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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 17 June 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least Kubota as detailed in the rejection below.
2. Arguments concerning independent claim 20 are addressed in the revised rejections below. See also Ellaboudy (US # 2024/0065131), who also teaches the obstacle dimension (P82, etc).
3. Applicant’s challenge to the use of Official Notice for dependent claims 10-14 are addressed in the revised rejections below. The argument concerning dependent claim 16 is moot due to the cancellation of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-15, 17-18, and 21-23 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.
The claim limitation “working width” is indefinite. “Working width” is not defined in the original specification, and it is unclear if “working width” means the widest portion of the machine, the track width of the machine (as implied in P51 of the PG-PUB), the track width of the implement (as implied in P31, which is similar to the widest portion of the machine), or some other width.
The examiner will interpret “working width” to mean the widest portion of the machine, or any of the other suggested definitions above. As best understood by the examiner, the claims will be treated on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-9, 14-15, 17-18, and 20-23 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), the agricultural machine having a working width (P65, 162, 169, 122, etc: implement width mapped to “working width” because implement is widest part of agricultural machine as shown in fig 7);
obtaining an overall width of the agricultural machine, the overall width being different than the working width (P65, 162, 169, etc: agricultural machine width mapped to “overall width” of the agricultural machine);
obtaining obstacle data identifying a location of an obstacle (fig 16, P168-169, etc: obstacle 40) outside the working width of the agricultural machine (P168-169, etc: obstacles identified inside and outside of working width);
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: identifies potential collision based on both overall width and working width);
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 claim 3, Kubota further discloses 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), and re-generating the guidance line based on the guidance line modification (fig 16, P168-169, etc).
Regarding claims 4 and 23, Kubota further discloses that the agricultural machine comprises a first machine having a first frame (machine body), and a second machine having a second frame (implement), the first machine providing propulsion for the second machine as the first machine travels along a first path (fig 2, P81, etc: agricultural machine providing propulsion for implement),
the second machine is coupled to the first machine at a coupling (figs 2, 7, etc) that facilitates the second machine following a second path that is different than the first path of the first machine (P65, 162, 169, etc: implement follows second path centered on same guidance line as first path followed by machine body, but second path is wider (and thus different from first path) because the implement is wider than the machine body),
and further comprising:
obtaining kinematic information corresponding to the second machine, calculating the second 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 second path of the second machine and the location of the obstacle (fig 16, P168-169, 65, 162, 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 claim 6, 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).
Regarding claim 14, Kubota 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); and
detecting an operator actuation of the operator actuatable input mechanism indicative of the working/overall width of the agricultural machine (P122, etc: “The working breadth may be set and recorded by the user manipulating the operational terminal 200 or the terminal device 400”. The working width is indicative of the overall width, so an input indicative of the working width would also be indicative of the overall width).
Regarding claim 21, Kubota further discloses generating the guidance line based on the working width of the agricultural machine (“working breadth of the implement 300”) and a field boundary (fig 7, P122, etc).
Regarding claim 22, Kubota further discloses that generating the guidance line comprises generating the guidance line such that the overall width of the agricultural machine extends outside the field boundary (fig 7, P122, etc).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 8, 10-14, 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: obstacle dimension strongly implied because obstacle dimension would be required to identify a potential collision between an obstacle and an agricultural machine using the width of the agricultural machine, the guidance line, and the location of the obstacle; further, the obstacle sensors 130, LiDAR sensor 140, and cameras 120 used to detect the obstacle would also inherently detect a dimension of the obstacle).
Regarding claim 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. See for example Tsurumi (figs 6, 11-13, 15, claim 3, etc).
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 claim 14, Kubota 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); and
detecting an operator actuation of the operator actuatable input mechanism indicative of the working/overall width of the agricultural machine (P122, etc: “The working breadth may be set and recorded by the user manipulating the operational terminal 200 or the terminal device 400”. The working width is indicative of the overall width, so an input indicative of the working width would also be indicative of the overall width).
10. Claims 10-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0337500) in view of Tsurumi (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP 2025-115773).
Regarding claim 10, Kubota fails to disclose that obtaining obstacle data comprises: detecting an operator input indicative of an obstacle location and an obstacle type.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsurumi discloses detecting an operator input indicative of an obstacle location and an obstacle type (figs 6, 11-13, 15, etc: “Figure 13 is a schematic partial enlarged view of the display unit 201 displaying buttons for inputting the type of obstacle 20. After inputting the start and end positions of the obstacle 20 (while creating the field map MP11), the ECU 185 causes the display unit 201 to display one or more buttons for inputting the type of obstacle 20, such as the water intake button 207a, concrete wall button 207b, stone button 207c, and other button 207d”).
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 and/or taught by Tsurumi, in order to enable operator correction or addition of obstacle data misdetected or not detected by the sensors, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Kubota in view of Tsurumi further discloses that detecting an operator input indicative of an obstacle type comprises:
detecting the operator input indicating that the obstacle is a point obstacle type, the obstacle location being a point (figs 6, 11-13, 15, etc: stone type obstacle B2), wherein obtaining obstacle dimension data comprises obtaining the obstacle dimension data indicative of a size of the obstacle at the point (figs 6, 11-13, 15, claim 3: “dimensions of the obstacle are registered”, etc).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota in view of Tsurumi further discloses that detecting an operator input indicative of an obstacle type comprises:
detecting the operator input indicating that the obstacle is a line obstacle type (figs 6, 11-13, 15, etc: wall type obstacle B3), wherein obtaining obstacle dimension data comprises obtaining the obstacle dimension data indicative of a length of the obstacle (figs 6, 11-13, 15, etc: “Figure 13 is a schematic partial enlarged view of the display unit 201 displaying buttons for inputting the type of obstacle 20. After inputting the start and end positions of the obstacle 20 (while creating the field map MP11), the ECU 185 causes the display unit 201 to display one or more buttons for inputting the type of obstacle 20, such as the water intake button 207a, concrete wall button 207b, stone button 207c, and other button 207d”).
Regarding claim 13, Kubota in view of Tsurumi further discloses that detecting an operator input indicative of an obstacle type comprises:
detecting the operator input indicating that the obstacle is an area obstacle type (figs 6, 11-13, 15, etc: water type obstacle B1), wherein obtaining obstacle dimension data comprises obtaining the obstacle dimension data indicative of the area of the obstacle at the obstacle location (figs 6, 11-13, 15, claim 3: “dimensions of the obstacle are registered”, etc).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights