DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 3/6/2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending.
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 3/6/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that detecting an object in a search region around an agricultural machine based on LiDAR sensor data cannot be practically performed in the human mind (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10-11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A LiDAR provides a three-dimensional representation of an environment which a person can use to detect objects in a manner similar to an image. For example, see Zeng et al. (US 2020/0355820), figures 2A and 2B, which show the same scene as detected by a LiDAR and a camera, wherein the trees and object in road are clearly identifiable in the LiDAR data. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that changing a subset of points of point cloud data used for object detection is not an abstract idea (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 10-11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 130 of the Applicant’s Specification discloses the search region size can be changed by changing some of the three-dimensional point cloud data which is to be searched for objects. Paragraph 132 discloses selecting a subset of the point cloud data that fall within a maximum distance of the LiDAR sensor. Paragraph 149 similarly discloses selecting a subset of the point cloud data that fall within an angular range. There does not appear to be disclosure of mutating the data of a point itself, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, changing a subset of points used for object detection includes merely observing different areas of the point cloud data to determine if there are obstacles present. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that adjusting a sensing region to improve or optimize sensing in an area around an agricultural machine is an improvement to sensing systems (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 11-12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs 118-119 of the Applicant’s Specification appear to disclose the LiDAR sensor may be one of several conventional LiDAR types. Claim 1 further discloses the LiDAR is configured to sense an environment and output point cloud data, which are both features of conventional LiDAR. It appears that it is the processor, not the LiDAR, that detects objects and selects/modifies the search region. Using a generic processor to detect objects in data points gathered from a generic sensor represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of vehicle navigation, and tailoring a vehicle’s sensors’ performance to the environment it is expected to work in is a fundamental engineering consideration. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field in a manner that meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that a LiDAR sensor configured to sense an environment around an agricultural machine and output point cloud data imposes meaningful limits on the claimed invention (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, a conventional LiDAR sensor senses an environment and outputs point cloud data. Although the claims recite the sensing system is intended to be used for a generic mobile agricultural machine, they do not include any limitations on the mobile agricultural machine other than that it need be capable of operating both in and outside a field. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field in a manner that meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-2 and 4-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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.
Drawings
The amended drawings received on 3/6/2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 3/6/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: in line 11, “in the case” should read “wherein in the case”. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 4-13 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 claims 1 and 13, lines 10-11 and 10, respectively, the limitation “changing a subset of points of the point cloud data used for object detection” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation refers to changing the points themselves (i.e., the point data is mutated), or merely using a subset of the points for object detection. Paragraph 130 discloses the search region size can be changed by changing some of the three-dimensional point cloud data which is to be searched for objects. Paragraph 132 discloses selecting a subset of the point cloud data that fall within a maximum distance of the LiDAR sensor. Paragraph 149 similarly discloses selecting a subset of the point cloud data that fall within an angular range. There does not appear to be disclosure of mutating the data of a point itself, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that changing a subset of points used for object detection is merely using a different subset of points for object detection.
Regarding claim 4, lines 3-4 and 6-7, the limitations “set a first region .. as the search region” and “set a second region … as the search region” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the first and second regions are related to the first and second angular ranges that define the size of the search region in claim 1, lines 6-19. Figure 15 appears to disclose defining the size of the search region by setting both the angular range and the length, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 4 is directed to setting the maximum distance of the search regions of claim 1 with first and second angular ranges.
Claims 2 and 4-12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a sensing system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c). Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A sensing system for a mobile agricultural machine, the sensing system comprising:
a LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) sensor configured to sense an environment around the agricultural machine and to output sensing data including point cloud data; and
a processor configured or programmed to detect an object in a search region around the agricultural machine based on the sensing data [mental process/step], and to cause a size of the search region for the detection of the object to be different between a case where the agricultural machine is located in a field and a case where the agricultural machine is located in an out-of-field area that is outside the field by changing a subset of points of the point cloud data used for object detection [mental process/step]; wherein
in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the out-of-field area, the processor is configured or programmed to select, as the subset of points used for the object detection, points corresponding to a first angular range extending from the LiDAR sensor [mental process/step]; and
in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the field, the processor is configured or programmed to select, as the subset of points used for the object detection, points corresponding to a second angular range extending from the LiDAR sensor, the second angular range being smaller than the first angular range [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detect an object…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reviewing received sensor data for the presence of an object. The limitations “…changing a subset of points” and “…select … points…” in the context of this claim encompasses the person reviewing different areas within the sensor data based on the location of the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A sensing system for a mobile agricultural machine [generic vehicle], the sensing system comprising:
a LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) sensor configured to sense an environment around the agricultural machine [generic sensor] and to output sensing data including point cloud data [insignificant pre-solution activity (sending data)]; and
a processor configured or programmed to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component] detect an object in a search region around the agricultural machine based on the sensing data, and to cause a size of the search region for the detection of the object to be different between a case where the agricultural machine is located in a field and a case where the agricultural machine is located in an out-of-field area that is outside the field by changing a subset of points of the point cloud data used for object detection; wherein
in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the out-of-field area, the processor is configured or programmed to select, as the subset of points used for the object detection, points corresponding to a first angular range extending from the LiDAR sensor; and
in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the field, the processor is configured or programmed to select, as the subset of points used for the object detection, points corresponding to a second angular range extending from the LiDAR sensor, the second angular range being smaller than the first angular range.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “…output sensing data…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the output sensing data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of providing generic LiDAR data to the processor), and amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processor” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function(s) of selecting and searching data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The mobile agricultural machine and LiDAR are also generically recited such that they only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps “detect an object…”, “…changing a subset of points”, and “…select … points…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “…output sensing data…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to a sensing method (i.e., a process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 4-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 4-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-13 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwase et al. (US 2022/0264784), hereinafter Iwase.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, as best understood, Iwase discloses a sensing system for a mobile agricultural machine, the sensing system comprising: a LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) sensor configured to sense an environment around the agricultural machine (Iwase; para. 48: tractor 1 includes an obstacle detection system 100 for detecting an obstacle in the surroundings of the tractor 1 (travel machine body 7) and avoiding collision with the obstacle. The obstacle detection system 100 includes a plurality of LiDAR sensors) and to output sensing data including point cloud data (Iwase; para. 53: LiDAR sensors 101, 102 each measure a distance to an object to be measured on the basis of round-trip time during which laser light (e.g., pulsed near-infrared laser light) hits the object to be measured and returns back (Time of Flight). The LiDAR sensors 101, 102 each measure the distance to the object to be measured in three dimensions by performing scanning with the laser light in the up-down direction and the left-right direction at a high speed and sequentially measuring the distance to the object to be measured at each scanning angle); and a processor configured or programmed to detect an object in a search region around the agricultural machine based on the sensing data (Iwase; para. 52: obstacle detection unit 110 and the collision avoidance control unit 111 are provided in the on-board electronic control unit), and to cause a size of the search region for the detection of the object to be different between a case where the agricultural machine is located in a field and a case where the agricultural machine is located in an out-of-field area that is outside the field by changing a subset of points of the point cloud data used for object detection (Iwase; para. 80: obstacle detection unit 110 sets measurement ranges of the LiDAR sensors 101, 102, the sonar units 103, 104 and the cameras 105, 106 to first predetermined ranges K1 (ranges illustrated in gray in FIG. 13) for the in-operation-region mode, and performs an obstacle detection process for detecting whether or not an obstacle exists within the first predetermined ranges K1; para. 82: the on-board electronic control unit 18 makes an inquiry about the automatic travel permission and switches the obstacle detection system 100 from the in-operation-region mode to an outside-operation-region mode to raise a monitoring level (Step #5 in FIG. 12). In the outside-operation-region mode, the obstacle detection unit 110 sets measurement ranges of the LiDAR sensors 101, 102, the sonar units 103, 104 and the cameras 105, 106 (corresponding to a surrounding monitoring device) to second predetermined ranges K2 (ranges illustrated in gray in FIG. 13) for the outside-operation-region mode, and performs an obstacle detection process for detecting whether or not an obstacle exists within the second predetermined ranges); wherein in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the out-of-field area, the processor is configured or programmed to select, as the subset of points used for the object detection, points corresponding to a first angular range extending from the LiDAR sensor; and in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the field, the processor is configured or programmed to select, as the subset of points used for the object detection, points corresponding to a second angular range extending from the LiDAR sensor, the second angular range being smaller than the first angular range (Iwase; para. 82: the on-board electronic control unit 18 makes an inquiry about the automatic travel permission and switches the obstacle detection system 100 from the in-operation-region mode to an outside-operation-region mode to raise a monitoring level (Step #5 in FIG. 12). In the outside-operation-region mode, the obstacle detection unit 110 sets measurement ranges of the LiDAR sensors 101, 102, the sonar units 103, 104 and the cameras 105, 106 (corresponding to a surrounding monitoring device) to second predetermined ranges K2 (ranges illustrated in gray in FIG. 13) for the outside-operation-region mode, and performs an obstacle detection process for detecting whether or not an obstacle exists within the second predetermined ranges K2. The second predetermined ranges K2 for the outside-operation-region mode are set to wider ranges in the front-rear direction and the left-right direction than the first predetermined ranges K1 for the in-operation-region mode. Consequently, in the outside-operation-region mode, the monitoring level is raised by widening the measurement ranges for detecting an obstacle with respect to the measurement ranges for the in-operation-region mode, and an obstacle farther away from the tractor 1 is detected).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Iwase discloses the processor is configured or programmed to cause the size of the search region to be smaller in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the field than in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the out-of-field area (Iwase; para. 82: in the outside-operation-region mode, the monitoring level is raised by widening the measurement ranges for detecting an obstacle with respect to the measurement ranges for the in-operation-region mode, and an obstacle farther away from the tractor 1 is detected).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Iwase discloses in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the out-of-field area, the processor is configured or programmed to set a first region with a maximum distance from the LiDAR sensor that is a first distance as the search region (Iwase; para. 80: tractor 1 automatically travels along the operation path P1 in the operation region S, and therefore the on-board electronic control unit 18 sets the obstacle detection system 100 to an in-operation-region mode. The obstacle detection unit 110 sets measurement ranges of the LiDAR sensors 101, 102, the sonar units 103, 104 and the cameras 105, 106 to first predetermined ranges K1 (ranges illustrated in gray in FIG. 13) for the in-operation-region mode, and performs an obstacle detection process for detecting whether or not an obstacle exists within the first predetermined ranges K1); and in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the field, the processor is configured or programmed to set a second region with a maximum distance from the LiDAR sensor that is a second distance as the search region, the second distance being shorter than the first distance (Iwase; para. 82: in the outside-operation-region mode, the monitoring level is raised by widening the measurement ranges for detecting an obstacle with respect to the measurement ranges for the in-operation-region mode, and an obstacle farther away from the tractor 1 is detected).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Iwase discloses a position sensor to detect a position of the agricultural machine and to output position data (Iwase; para. 32: positioning unit 21 includes a satellite navigation device 22 that measures the current position); and a storage to store map data concerning an area in which the agricultural machine travels (Iwase; fig. 2: on-board storage unit 185); wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine whether the agricultural machine is located in the field or the out-of-field area based on the position data and the map data (Iwase; para. 62: electronic control unit 52 acquires the field information and the outside-field information from the map information or the like stored in a database).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Iwase discloses the out-of-field area is any of a road outside the field (Iwase; para. 62: outside-field information related to a region outside the fields including the shape and the position of the outside-field region and a farm road), a barn, or a gas station.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Iwase discloses an agricultural machine comprising the sensing system of claim 1 (Iwase; fig. 2: tractor 1).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Iwase discloses a drive system to drive the agricultural machine (Iwase; fig. 2: automatic travel unit 2); and a controller configured or programmed to control an operation of the drive system such that the agricultural machine performs self-driving (Iwase; para. 28: an on-board electronic control unit 18 having various control programs related to automatic travel and the like of the tractor).
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Wodrich (US 2021/0253048).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Iwase discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
It is unclear if Iwase explicitly discloses in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the field, the processor is configured or programmed to change the size of the search region in accordance with a travel speed of the agricultural machine.
However, Wodrich, in the same field of endeavor (vehicular LiDAR performance optimization), discloses in a case where an agricultural machine is located in a field, a processor is configured or programmed to change a size of a search region in accordance with a travel speed of the agricultural machine (Wodrich; para. 14: the power may be adjusted to increase the range responsive to the vehicle traveling at a greater speed, such as greater than a threshold speed, and/or to decrease the range (to use less power) responsive to the vehicle traveling at a slower speed, such as less than a threshold speed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, while inside the field, the length of the measurement range set by the obstacle detection unit of Iwase to be proportional to the vehicle's speed, as disclosed by Wodrich, with the motivation of dynamically adjusting the range of the sensing region thereby reducing power drawn by the system and subsequently reducing the amount of heat generated by the system (Wodrich; paras. 15-16).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Iwase, as modified, discloses the processor is configured or programmed to cause the size of the search region to be greater in a case where the agricultural machine travels at a first velocity than in a case where the agricultural machine travels at a second velocity that is lower than the first velocity (Wodrich; para. 14: the power may be adjusted to increase the range responsive to the vehicle traveling at a greater speed, such as greater than a threshold speed, and/or to decrease the range (to use less power) responsive to the vehicle traveling at a slower speed, such as less than a threshold speed).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Yokoyama et al. (WO 2019/187884), hereinafter Yokoyama.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Iwase discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
It is unclear if Iwase explicitly discloses in the case where the agricultural machine is located in the field, the processor is configured or programmed to change the size of the search region in accordance with whether or not the agricultural machine is performing agricultural work.
However, Yokoyama, in the same field of endeavor (agricultural vehicle obstacle detection), discloses in the case where an agricultural machine is located in a field, a processor is configured or programmed to change a size of a search region in accordance with whether or not the agricultural machine is performing agricultural work (Yokoyama; para. 86: tractor 1 lowers the working device 12 to the lowered position and drives while performing predetermined work, and raises the working device 12 to the raised position and drives without performing predetermined work. Therefore, in the second masking process, the masking range L is set as follows: a masking range L1 for the descending position as shown in Figure 14, and a masking range L2 for the ascending position as shown in Figure 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, while inside the field, the size of the measurement range set by the obstacle detection unit of Iwase to be greater when the tractor performs agricultural work than when it does not, as disclosed by Yokoyama, with the motivation of reducing the possibility that a portion of the work device is mistakenly detected as an obstacle (Yokoyama; para. 84) thereby increasing the accuracy of the obstacle detection.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Iwase, as modified, discloses the processor is configured or programmed to cause the size of the search region to be greater in a case where the agricultural machine is performing agricultural work than in a case where the agricultural machine is not performing agricultural work (Yokoyama; figs. 14-15: by reducing the size of the masking range when the working device is lowered the size of the unmasked measurement range is increased).
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights