Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/644,923

OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE BY AUTOMATICALLY SHIFTING A GUIDANCE LINE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
CHEN, SHELLEY
Art Unit
3665
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Deere & Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
349 granted / 528 resolved
+14.1% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
551
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
64.8%
+24.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 528 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 1. 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 – (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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 2. Claims 1-9, 15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0337500). Regarding claims 1, 15, and 20, Kubota discloses a computer implemented method, comprising: receiving a guidance line for navigating an agricultural machine in a work area (fig 16, P168-169, etc: global paths 30 that do not avoid obstacles-> local paths 32 that avoid obstacles); obtaining an overall width of the agricultural machine (P169, etc); obtaining obstacle data identifying a location of an obstacle (fig 16, P168-169, etc: obstacle 40); identifying a potential collision between the agricultural machine and the obstacle based on the overall width of the agricultural machine, the guidance line, and the location of the obstacle (fig 16, P168-169, etc); re-generating the guidance line, to obtain a re-generated guidance line, to avoid the potential collision (fig 16, P168-169, 135, 164, 201, etc: global paths 30 that do not avoid obstacles-> local paths 32 that avoid obstacles; optionally see also related application US 2024/0338037 fig 28); and controlling navigation of the agricultural machine based on the re-generated guidance line (fig 16, P168-169, etc). Regarding claims 2 and 17, Kubota further discloses that identifying a potential collision comprises: calculating a set of potential collision parameters and wherein re-generating the guidance line comprises re-generating the guidance line based on the set of potential collision parameters (fig 16, P168-169, etc). Regarding claim 3, Kubota further discloses that calculating a set of potential collision parameters comprises: identifying a location of contact between the agricultural machine and the obstacle; and calculating a guidance line modification to avoid the contact between the agricultural machine and the obstacle (fig 16, P168-169, etc). Regarding claim 4, Kubota further discloses that the agricultural machine comprises a first machine having a first frame, and a second machine having a second frame, the first machine providing propulsion for the second machine (fig 2, etc: could be prime mover providing propulsion for agricultural machine, or agricultural machine providing propulsion for implement), and wherein obtaining an overall width comprises: obtaining kinematic information corresponding to the second machine, and wherein identifying a potential collision comprises calculating a path of the second machine based on the overall width, the kinematic information, and the guidance line, and identifying the potential collision based on the path of the second machine and the location of the obstacle (fig 16, P168-169, etc). Regarding claims 5 and 18, Kubota further discloses that re-generating the guidance line comprises: shifting the guidance line to a location to avoid the potential collision (fig 16, P168-169, etc). Regarding claims 6 and 19, Kubota further discloses that re-generating the guidance line comprises: shifting a portion of the guidance line so the agricultural machine is navigated around the obstacle (fig 16, P168-169, etc). Regarding claim 7, Kubota further discloses that the guidance line is positioned to enable a portion of the agricultural machine to perform an agricultural operation over an area outside of a field boundary (figs 10, 16, P3, 23, 51, 61-65, 73-74, 102, 120-121, 134-135, 158, 167, 238, etc) and wherein re-generating the guidance line comprises: regenerating a portion of the guidance line to continue to enable the agricultural machine to perform the agricultural operation over a part of the area outside the field boundary (figs 10, 16, P3, 23, 51, 61-65, 73-74, 102, 120-121, 134-135, 158, 167, 238, etc); and shifting a portion of the guidance line so the agricultural machine is navigated around the obstacle (fig 16, P168-169, etc). Regarding claim 8, Kubota further discloses that obtaining obstacle data comprises: obtaining obstacle dimension data indicative of a dimension of the obstacle (fig 16, P72, 75, 91-92, 97, 103, 167, 169, etc) and wherein identifying a potential collision between the agricultural machine and the obstacle comprises identifying the potential collision based on the dimension of the obstacle (fig 16, P72, 75, 91-92, 97, 103, 167, 169, etc). Regarding claim 9, Kubota further discloses that obtaining obstacle data comprises: automatically detecting the obstacle location and obstacle dimensions (P51, 72, 75, 135, etc). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. 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. 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 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. 4. Claims 8, 10-14, 16, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0337500). Regarding claims 8 and 20, Kubota further discloses that obtaining obstacle data comprises: obtaining obstacle dimension data indicative of a dimension of the obstacle (fig 16, P72, 75, 91-92, 97, 103, 167, 169, etc) and wherein identifying a potential collision between the agricultural machine and the obstacle comprises identifying the potential collision based on the dimension of the obstacle (fig 16, P72, 75, 91-92, 97, 103, 167, 169, etc: strongly implied). Regarding claims 10-13, Kubota fails to disclose that obtaining obstacle data comprises: detecting an operator input indicative of an obstacle location and an obstacle type. However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect an operator input indicative of an obstacle location and an obstacle type. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubota to do so, as well known in the art, in order to enable operator correction or addition of obstacle data misdetected or not detected by the sensors, with predictable results. Regarding claims 14 and 16, Kubota in view of knowledge well known in the art further discloses that obtaining an overall width of the agricultural machine (fig 16, P169, etc) comprises: displaying an operator interface with an operator actuatable input mechanism (figs 1-3, 5-6, etc). Kubota fails to disclose detecting an operator actuation of the operator actuatable input mechanism indicative of the overall width of the agricultural machine. detecting an operator actuation of the operator actuatable input mechanism indicative of the overall width of the agricultural machine (well known in the art; the Examiner hereby takes Official Notice). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubota to do so, as well known in the art, in order to enable operator correction or update of the machine width, with predictable results. Regarding claim 16, Kubota further discloses an overall width processor configured to obtain the overall width of the agricultural machine (fig 16, P169, etc: implicit). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays. Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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 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. /Shelley Chen/ Patent Examiner Art Unit 3665 March 19, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576862
SYSTEM FOR DETECTING A FAULTY ECU ON A VEHICLE NETWORK AND A METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568872
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EQUIPMENT CONTROL USING LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL-BASED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570274
INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED COLLABORATIVE AUTOMATED PARKING AND LOCATION MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570272
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AT LEAST ONE DEVICE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, AND ASSOCIATED MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557722
Agricultural Lane Following
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+21.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 528 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month