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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0334804) in view of Tamatani (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2025/0068172).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 19, Webber discloses a method of maintaining positionally accurate implement operation of an implement (claim 1, P147, etc), the method comprising:
receiving, by a controller onboard a work vehicle that is positionally coupled to the implement, a location data associated with a ground position of the implement (fig. 13, etc: e.g. GNSS signals);
determining, by the controller, the ground position of the implement based at least on the location data associated with the ground position of the implement (fig 13, etc: e.g. position computed from GNSS signals);
determining, by the controller, a ground position of the work vehicle relative to the implement based at least on the received location data associated with the ground position of the implement (fig 13, P144, etc: compute work vehicle position from work vehicle’s own GNSS antenna/signals, and then calculate moving baseline 732 [relative position between work vehicle and implement] from positions of work vehicle and implement);
determining, by the controller, a deviation of the ground position of the implement from a desired course based on the ground position of the implement (fig 17, claim 1, P147: “The guidance CPU 736 utilizes the retained tail “breadcrumb” positions 790 in conjunction with the GNSS-derived antenna locations for computing a crosstrack error representing implement 728 deviation from a desired guidepath 794, and the necessary steering signals for correcting the vehicle 10 course to maintain the implement 728 on track”, etc) exceeding a threshold (implicit based on smallest detectable deviation; or combined with P190: a deviation is compared to threshold); and
responsive to determining that the deviation of the ground position of the implement from the desired course exceeding the threshold (implicit based on smallest detectable deviation; or combined with P190: a deviation is compared to threshold), adjusting, by the controller, one or more operating parameters of the work vehicle to adjust the ground position of the work vehicle relative to the implement (claim 1, P147, etc).
Webber does not explicitly disclose that the deviation is exceeding a threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Tamatani discloses that the deviation is exceeding a threshold (P117-118, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Webber such that the deviation is exceeding a threshold, as taught by Tamatani, in order to reduce the number of adjustments to the vehicle movement for smoother and more efficient motion, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Webber further discloses that the ground position of the work vehicle is further determined, by the controller, based on a characteristic of a positional coupling between the work vehicle and the implement, wherein the characteristic of the positional coupling includes at least one of a type of a coupling device, a length of the coupling device, a flexibility parameter of the coupling device, a wheelbase of the implement, a coupling position of the coupling device on the implement, a coupling position of the coupling device on the work vehicle, a difference in height between the work vehicle and the implement, and a suspension parameter (fig 13, P144, etc).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Webber further discloses receiving, by the controller, from an optical sensor positionally coupled to the implement, image data of the work vehicle; and determining, by the controller, the ground position of the work vehicle based on the received location data associated with the ground position of the implement and the received image data of the work vehicle (abstract, P31, 71, 181, 192, etc).
Regarding claims 4, 18, and 20, Webber further discloses receiving, by the controller, from an optical sensor positionally coupled to the work vehicle, image data of the implement; and determining, by the controller, the ground position of the work vehicle based on the received location data associated with the ground position of the implement and the received image data of the implement (abstract, P31, 71, 181, 192, etc).
Regarding claim 5, Webber further discloses receiving, by the controller, from a position sensor, positional data of a coupling device physically coupled to the work vehicle at a first portion of the coupling device and physically coupled to the implement at a second portion of the coupling device; and determining, by the controller, the ground position of the work vehicle based on the received location data associated with the ground position of the implement and the received positional data of the coupling device (fig 27-31, etc; also well known in the art, the Examiner hereby takes Official Notice).
Regarding claim 6, Webber further discloses that adjustment of the one or more operating parameters is based in part on a weight distribution of the work vehicle and the implement, a wind speed, a terrain grade, a terrain type, an implement type, an amount of deviation of the implement from the desired course, a steering geometry of the work vehicle, a steering geometry of the implement, a speed of the work vehicle, a time of operation, crop characteristics, and one or more suspension characteristics of the implement and the work vehicle (claim 1, P147, etc).
Regarding claim 7, Webber further discloses continuously updating, by the controller, the ground position of the implement as additional location data of the implement is received; continuously updating, by the controller, the ground position of the work vehicle relative to the implement based on the additional location data of the implement; determining, by the controller, the deviation of the implement from the desired course based on the updated ground position of the implement; and dynamically adjusting, by the controller, the one or more operating parameters of the work vehicle until the deviation of the ground position of the implement is within the threshold (claim 1, P147, etc).
Regarding claim 8, Webber further discloses that the location data is Global Navigation Satellite System (?GNSS?) location data and is received from a GNSS receiver positionally coupled to the implement (fig 13, etc).
Regarding claim 9, Webber further discloses storing, by the controller, in a memory communicatively coupled to the controller, a history of the location data of the implement and corresponding adjustments made to the one or more operating parameters of the work vehicle; accessing, by the controller, the history of the location data; predicting, by the controller, future adjustments to the one or more operating parameters based on new location data received; and responsive to predicting a future adjustment to the one or more operating parameters based on the new location data received, adjusting, by the controller, the one or more operating parameters based on the predicted future adjustment (P180, etc; also well known in the art, the Examiner hereby takes Official Notice).
Regarding claim 10, Webber further discloses that the implement is towed by the work vehicle during operation (figs 9, 13, etc).
Regarding claim 11, Webber further discloses that the work vehicle is physically coupled to the implement during operation (figs 9, 13, 21-23, 25, 30-31, etc).
Regarding claim 12, Webber further discloses that the work vehicle is communicatively coupled to the implement during operation (figs 10, 18, 22, 26, etc).
Regarding claim 13, Webber further discloses that the one or more operating parameters include at least one of steering angle, an engine speed, a transmission gear selection, a hydraulic pressure or flow rate, a traction control, a work mode, a brake force, clutch engagement, implement height, and implement lateral adjustment (claim 1, P147, etc).
Regarding claim 14, Webber further discloses that the one or more operating parameters of the work vehicle include one or more operating parameters of the implement, including at least one of an implement steering angle, an implement height, an implement engagement depth, and an implement lateral adjustment (fig 18, claim 1, P147, etc).
Regarding claim 15, Webber further discloses that the implement is at least one of plow, harrow, seeder, planter, cultivator, sprayer, fertilizer spreader, combine harvester, mower, brush hog, hay baler, rotary tiller, grain drill, irrigation applicator, grain cart, disc mower, manure spreader, forage harvester, potato harvester, cotton picker, vegetable transplanter, and strip tiller (figs 13, 21-23, 25, 30-31, 36, P121-122, etc).
Conclusion
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
March 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights