DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 11/25/25 has been entered
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 § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US PG Pub No. 2014/0277675) in view of Guery (GB 2537860)
Regarding claim 1 and 17, Anderson teaches An agricultural machine, comprising:
a work vehicle including a vehicle wheel configured to move the work vehicle in a direction of travel; (102 figure 1 and 3 paragraph 19 host machine)
an agricultural implement configured to be towed by the work vehicle in the direction of travel, the agricultural implement including a first implement wheel and a second implement wheel configured to move the agricultural implement in the direction of travel; and (104 figure 1 and 3 aux machine paragraph 20 and 26 tillage machinery)
a regenerative brake assembly including an energy storage device, the regenerative brake assembly configured to steer the agricultural implement and to generate electrical power supplied to the energy storage device, and (paragraph 43 trajectory assist mode regenerative braking to steer aux machine 104)
wherein, the electrical power supplied to the energy storage device is generated by the regenerative brake assembly as the regenerative brake assembly steers the agricultural implement (paragraph 49 and 50 figure 3B use regeneration braking to steer to keep on desired work path 302 paragraph 75 and 78 812 figure 8 paragraph 80).
Anderson teaches wherein, when braking the first implement wheel and the second implement wheel independently of each other, the regenerative brake assembly is configured to:
brake the first implement wheel to steer the agricultural implement in a first direction; and
brake the second implement wheel to steer the agricultural implement in a second direction different from the first direction. (figure 3a vs 3b. paragraph 49 and 50 figure 3B use regeneration braking to steer to keep on desired work path 302 paragraph 75 and 78 812 figure 8 paragraph 80).
In the case that Anderson does not explicitly teach however Guery teaches
the regenerative brake assembly is configured to:
brake the first implement wheel to steer the agricultural implement in a first direction; and
brake the second implement wheel to steer the agricultural implement in a second direction different from the first direction (abstract emergency mode brake force (via regen) oe wheel and power wheel of opposite gear (figure 7)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Anderson based on the teachings of Guery to teach the regenerative brake assembly is configured to: brake the first implement wheel to steer the agricultural implement in a first direction; and brake the second implement wheel to steer the agricultural implement in a second direction different from the first direction. The motivation would be to control movement of a vehicle and generate yaw in emergency situations (Guery abstract)
Regarding claim 2, Anderson teaches wherein: the regenerative brake assembly is configured to brake the implement wheel to steer the agricultural implement; and
the electrical power supplied to the energy storage device is generated by the regenerative brake assembly as the regenerative brake assembly brakes the implement wheel. (paragraph 49 and 50 figure 3B use regeneration braking to steer to keep on desired work path 302 paragraph 75 and 78 812 figure 8 paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson teaches wherein the implement wheel of the agricultural implement corresponds to a first implement wheel, the agricultural implement further comprising:
a second implement wheel, and wherein:
the regenerative brake assembly is configured to brake the first implement wheel and the second implement wheel independently of each other to steer the agricultural implement; and
the electrical power supplied to the energy storage device is generated by the regenerative brake assembly as the regenerative brake assembly brakes the first implement wheel and the second implement wheel independently of each other (paragraph 49 and 50 figure 3B use regeneration braking to steer to keep on desired work path 302 paragraph 75 and 78 812 figure 8 paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson teaches
further comprising:
a computing system communicatively coupled to the regenerative brake assembly, the computing system configured to:
receive an input of a selected position for the agricultural implement to be steered to as the agricultural implement moves in the direction of travel; and (302 figure 3b and 3c is desired direction of travel paragraph 49 and 50 figure 3B use regeneration braking to steer to keep on desired work path 302 paragraph 75 and 78 812 figure 8 paragraph 80).
control an operation of the regenerative brake assembly to brake at least one of the first implement wheel or the second implement wheel to steer the agricultural implement to the selected position (paragraph 49 and 50 figure 3B use regeneration braking to steer to keep on desired work path 302 paragraph 75 and 78 812 figure 8 paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson teaches wherein the regenerative brake assembly further comprises:
an electric motor (124 figure 1) configured to drive the implement wheel, the electric motor electrically coupled to the energy storage device (122 figure 1 paragraph 24) for receiving the electrical power from the energy storage device.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson teaches wherein:
the regenerative brake assembly further comprises a regenerative brake configured to brake the implement wheel; and
when braking the implement wheel, the regenerative brake rotationally drives the electric motor such that electric power is supplied by the electric motor to the energy storage device (paragraph 49 and 50 figure 3B use regeneration braking to steer to keep on desired work path 302 paragraph 75 and 78 812 figure 8 paragraph 80; and paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 8-10, see the rejection to claim 1 and 5, 2, 3, as the limitations are substantially similar.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson teaches wherein, when receiving the input of the selected position, the computing system is configured to:
receive an input of a selected position for the agricultural implement to be steered in which a longitudinal centerline (302 figure 3A-3c) of the agricultural implement is aligned with a longitudinal centerline of the work vehicle (804 figure 8).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson teaches a terrain slope sensor (120 machine controller paragraph 27) configured to generate data indicative of a slope of a terrain over which the agricultural implement traverses, and wherein:
the computing system is communicatively coupled to the terrain slope sensor; and
when receiving the input of the selected position, the computing system is configured to:
determine the selected position for the agricultural implement to be steered to based on the data generated by the terrain slope sensor (figure 3a paragraph 48 slope).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson teaches further comprising: a wheel slip sensor configured to generate data indicative of an occurrence of a wheel slip of the vehicle wheel relative to the ground, and wherein:
the computing system is communicatively coupled to the wheel slip sensor; and
when receiving the input of the selected position, the computing system is configured to:
determine the selected position for the agricultural implement to be steered to based on the data generated by the wheel slip sensor (paragraph 41 brake sensors).
Regarding claim 15-16, see the rejection to claims 6 and 7 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Regarding claim 18, Anderson teaches further comprising: when receiving the input of the selected position, receiving, with the computing system, an input of a selected position for the agricultural implement to be steered in which a longitudinal centerline of the agricultural implement is aligned with a longitudinal centerline of a work vehicle configured to tow the agricultural implement (paragraph 48 and 40 desired work path 302).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson teaches further comprising: receiving, with the computing system, terrain slope sensor data indicative of a slope of a terrain over which the agricultural implement traverses; and
when receiving the input of the selected position, determining, with the computing system, the selected position for the agricultural implement to be steered to based on the received terrain slope sensor data (figure 3A paragraph 48 slope).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson teaches further comprising: receiving, with the computing system, wheel slip sensor data indicative of an occurrence of a wheel slip of a vehicle wheel of the work vehicle towing the agricultural implement relative to the ground; and
when receiving the input of the selected position, determining, with the computing system, the selected position for the agricultural implement to be steered to based on the data generated by the wheel slip sensor (paragraph 41 brake sensors).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights