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
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/30/2026 are moot because they are directed toward the newly added claim limitations regarding determining predicted current location/heading of the leader vehicle. The newly added claim limitations overcome the previous rejection. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, is made in view of reference WO 2021121934 (Gonzalez et al.).
The Examiner notes that Rands teaches using a lead vehicles position for spline fitting to determine the lead vehicles heading (see ¶0010-11).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0204051 (Rands et al.) in view of WO 2021121934 (Gonzalez et al.).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15
Rands teaches: A follower vehicle/non-transitory computer -readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for guiding a follower vehicle (see at least Abstract), comprising:
a steering mechanism (see at least Fig 6 and 32; #612 and #3260; and ¶0063 and ¶0155; Discussing the command curvature is outputted to a control system for navigating the following vehicle. Therefore the control system is steering the vehicle.); and
processing circuitry (#3200) configured to cause the follower vehicle to:
obtain a current location of a leader vehicle (see at least Fig 11; #1110; and ¶0010-11 and ¶0076-82; Discussing receiving a leader vehicle position.) and a predicted current heading of the leader vehicle based on location information received from the leader vehicle (see at least Fig 11; #1110; and ¶0010-11 and ¶0076-82; Discussing determining path of leader vehicle based on leader vehicle position.)
generate a control point (see at least Fig 6, 10B, and 11; #610, #1050, and #1120; and ¶0062 and ¶0078-081; Discussing determining a control path for a following vehicle.) based on
the current location information corresponding to a leader vehicle (see at least Fig 6, 10(A-B), 11, and 22; #606, #110, and #2204; and ¶0060, ¶0078-81, and ¶0102-120; Discussing controlling the follower vehicle based on the position of the leading vehicle.),
the predicted current heading of the leader vehicle (see at least Fig 10(A-B), 11, and 22; #1010b, #1110, and #2204; and ¶0010-11, ¶0076-82, and ¶0102-123; Discussing determining the path of the follower vehicle based on the heading of the leader vehicle.), and
a first model (see at least Fig 10(A-B); 1010(a-b); and ¶0075-79; Discussing using a bicycle model to extrapolate path points.) and,
the first model corresponding to the follower vehicle (see at least Fig 10(A-B); 1010(a-b); and ¶0075-79; Discussing using a bicycle model of the following vehicle to determine control points), and
generate at least a portion of a path (see at least Fig 10B, 11, and 27(A-B); #1050, #1120, #2730(a-b), and #2740; and ¶0076-81 and ¶0124-125; Discussing creating a path for the following vehicle) based on the control point (see at least Fig 10B, 11, and 27(A-B); #1050, #1120, #2730(a-b), and #2740; and ¶0076-81 and ¶0124-125; Discussing creating a path for the following vehicle based on waypoints.), the path being toward a first position relative to the leader vehicle (see at least Fig 10B, 11, and 27(A-B); #1050, #1120, #2730(a-b), and #2740; and ¶0076-81 and ¶0124-125; Discussing that the path/control points are created based on the position of the first vehicle.), and
control a steering angle of the steering mechanism based on the at least the portion of the path (see at least Fig 6 and 31; #612, #3114, and #3116; and ¶0063 and ¶0144-150; Discussing the command curvature is outputted to a control system, based on the path, for navigating the following vehicle.).
Rand does not discuss dealing with data that is delayed and therefore does not specifically teach:
obtain a predicted current location of a leader vehicle.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to compensate for delays in sensing/transmitting/calculating a vehicles position. Specifically Gonzalez teaches:
obtain a predicted current location of a leader vehicle (see at least Fig 2; #30; and ¶0052 and ¶0066-69; Discussing receiving position data of the preceding vehicle and determining the current position based on the position data and a delay.).
generate a control point based on the predicted current location (see at least Fig 3; #6, #10, #303, Kpi, and Kvi; and ¶0052-57 and ¶0066-72).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for determining a path of an agricultural vehicle using a kinematic model disclosed in Rand with a system for compensating for information delay/lag when controlling a vehicle to follow another vehicle as taught in Gonzalez with a reasonable expectation of success, because compensating for the delay between when information is received and when the vehicle is controlled would allow for better control of the vehicle (see Gonzalez Abstract).
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16
Rands discloses:
wherein the first position is a position relative to the leader vehicle at which the follower vehicle receives material transferred from the leader vehicle while the leader vehicle is traveling (see at least Fig 1; #110 and #120; and ¶0046 and ¶0072).
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17
Rands discloses:
wherein the leader vehicle is a harvester (see at least Fig 1; #110 and #120; and ¶0046 and ¶0072); and
the first position is a position relative to the leader vehicle at which the follower vehicle receives agricultural material transferred from the leader vehicle while the leader vehicle is harvesting (see at least Fig 1; #110 and #120; and ¶0046 and ¶0072).
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18
Rands discloses:
wherein the path is a continuous curve (see at least fig 11 and 27(A-B); #1120 and #2740; and ¶0080-82 and ¶0124-125).
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19
Rands discloses:
wherein the first model is a kinematic model (see at least Fig 10(A-B); #1010; and ¶0076);
the kinematic model is a bicycle model corresponding to a rigid body and front wheel steering (see at least Fig 10(A-B); #1010; and ¶0076-79); and
the follower vehicle has a rigid body and front wheel steering (see at least Fig 10(A-B); #1010; and ¶0076-79).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 2022/0204051 (Rands et al.) and WO 2021121934 (Gonzalez et al.) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 20 above, and further in view of US 2023/0331247 (Wurmsdobler et al.).
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20
Rands teaches:
wherein the first model is a kinematic model (see at least Fig 10(A-B); #1010; and ¶0076-79); and
Rand does not specifically teach:
the kinematic model defines dimensions of a wheelbase consistent with dimensions of a wheelbase of the follower vehicle.
However Wurmsdobler teaches:
the kinematic model defines dimensions of a wheelbase consistent with dimensions of a wheelbase of the follower vehicle (see at least Fig 5; #514; and ¶0111-126 and ¶0153-156; Discussing that the kinematic model uses the wheelbase of the vehicle.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for determining a path of an agricultural vehicle using a kinematic model disclosed in Rand and a system for compensating for information delay/lag when controlling a vehicle to follow another vehicle disclosed in Gonzalez with a kinematic model that uses the wheelbase of the vehicle as taught in Wurmsdobler with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would all the system to properly determine the needed steering angle (see Wurmsdobler ¶0153-156).
With respect to claims 7 and 14
Rand teaches:
wherein the first model is a kinematic model (see at least Fig 10(A-B); #1010; and ¶0076-79); and
Rand does not specifically teach:
one of the kinematic model is a model of an Ackermann-steered vehicle and the follower vehicle is an Ackermann-steered vehicle, the kinematic model is a model of an articulated vehicle and the follower vehicle is an articulated vehicle, or the kinematic model is a model of a differentially-steered vehicle and the follower vehicle is a differentially-steered vehicle.
However Wurmsdobler teaches:
one of the kinematic model is a model of an Ackermann-steered vehicle and the follower vehicle is an Ackermann-steered vehicle, the kinematic model is a model of an articulated vehicle and the follower vehicle is an articulated vehicle, or the kinematic model is a model of a differentially-steered vehicle and the follower vehicle is a differentially-steered vehicle (see at least Fig 5; #514; and ¶0111-126 and ¶0153-156; Discussing using an Ackerman model, the examiner notes as written only one of the types of models claimed would be needed to read on the claimed limitation.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for determining a path of an agricultural vehicle using a kinematic model disclosed in Rand and a system for compensating for information delay/lag when controlling a vehicle to follow another vehicle disclosed in Gonzalez with a kinematic model that is for a Ackerman steered vehicle (i.e. Ackerman model) as taught in Wurmsdobler with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would all the system to properly determine the needed steering angle (see Wurmsdobler ¶0153-156).
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 MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights