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 27 October 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least Varma as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 14, 17-19, 21, and 24-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Varma Bhupatiraju et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0094371).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 19, Varma discloses a method for automatic steering of an agricultural machine (P39, 43, 55, 63, etc) comprising:
receiving point cloud data from a camera (P25, 42, 48, 67, 74, 89, etc);
determining a location of a row of plants based on the point cloud data (fig 3, P26, 53, 75, etc), the determining comprising determining a centerline of the row based on a Hough transform detection algorithm (P23, 50, 73, 87, etc) operating in one of a harvester mode and a tractor mode (P40: harvesting operation/mode vs non-harvesting operation/mode using tractor, or P63: row following mode vs not row following mode, etc; please note that although Applicant’s specification may be narrower, the claim language encompasses an invention including two modes in which the same or different Hough transform detection algorithm can be performed); and
generating a steering angle (P55, 65, etc) for the agricultural machine based on the location of the row (figs 1, 3, P35-37, 39, 93, etc).
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 21, Varma further discloses that the Hough transform detection algorithm determines the centerline of the row based on a horizontal projection of the point cloud data (figs 10-13, 18, P23-24, 50-51, 87-88, etc: bird’s eye view).
Regarding claims 6, 17, and 24, Varma further discloses that the generating a steering angle is further based on a heading error (figs 3, 1, 15, etc).
Regarding claim 7, Varma further discloses that the heading error is an angle between a longitudinal axis of the agricultural machine and a median line (figs 3, 1, 15, etc: angle between heading line 151/561 and centerline 150/636).
Regarding claims 8, 18, and 25, Varma further discloses that the generating a steering angle is further based on an Xtrack (figs 1, 3: 124, etc: lateral offset of vehicle from centerline).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 4-5, 9-11, 15-16, and 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma Bhupatiraju et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0094371).
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 22, Varma further discloses that the horizontal projection of the point cloud data is based on points of the point cloud that are higher than a ground plane found using an algorithm (P12, 26, 52, 75, etc).
Varma does not disclose that the algorithm is a random sample consensus algorithm.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a random sample consensus algorithm. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
See for example Ellaboudy (# US 20210000006) P212 that discloses finding points of the point cloud that are higher than a ground plane found using a random sample consensus algorithm.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Varma to use a random sample consensus algorithm, as well known in the art, in order to more effectively identify points above the ground plane (P12, 26, 52, 75, etc), with predictable results.
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 23, Varma further discloses that the determining the centerline of the row is further based on a front projection of the point cloud data (fig 1, 9, 15, P50, 73, 87, etc).
Regarding claim 9, Varma further discloses that the Xtrack is a distance from the median line to the agricultural machine (figs 1, 3: 124, etc: lateral offset of vehicle from centerline, etc).
Varma does not explicitly disclose that the distance is to a center of a rear wheel axis of the agricultural machine.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to measure the distance to a center of a rear wheel axis of the agricultural machine, as well known in the art, as one of several obvious points on the agricultural machine which a person of ordinary skill in the art would choose to measure from. Since Applicant has not disclosed that his design choice solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, it appears that the invention would perform equally well using any one of several design choices.
Regarding claim 10, Varma further discloses that the median line is a centerline of the row (figs 1, 9, 15, 3, etc).
Regarding claim 11, Varma further discloses that the median line is a centerline located between the row and an adjacent row parallel to, and offset from, the row (figs 1, 9, 15, 3, 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
January 15, 2026