CTNF 18/614,247 CTNF 99623 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/614,247 , with an effective filing date of 3/22/2024 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/21/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner. Specification 06-14 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. 06-16 AIA Applicant is further reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because contains phraseology that may be implied (e.g., line 1 “Systems and methods are provided for…”) . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). ___________________________________________ The use of the terms Wi-Fi, ZigBee, Bluetooth (i.e., [0049] line 8), which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 line 11 appears to have a typographical error where operation mode should be corrected to operation al mode . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 4 and 14 are 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 4 line 9 and claim 14 line 11, the claims recite the limitation determining the operational mode and it is unclear in what way this is different than the identified at least one operational mode recited in claim 4 line 9 and claim 14 line 12 and if these are different from the determined operational mode recited in claim 1 lines 7-8 and claim 11 line 13. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vilar et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0316713 A1), hereinafter referred to as Vilar. Regarding claim 11 , Vilar discloses: A system for determining, from a plurality of operational modes, an operational mode for a first agricultural machine ([0011] sentence (s.) 1, operating mode corresponding to each remaining mission of the one or more missions to be performed may comprise at least one of a travel mode, a work mode, and an idle mode) , the system comprising: a location system configured to identify a location of the first agricultural machine ([0011] s. 2-3 linked to GPS positioning capabilities and able to obtain geolocation data for the work vehicle) ; at least one processor ([0038] controller includes or may be associated with a memory unit and a processor) ; and a memory device coupled to the at least one processor ([0038] as discussed above) , the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause one or more of the at least one processor to: determine, using at least the location of the first agricultural machine , a position of the first agricultural machine relative to at least one of a field, a boundary, a crop material, a passageway, a second agricultural machine, and a road ([0011] as discussed above and s.4 determine a travel time from a current location of the work vehicle to respective locations of one or more other missions to be performed in a work mode which is construed as relative to at least one of a field, boundary, crop material) ; determine a predicted position of the first agricultural machine relative to at least one of the field, the boundary, the crop material, the passageway, and the road ([0035] s.1, receive location data corresponding to the current geolocation of the work vehicle and one or more destination locations of the work vehicle including for example at least a final destination with a charging station, and/or route information there between which is construed as a predicted position of the work vehicle) ; determine from at least one of the position and the predicted position the operational mode for the first agricultural machine ([0011] where the missions define the operation mode from the position of the vehicle and the predicted position, specifically if the mission calls for the travel mode to operate to get to the final destination of the mission before engaging the work mode) ; and generate one or more signals, in response to the determination of the operational mode, to adjust one or more settings of the first agricultural machine to facilitate the operation of the first agricultural machine in the determined operational mode ([0037 s. 4 controller may also be configured to generate control signals for controlling the operation of respective actuators, or signals for indirect control via intermediate control units, associated with a machine steering control system, a machine implement control system, and/or a machine drive control system and [0056] s.3, controller may automatically implement changes in the operating parameters of the work vehicle for optimization purposes, or the controller may generate recommended settings for operator confirmation) . Claim 1 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 11 above, therefore claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11. Regarding claim 12 , Vilar discloses: The system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of operational modes comprises at least a transport mode and a field mode ([0011] as discussed above in claim 11) . Claim 2 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 12 above, therefore claim 2 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12. Regarding claim 13 , Vilar discloses: The system of claim 12, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause one or more of the at least one processor to retrieve a field boundary map, and wherein the field boundary map comprises location information for at least one of the field, the boundary, the crop material, the passageway, and the road ([0035] The controller as shown is further configured to receive location data corresponding to, e.g., the current geolocation of the work vehicle, one or more destination locations of the work vehicle, including for example at least a final destination with a charging station, and/or route information there between, which is interpreted as map data that comprises location information of at least one of the field and crop material) . Claim 3 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 13 above, therefore claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13. Regarding claim 14 , Vilar discloses: The system of claim 11, wherein the system further comprises a sensor, and wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause one or more of the at least one processor to: determine, using information from the sensor, a current state of an auxiliary device of the first agricultural machine ([0033] sensors may be provided to detect machine operating conditions or positioning, including for example an orientation sensor, global positioning system (GPS) sensors, vehicle speed sensors, vehicle implement positioning sensors, and the like, and whereas one or more of these sensors may be discrete in nature the sensor system may further refer to signals provided from the machine control system) ; identify, from a plurality of predetermined states, a predetermined state for the auxiliary device that corresponds to the current state of the auxiliary device that was identified using information from the sensor ([0056] s.2 controller may be configured to optimize operating parameters for the work vehicle which is construed as identifying a predetermined state for the auxiliary device that corresponds to the current state of that device) ; and identify at least one operational mode from the plurality of operational modes that corresponds to the determined predetermined state ([0056] s.2 controller may be configured to optimize operating parameters for the work vehicle, such as for example by setting maximums to one or more operating parameters or by determining and applying a functional relationship between a variable which is characteristic of the specified mission (e.g., corresponding to work site conditions, load severity, or the like) and of one or more operating parameters of the work vehicle) ; and wherein identification of the operational mode comprises the operation mode being determined based on the at least one operational mode ([0056] as discussed above where the operation mode is determined by the identified operation mode as to be optimized by the system) . Claim 4 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 14 above, therefore claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 14. Regarding claim 15 , Vilar discloses: The system of claim 11, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to identify a job status relating to an operation for which the first agricultural machine is configured to perform, wherein the operational mode for the first agricultural machine is further determined, at least in part, on the job status (see claim 1 regarding missions) , and wherein the operation of the first agricultural machine comprises a harvesting operation ([0001] agricultural industry machines which necessarily include those performing a harvesting operation) , and wherein the job status relates to at least one of a harvested and a non-harvested state of the crop material ([0018] a workday is automatically planned for each of the plurality of work vehicles which completes each specified mission which is construed as a job status relating to a harvested or non-harvested crop material) . Claim 5 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 15 above, therefore claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15. Regarding claim 20 , Vilar discloses: The system of claim 11, wherein the predicted position of the first agricultural machine is based, at least in part, on at least one of an identified travel path of the first agricultural machine and a heading of the first agricultural machine relative to the identified travel path (see claim 1 regarding travel mode from a current position to a final destination and the route between) . Claim 10 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 20 above, therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilar et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0316713 A1), hereinafter referred to as Vilar, in view of Linsmeier et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0035254 A1), hereinafter referred to as Linsmeier . Regarding claim 16 , Vilar discloses: The system of claim 11, wherein the system further comprises a sensor configured to obtain a captured information, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause one or more of the at least one processor to: determine, using the captured information, a sensed location of the first agricultural machine ([0033] use of optical sensors and vehicle speed sensors to sense location) , but Vilar does not explicitly disclose: confirm the location of the first agricultural machine based on a comparison of the sensed location of the first agricultural machine and the location identified by the location system. However, Linsmeier teaches in [0035] s.2, the sensor array includes a GPS device, a LIDAR location device, inertial navigation, or other sensors structured to determine a position of the work machine relative to locations, maps, other equipment, objects or other reference points. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural machines and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the agricultural machine operational mode determination system of Vilar, by incorporating the position sensor array teachings of Linsmeier, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of a more robust and redundant system of determining a position of an agricultural vehicle. Claim 6 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 16 above, therefore claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16. Regarding claim 17 , Vilar, as modified by Linsmeier, discloses: The system of claim 16, wherein the sensor is an optical sensor ([0033] use of optical sensors) , wherein the captured information includes information representative of an environment in which the first agricultural machine is located ([0033] detect ambient conditions including for example obstacles in the path and/or vicinity of the work vehicle, and may include laser scanners, thermal sensors, imaging devices, structured light sensors, ultrasonic sensors, and other optical sensors and are provided and configured to optimize recognition of obstacles in a working path of the vehicle) , and wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause one or more of the at least one processor to: identify, from the captured information, at least one object from the environment ([0033] as discussed above in particular recognition of obstacles in a working path of the vehicle) ; and identify, using at least the identified at least one object, the sensed location ([0035] s. 2, location data may be provided via a global positioning system (GPS) and/or from sensors/transceivers located on the work vehicle which may also be characterized as one of the sensors in the sensor system) . Claim 7 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 17 above, therefore claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 17. Regarding claim 18 , Vilar, as modified by Linsmeier, discloses: The system of claim 17, wherein the at least one object comprises a representation of at least one of the road, the passageway, the crop material, and the field ([0033] crop material may necessarily be seen as an obstacle such that the machine does not arbitrarily drive though the crop material) . Claim 8 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 18 above, therefore claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18. ____________________________________________ 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilar et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0316713 A1), hereinafter referred to as Vilar, in view of Linsmeier et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0035254 A1), hereinafter referred to as Linsmeier, and Laugen et al. (US Pat. No. 12,096,718 B1), hereinafter referred to as Laugen . Regarding claim 19 , Vilar, as modified by Linsmeier, discloses: The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one sensor is a dynamic sensor ([0033] vehicle speed sensors which is construed as a dynamic sensor as an accelerometer would be used to sense the change in speed) , and wherein the determination of the sensed location comprises comparing the captured information to at least one predetermined threshold, the at least one predetermined threshold corresponding to one or more values anticipated to be sensed by the dynamic sensor when the first agricultural machine is on at least one of the road and the field. However, Laugen teaches in column 9 line 56- column 10 line 19 where a road mode detector detects when agricultural harvester is in, or is changing to, a road mode in which agricultural harvester is about to travel out of a field. Further, the road mode detector receives an input indicative of the ground speed of agricultural harvester. If the ground speed of agricultural harvester exceeds a threshold level, this may indicate that agricultural harvester is in road mode and no longer located in a field. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural machines and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the agricultural machine operational mode determination system of Vilar as modified by the position sensor array teachings of Linsmeier, by incorporating the speed based vehicle position teachings of Laugen, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of a more robust and redundant system of determining a position of an agricultural vehicle based on speed thresholds. Claim 9 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 19 above, therefore claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 19. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm. 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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 5 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 6 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 7 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 8 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 9 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 10 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 11 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 12 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 13 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 14 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 15 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 16 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 17 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/614,247 Page 18 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights