DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 1/16/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are considered moot because the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the specification, Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the objection. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objections. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome some of the rejections. However, some rejections remain and the amendments have necessitated new rejections as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §102 and 103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6 and 12-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 6, line 3, the limitation “a specific behavior” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether this specific behavior is a new specific behavior or is referring to the limitation recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, line 5, the limitation “a risky zone” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether this instance of risky zone is the same as “a risky zone” recited in line 4 or is a new risky zone.
Claims 13-15 are dependent on claim 12 and inherit the deficiencies above. Therefore, claims 13-15 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said set of possible specific behaviors” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-15 are dependent on claim 13 and inherit the deficiency above. Therefore, claims 14-15 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 13.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheufler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0200294 A1; hereinafter Scheufler) in view of Yamauchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0100522; A1; hereinafter Yamauchi).
Regarding claim 1, Scheufler discloses:
A control device for a mobile agricultural vehicle within a plot of land (guidance/steering system of tractor controls the machine, see at least [0049]; field being worked, see at least [0037]), said device comprising at least: the mobile agricultural vehicle (machine 14 with tractor 16 and fertilizer broadcaster 15, see at least [0036]) comprising a localization element (GPS data module 4 for the on-board sensor system, see at least [0031]; current position determined using GPS, see at least [0032])
a processing and control unit comprising a storage device (machine-specific module is computer of working device, programs and data parts stored in memory of particular modules, see at least [0052]), said storage device comprising input data for mapping of a risky zone located within said plot of land (stored data and information such as critical field data and areas to be avoided, see at least [0006] and [0044]);
wherein said storage device includes data representative of a set of types of risky zones called categories and data representative of a set of specific behaviors of said mobile agricultural vehicle (information about obstacles or areas to be avoided are stored, information about obstacles includes position and whether they can be driven around or over and safe distance and appropriate actions for the machine, see at least [0044]),
wherein said processing and control unit is configured to associate the input data for mapping of risky zone with a category (information about obstacles are stored, see at least [0044]; the previously worked area is detected as critical area then it is regarded as an area to be avoided to prevent being worked a second time, see at least [0045]),
associate said category with a specific behavior of said mobile agricultural vehicle (previously worked area is detected as critical area and is regarded as an area to be avoided to prevent it from being worked a second time, see at least [0045]; appropriate actions for obstacles include lift the unit, turning dosing off, changing setting of dosing device, and folding the arm outward, see at least [0044]) *Examiner sets forth the category would be critical area that is avoidance area and the specific behavior would be to avoid working in the area,
control said specific behavior for said mobile agricultural vehicle, when a position of said mobile agricultural vehicle is located within or near said at least one risky zone (upcoming area to be worked is monitored and calculated in advance to detect the critical areas to respond in a manner that is appropriate for the situation, see at least [0012], [0014], [0019], and [0039]),
wherein said mobile agricultural vehicle is arranged to move autonomously within the plot of land according to said specific behavior controlled by said processing and control unit (electronic machine management system can be used in self-propelled, drawn and attached working machines, see at least [0053]; machines are guided automatically based on data of planned work, see at least [0049])
Scheufler does not disclose:
the specific behavior including a speed of the mobile agricultural vehicle
However, Yamauchi teaches:
the specific behavior including a speed of the mobile agricultural vehicle (determining whether mowing robot is within a predetermined distance from the boundary and in response to determining the mowing robot is within the predetermined distance, slowing a mowing speed of the robot, see at least [0005])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of a working machine around critical areas as disclosed by Scheufler by adding the slowing within a predetermined distance from a boundary taught by Yamauchi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to help prevent the robot lawnmower 10 accidentally rolling past the boundary” (see [0073]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein said storage device comprises input data for mapping of an extended zone around said risky zone (information about obstacles includes safe distance and appropriate actions for the machine, see at least [0044]),
Scheufler does not explicitly disclose:
and wherein said processing and control unit is further configured to control said specific behavior for said mobile agricultural vehicle, when the position of said mobile agricultural vehicle is located in said extended zone around said risky zone, and wherein said mobile agricultural vehicle is arranged to move autonomously within said extended zone according to said specific behavior controlled by said processing and control unit
However, Yamauchi teaches:
and wherein said processing and control unit is further configured to control said specific behavior for said mobile agricultural vehicle, when the position of said mobile agricultural vehicle is located in said extended zone around said risky zone, and wherein said mobile agricultural vehicle is arranged to move autonomously within said extended zone according to said specific behavior controlled by said processing and control unit (controlling the mowing robot to autonomously mow the area comprises determining whether mowing robot is within a predetermined distance from the boundary and in response to determining the mowing robot is within the predetermined distance, slowing a mowing speed of the robot, see at least [0005]) *Examiner sets forth the “extended zone” is a predetermined distance from the boundary and the behavior is slowing down
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of a working machine around critical areas as disclosed by Scheufler by adding the slowing within a predetermined distance from a boundary taught by Yamauchi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to help prevent the robot lawnmower 10 accidentally rolling past the boundary” (see [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein said processing and control unit is further configured to associate the input data for mapping of the risky zone with the category based on selection instructions received from a user or from a robot consisting of selecting a category to be selected from a set of possible predefined categories for said risky zone or from a set of additional categories not contained in said set of possible predefined categories for said risky zone (critical area could be areas to avoid, turnaround areas, obstacles, and areas where special work must be carried out, see at least [0010]; if previously-worked area is detected as the critical area, it is regarded as an area to be avoided, see at least [0019])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein said processing and control unit is further configured to associate said at least one selected category with a specific behavior of said mobile agricultural vehicle based on instructions received by the user or the robot consisting of selecting said specific behavior to be selected from a set of possible specific behaviors for said selected category or from a set of additional specific behaviors not contained in said set of possible specific behaviors for said selected category (critical area could be areas to avoid, turnaround areas, obstacles, and areas where special work must be carried out, see at least [0010]; if critical area is an obstacle, actuating elements are triggered so that combine-mounted device responds appropriately for the situation such as folding the arm if the critical area is a previously-worked area, subunits are switched on or off to prevent area from being worked a second time, see at least [0042])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein said processing and control unit is further configured to store in said storage device the specific behavior to be selected, associated with said input data for mapping (information about obstacles or areas to be avoided are stored in the farm management system such as information about position on the field and parameters such as whether they can be driven around or over, see at least [0044])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein said processing and control unit is further configured to associate said selected category with the specific behavior of said mobile agricultural vehicle, based on automated instructions consisting of imposing the specific behavior said to be imposed from a set of possible specific behaviors for said selected category (critical area could be areas to avoid, turnaround areas, obstacles, and areas where special work must be carried out, see at least [0010]; if critical area is an obstacle, actuating elements are triggered so that combine-mounted device responds appropriately for the situation such as folding the arm if the critical area is a previously-worked area, subunits are switched on or off to prevent area from being worked a second time, see at least [0042]; if critical area is area to be avoided, avoid the area, see at least [0045])
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein the method is implemented by the device according to claim 1 and it the method comprises the following stages: a risky zone, category and specific behavior storage stage, during which input data for mapping a risky zone located within the plot of land, data representative of the set of types of risky zone called categories and data representative of the set of specific behaviors of said mobile agricultural vehicle are saved in the storage device contained in the processing and control unit of the device (information about obstacles or areas to be avoided are stored, information about obstacles includes position and whether they can be driven around or over and safe distance and appropriate actions for the machine, see at least [0044]; stored data and information such as critical field data and areas to be avoided, see at least [0006] and [0044]),;
a first data association stage, in which said input data for mapping of a risky zone is associated with a category by said processing and control unit (critical area could be areas to avoid, turnaround areas, obstacles, and areas where special work must be carried out, see at least [0010]; information about obstacles are stored, see at least [0044]; the previously worked area is detected as critical area then it is regarded as an area to be avoided to prevent being worked a second time, see at least [0045]);
a second data association stage, in which said category is associated with a specific behavior of said mobile agricultural vehicle by said processing and control unit (previously worked area is detected as critical area and is regarded as an area to be avoided to prevent it from being worked a second time, see at least [0045]; appropriate actions for obstacles include lift the unit, turning dosing off, changing setting of dosing device, and folding the arm outward, see at least [0044]) *Examiner sets forth the category would be critical area that is avoidance area and the specific behavior would be to avoid working in the area;
a control stage of the mobile agricultural vehicle, during which said processing and control unit controls said specific behavior for said mobile agricultural vehicle when a position of said mobile agricultural vehicle is in or near said risky zone (upcoming area to be worked is monitored and calculated in advance to detect the critical areas to respond in a manner that is appropriate for the situation, see at least [0012], [0014], [0019], and [0039]);
an autonomous moving stage of the mobile agricultural vehicle in the plot of land, during which said mobile agricultural vehicle moves autonomously within the plot of land according to said specific behavior controlled by said processing and control unit (electronic machine management system can be used in self-propelled, drawn and attached working machines, see at least [0053]; machines are guided automatically based on data of planned work, see at least [0049]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein during the first data association stage, said processing and control unit associates the input data for mapping of the risky zone with the category based on selection instructions received by a user or a robot, consisting of selecting a category said to be selected from a set of possible predefined categories for said risky zone or from a set of additional specific behaviors not contained in said set of possible specific behaviors for said selected category (critical area could be areas to avoid, turnaround areas, obstacles, and areas where special work must be carried out, see at least [0010]; if previously-worked area is detected as the critical area, it is regarded as an area to be avoided, see at least [0019])
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein during the second data association stage, said processing and control unit associates said selected category with a specific behavior of said mobile agricultural vehicle based on instructions received by the user or the robot, consisting of selecting said specific behavior to be selected from the set of possible specific behaviors for said selected category or from the set of additional specific behaviors not contained in said set of possible specific behaviors for said selected category (critical area could be areas to avoid, turnaround areas, obstacles, and areas where special work must be carried out, see at least [0010]; if critical area is an obstacle, actuating elements are triggered so that combine-mounted device responds appropriately for the situation such as folding the arm if the critical area is a previously-worked area, subunits are switched on or off to prevent area from being worked a second time, see at least [0042])
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above and Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein during the second data association stage, said processing and control unit associates said selected category with the specific behavior of said mobile agricultural vehicle, based on automated instructions consisting of imposing the specific behavior said to be imposed from the set of possible specific behaviors for said selected category (critical area could be areas to avoid, turnaround areas, obstacles, and areas where special work must be carried out, see at least [0010]; if critical area is an obstacle, actuating elements are triggered so that combine-mounted device responds appropriately for the situation such as folding the arm if the critical area is a previously-worked area, subunits are switched on or off to prevent area from being worked a second time, see at least [0042]; if critical area is area to be avoided, avoid the area, see at least [0045]).
Claims 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheufler in view of Yamauchi as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Uemura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0113928 A1; hereinafter Uemura).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above but does not teach:
a human-machine interface
However, Uemura teaches:
wherein said processing and control unit is connected to a human-machine interface (operation terminal includes a terminal control section 211 and a touch panel 212 functioning as a “displaying section” and includes a map generation, see at least [0042]) and the processing and control unit is further configured to display on said human-machine interface at least said set of possible predefined categories for said risky zone (synthesized map will be displayed on the touch panel 212 so the user will operate the touch panel to set the work area, exclusion areas can be automatically recognized and manually input by a user, see at least [0047])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of a working machine around critical areas as disclosed by Scheufler and the slowing within a predetermined distance from a boundary taught by Yamauchi by adding map display and instruction input taught by Uemura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide information to a user and can also receive inputs from the user” (see [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Scheufler, Yamauchi, and Uemura teaches the elements above but Scheufler does not disclose:
wherein said human-machine interface is configured to send to the processing and control unit said category selected by said user
However, Uemura teaches:
wherein said human-machine interface is configured to send to the processing and control unit said category selected by said user (user will operate the touch panel 212 to manually incorporate an exclusion area in the work area, see at least [0047]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of a working machine around critical areas as disclosed by Scheufler and the slowing within a predetermined distance from a boundary taught by Yamauchi by adding touch panel taught by Uemura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “receive inputs from the user” (see [0042]) and better define exclusion areas (see [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above but does not teach:
a human-machine interface
However, Uemura teaches:
wherein the processing and control unit comprises a human-machine interface comprising a screen (operation terminal includes a terminal control section 211 and a touch panel 212 functioning as a “displaying section” and includes a map generation, see at least [0042]), and wherein the processing and control unit is further configured to display on said screen a map of the plot of land comprising at least one of a real closed outline of the risky zone and an extended closed outline of the extended zone and said selected category (synthesized map will be displayed on the touch panel 212 with recognized exclusion areas, see at least [0047])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of a working machine around critical areas as disclosed by Scheufler and the slowing within a predetermined distance from a boundary taught by Yamauchi by adding map display and instruction input taught by Uemura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide information to a user and can also receive inputs from the user” (see [0042]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheufler in view of Yamauchi as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kakkar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0339768 A1; hereinafter Kakkar).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Scheufler and Yamauchi teaches the elements above but does not teach:
wherein said processing and control unit is connected to a human-machine interface and in that the processing and control unit is further configured to display on said human-machine interface set of possible specific behaviors which can be associated with said selected category.
However, Kakkar teaches:
wherein said processing and control unit is connected to a human-machine interface and (user interface for a user to select a desired type of turn, see at least [0073]) in that the processing and control unit is further configured to display on said human-machine interface set of possible specific behaviors which can be associated with said selected category (user may select type of turn from user interface; user interface is implemented as selectable options on a display, see at least Fig. 14 and [0073]-[0079])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of a working machine around critical areas as disclosed by Scheufler and the slowing within a predetermined distance from a boundary taught by Yamauchi by adding user interface taught by Kakkar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for a user to select a desired type of turn” (See [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Scheufler, Yamauchi, and Kakkar teaches the elements above but Scheufler does not disclose:
wherein said human-machine interface is configured to send to the processing and control unit said specific behavior said to be selected by said user
However, Kakkar teaches:
wherein said human-machine interface is configured to send to the processing and control unit said specific behavior said to be selected by said user (when “Request Turn” button is pressed, command is sent to path planner for generating trajectory for the requested type of turn, see at least [0079])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of a working machine around critical areas as disclosed by Scheufler and the slowing within a predetermined distance from a boundary taught by Yamauchi by adding user interface taught by Kakkar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for a user to select a desired type of turn” (See [0073]).
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662