20) using radio circuitry (1010).
The argument that claim 1 is not taught by McLoughin is not persuasive. McLoughin does disclose “a communication and lighting system positioned in an elevated position above the cab, wherein the communication and lighting system includes antenna elements…” & “…and lighting system comprises lighting circuitry to emit light in a rotating pattern to indicate a warning condition and a communication state; and”. Figure 1 – 2 show the lighting bars (14 & 16) elevated above the vehicle. McLoughlin undoubtedly shows these lighting bars (14 & 16) in an elevated position in figures 1 - 2. There lighting bars (14 &16) also rotate and/or flash to emit a warning [0016], [0019]. This rotation while flashing constitutes as a warning condition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that McLoughlin does teach having lighting bars in an elevated position that can rotate and flash when emitting a warning condition.
The argument that claim 1 is not taught by Rodriguez is not persuasive. Rodriguez does disclose “wherein the RF circuitry comprises a dual frequency radio having a first frequency and a second frequency to transmit and receive communications at multiple frequency bands, wherein the first frequency has a larger bandwidth and a shorter range compared to the second frequency,…”. Rodriguez a dual-band or multi-band antenna that is used for wireless communication [0101]. Each antenna is used for different frequencies. Paragraph [0108] elaborates further that the second antenna (190) in figure 10G may be used for a second frequency band that is on a different frequency band compared to the other antennas. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to incorporate Rodriguez to implement multiple frequency bands in which one frequency band may have a larger bandwidth compared to the other antennas.
The argument that claim 1 is not taught by Walker is not persuasive. Walker does disclose “wherein the RF circuitry is configured to transmit high priority and data normal priority data when a range is sufficient to receive the high priority data and the normal priority data,…”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a range is selected to achieve the intended function and therefore is sufficient for that purpose. Otherwise, frequencies within the UHF range would not have been transmitted if those signals wouldn’t be able to sufficiently reach its target. Therefore, Walker does teach “…when a range is sufficient to receive the high priority data and the normal priority data,…”. Due to Walker meeting these limitations, Lekutai’s arguments are now moot due to Lekutai depending on Walker meeting the “…when a range is sufficient to receive the high priority data and the normal priority data,…” limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16 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.
Claim 16 mentions “…data affecting how…” but the disclosure doesn’t exactly mention how other machines or vehicles are being “affected”. Are they being slowed down? Are they pausing? Are they running a different route? For examining purposes, “affecting” will be interpreted broadly as any sort of after effect to the machines or vehicles when high priority data is finished being transmitted.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200409353A1 (hereinafter, “Hanrieder”), and further in view of US20140340214A1 (hereinafter, “McLoughlin”), and further in view of US20200286306A1 (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”), and further in view of US20090060065A1 (hereinafter, “Walker”), and further in view of US20210360414A1 (hereinafter, “Lekutai”).
10. Regarding claim 1, Hanrieder teaches a machine for agricultural operations, comprising ([0029] Fig. 1): Hanrieder has multiple agricultural machines meant for agricultural type operations.
a cab for an operator of the machine; and [0029] Operator cabins in the agricultural machines are present (34 & 36).
11. Hanreider further teaches …and a RF circuitry to transmit and receive communications [0091], [0121]; Radio circuitry (1010) receives and transmits radio frequency (RF) signals [0091]. The radio circuitry may include one or more antennas (1012).
Hanreider does not explicitly teach a communication and lighting system positioned in an elevated position above the cab, wherein the communication and lighting system includes antenna elements…
McLoughlin teaches a communication and lighting system positioned in an elevated position above the cab, wherein the communication and lighting system includes antenna elements… ([0015], [0082] Fig. 1 – 2) McLoughlin discusses incorporating lighting bars (14 & 16) that can be rotated to emit light in a rotating pattern to signal a warning condition and a communication state that go on top of a vehicle. Since Hanrieder mention the usage of lighting controllers, this implies that some sort of lighting system is present [0082]. Hanrieder also does say the device (1000) is portable and also can be not portable as well as being implemented into hardware or software which gives this device (1000) flexibility on where it can be mounted or implemented via hardware or software on the agricultural machine. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement McLoughlin’s teachings into Hanrieder since Hanrieder already contains electronic control units (ECU) and lighting controllers that can easily be combined with McLoughlin’s teachings of having lighting bars (14 & 16). McLoughlin also has lighting bars (14 & 16) which are located on top of a vehicle cabin ([0015] Fig. 1 – 2). Due to this, implementing this into Hanrieder’s agricultural machine(s) would give the communication and lighting system an elevated position above the cabin.
Hanrieder and McLoughlin are analogous art because Hanrider teaches on an RF circuitry and incorporates a lighting system that is present while McLoughlin teaches on having a lighting system that goes on top of a cabin in an elevated position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of McLoughlin to modify the teachings of the combination of Hanrieder to include the teachings of McLoughlin to have a lighting system that can easily be seen to more thoroughly communicate to people that the machine is in a current state/condition.
12. Hanrieder teaches wherein the communication [0091], [0121]; Radio circuitry (1010) receives and transmits radio frequency (RF) signals [0091]. The radio circuitry may include one or more antennas (1012). The device (1000) has the radio circuitry (1010) which can implement certain components of this device (1000) via hardware or software or a combination thereof [0121]. Hanrieder already teaches on the agricultural machines. Implementing McLoughlin into Hanrieder to get a lighting system on the top of the cabin would then cause for the device (1000) to implement the radio circuitry (1010) module due on top of the cabin with the lighting system due to various components of the device (1000) having the capabilities of being implemented separately.
However, McLoughlin in the same field of endeavor, teaches …and lighting system comprises lighting circuitry to emit light in a rotating pattern to indicate a warning condition and a communication state; and ([0015] - [0016], [0019] Fig. 5) McLoughlin discusses incorporating lighting bars (14 & 16) that can be rotated to emit light in a rotating pattern to signal a warning condition and a communication state that go on top of a vehicle [0015]. Hanrieder mentions the usage of lighting controllers, this implies that some sort of lighting system is present [0082]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to implement McLoughlin’s lighting bars (14 & 16) which consist of LEDs [0021] within the lighting bars to be installed onto the top of the agricultural vehicle in order to signal when the vehicle is moving or when the vehicle is receiving or transmitting communication.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Hanrieder with the teachings of McLoughlin, to more efficiently publicly display when the vehicle is in a certain state.
13. Hanrieder further does not explicitly teach wherein the RF circuitry comprises a dual frequency radio having a first frequency and a second frequency to transmit and receive communications at multiple frequency bands, wherein the first frequency has a larger bandwidth and a shorter range compared to the second frequency,
However, Rodriguez teaches wherein the RF circuitry comprises a dual frequency radio having a first frequency and a second frequency to transmit and receive communications at multiple frequency bands, wherein the first frequency has a larger bandwidth and a shorter range compared to the second frequency,… [0101], [0108], [0112] Rodriguez teaches on having a multi-band antenna installed on an agricultural machine (10) that can be used for wireless communication. The multi-band antenna can communicate and receive signals. This is practically the same as a dual frequency radio because a radio can also transmit and receive on different frequency spectrums similar to how this multi-band antenna works. The multi-band antenna (190) may have a second antenna that can operate on a different frequency band from a first frequency band [0108]. This second antenna may be a frequency with a larger bandwidth compared to the other antenna with a lower frequency band. It is an inherent physics law that higher frequencies have shorter ranges compared to lower frequencies which have longer ranges when communicating. Hanrieder (US20200409353A1) teaches implementing radio circuitry (1010) [0091]. The fact that Hanrieder teaches on implementing radio circuitry that can receive and transmit signals within an agricultural machine shows that RF circuitry is possible and means that it would’ve been obvious to implement Rodriguez into Hanrieder to achieve a dual frequency radio that Hanrieder doesn’t teach on because Hanrieder has the structural foundation already created for wireless radio communication.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Hanrieder with the teachings of Rodriguez, to have an agricultural machine that can wirelessly communicate through multiple frequency channels for more efficient communication with other computing devices so information can be harvested [0082] – [0083].
14. Handrieder further does not explicitly teach wherein the RF circuitry is configured to transmit high priority data and normal priority data when a range is sufficient to receive the high priority data and the normal priority data, and wherein the RF circuitry is configured when the range is only sufficient for the second frequency to first transmit high priority data then transmit normal priority data after the high priority data has been transmitted.
However, Walker teaches wherein the RF circuitry is configured to transmit high priority and data normal priority data when a range is sufficient to receive the high priority data and the normal priority data,… ([0023] Fig. 2) Walker teaches on transmitting both high and low priority data. Figure 2 shows the frequency range in which data is transmitted over. This frequency range being in the ultra-high frequency range (UHF). The satellite (14) and the terrestrial repeater (20) are transmitting both high and low priority data in the same UHF frequency. The terrestrial repeaters will inherently require a specific range to be met in order to have such UHF’s be sent over due the fact that higher frequencies have lesser range then lower frequencies.
Walker does not explicitly teach …and wherein the RF circuitry is configured when the range is only sufficient for the second frequency to first transmit high priority data then transmit normal priority data after the high priority data has been transmitted.
Rodriguez teaches …and wherein the RF circuitry is configured when the range is only sufficient for the second frequency to first transmit high priority data then transmit normal priority data after the high priority data has been transmitted [0101]. Rodriguez has a lower frequency (LF) where data can be transmitted and sent through using the dual or multi-band antenna that is installed on the agricultural machine (10) in the 900MHz range. Walker can already transmit through the higher frequency band but doesn’t recite any sort of lower frequency band. Rodriguez does recite a lower frequency band in which data can be communicated through in the 900MHz range. Therefore, if Walker and its terrestrial repeaters don’t have sufficient range to transmit high and normal priority data through the UHF band then we can use Lekutai’s LF band to then transmit that high and normal priority data.
Walker and Rodriguez are analogous art because Walker can transmit high and normal priority data through a UHF band while Rodriguez can also send data over using a LF band.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Walker and Rodriguez, to modify the teachings of the combination of Hanrieder to include the teachings of Walker and Rodriguez to get data sent over quickly with higher frequencies as well as the usage of lower frequencies in case the higher frequency isn’t usable so that data can always make it to the receiver regardless.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200409353A1 (hereinafter, “Hanrieder”), and further in view of US20140340214A1 (hereinafter, “McLoughlin”), and further in view of US20200286306A1 (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”), and further in view of US20090060065A1 (hereinafter, “Walker”), and further in view of US20210360414A1 (hereinafter, “Lekutai”), and further in view of US20170311534A1 (hereinafter, “Rusciolelli”).
16. Regarding claim 16, Hanrieder does not explicitly teach the machine of claim 1, wherein high priority data is data affecting how other machines or vehicles perform their product application.
However, Walker teaches the machine of claim 1, wherein high priority data… [0019] Walker teaches transmitting high priority signals (high priority data).
Hanrieder does not explicitly teach …is data affecting how other machines or vehicles perform their product application.
However, Rusciolelli teaches …is data affecting how other machines or vehicles perform their product application ([0037] Fig. 5 & 7). Rusciolelli teaches monitoring for event conditions (data) based on data and using those event conditions within a mission plan to control operation of autonomous agricultural vehicles (10). Due to how the mission plan coordinates operations across multiple vehicles (10), the data underlying the event conditions affects how other machines perform their agricultural operations (perform their product application) when the mission plan gets revised (188 & 220).
Walker and Rusciolelli are analogous art to Hanrieder because Walker teaches on transmitting high priority signals while Rusciolelli teaches on monitoring for event conditions and based on the monitored event conditions will revise the mission plan for the agricultural machines. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine Walker with Rusciolelli to improve responsiveness and reliability of agricultural machine control systems. It would have been obvious to apply the prioritization techniques of Walker to the event-based mission planning systems of Rusciolelli so that event condition data affecting machine operation is transmitted and processed with higher priority, thereby ensuring timely revision of mission plans and improved coordination of agricultural machines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Walker and Rusciolelli, to modify the teachings of the modified Hanrider reference to include the teachings of Walker and Rusciolelli to improve coordination amongst the agricultural machines.
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 DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights