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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 6/25/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“positioning device” (claim 15) is a GNSS unit, a LiDAR sensor and/or a camera, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0149] (PGPub) and FIG. 2, work vehicle-100, GNSS unit-110, cameras-120, and LiDAR sensor-140; and
“travel device” (claim 19) is tire-mounted wheels and a cabin, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0074] and FIG. 2, work vehicle-100, vehicle body-101, tire-mounted wheels-104, cabin-105, steering device-106, driver’s seat-107, and operational terminal-200.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa et al. (US-2021/0165414-A1, hereinafter Aizawa) in view of Kaufmann (US-2023/0363302-A1, hereinafter Kaufmann).
Regarding claim 1, Aizawa discloses:
A travel control system for an agricultural machine capable of performing remotely-manipulated traveling, the travel control system comprising: (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0063-0068]; FIG. 8, Acquire position of conveyance vehicle-S202, and Acquire area data-S203; FIG. 9, In entry prohibition area? - S206, and Stop work-S215; FIG. 10, conveyance vehicle-2, and remote computer device-4; and FIG. 11, conveyance vehicle-2, and entry prohibition areas-A2,A3);
a storage to store the position of a permitted area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted conditionally (paragraphs [0050], [0064] and [0067]); and
a controller operable in a remote manipulation mode in which travel of the agricultural machine is controlled by remote manipulation (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0066-0068]).
Aizawa does not disclose conditions for remotely-manipulated traveling related to a state of an agricultural machine or attached implement. However, Kaufmann discloses automatic maneuvering of an agricultural vehicle from a field, onto a road, and then onto a farmyard, including the following features:
wherein in the remote manipulation mode, when a state of the agricultural machine, or a type or state of an implement attached to the agricultural machine does not satisfy a condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted in the permitted area, the controller is configured or programmed to disable a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to travel in the permitted area (paragraphs [0038-0048] and [0053-0054]; FIG. 1, farmyard-1, field-6, field boundary-7, field paths-8, vehicle-9, implements-10,11, and road-12; and FIG. 2, Track vehicle position-106, and Adapt vehicle parameters-108).
Kaufmann teaches that an agricultural vehicle should travel autonomously from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard to improve the automatization process at the farmyard and to improve field process automatization (paragraphs [0038-0048]). Kaufmann further teaches that an ECU of the agricultural vehicle should adapt agricultural vehicle parameters according to a predefined set of farmyard parameters to improve safety while operating within the farmyard boundary (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 3, Aizawa further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when disabling the remote manipulation, stop the agricultural machine (paragraphs [0058] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Aizawa does not disclose conditions for remotely-manipulated traveling related to a state of an agricultural machine or attached implement. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
wherein when, after the disabling of the remote manipulation, the state of the agricultural machine or the type or state of the implement changes to satisfy the condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted in the permitted area, the controller is configured or programmed to enable the remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to travel in the permitted area (paragraph [0054]).
Kaufmann teaches that an agricultural vehicle should travel autonomously from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard to improve the automatization process at the farmyard and to improve field process automatization (paragraphs [0038-0048]). Kaufmann further teaches that an ECU of the agricultural vehicle should adapt agricultural vehicle parameters according to a predefined set of farmyard parameters to improve safety while operating within the farmyard boundary (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 5, Aizawa further discloses:
wherein the storage is operable to store positions of a plurality of permitted areas having different conditions under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted (paragraphs [0050], [0064] and [0067]).
Aizawa does not disclose conditions for remotely-manipulated traveling related to a state of an agricultural machine or attached implement. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
in each of the plurality of permitted areas, when the state of the agricultural machine or the type or state of the implement does not satisfy the condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted in the permitted area, the controller is configured or programmed to disable the remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to travel in the permitted area (paragraphs [0038-0048] and [0053-0054]).
Kaufmann teaches that an agricultural vehicle should travel autonomously from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard to improve the automatization process at the farmyard and to improve field process automatization (paragraphs [0038-0048]). Kaufmann further teaches that an ECU of the agricultural vehicle should adapt agricultural vehicle parameters according to a predefined set of farmyard parameters to improve safety while operating within the farmyard boundary (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 6, Aizawa does not disclose that the first permitted area is a field and the second permitted area is adjacent to the field. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
wherein the plurality of permitted areas include a first permitted area and a second permitted area adjacent to each other (paragraphs [0039-0041]); and
when the state of the agricultural machine or the type or state of the implement satisfies a first condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted in the first permitted area, and does not satisfy a second condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted in the second permitted area, the controller is configured or programmed to disable a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to enter from the first permitted area into the second permitted area (paragraphs [0054] and [0061]; and FIG. 3, farmyard-1, field-6, vehicle-9, implements-10,11, road-12, and path segments-13-16).
Kaufmann teaches that an agricultural vehicle should travel autonomously from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard to improve the automatization process at the farmyard and to improve field process automatization (paragraphs [0038-0048]). Kaufmann further teaches that an ECU of the agricultural vehicle should adapt agricultural vehicle parameters according to a predefined set of farmyard parameters to improve safety while operating within the farmyard boundary (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 7, Aizawa does not disclose that the first permitted area is a field and the second permitted area is adjacent to the field. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
wherein the plurality of permitted areas include a first permitted area in a field and a second permitted area outside the field (paragraphs [0039-0041]); and
when the state of the agricultural machine satisfies a first condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted in the field, and does not satisfy a second condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted outside the field, the controller is configured or programmed to disable a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to enter from the first permitted area in the field into the second permitted area outside the field (paragraphs [0054] and [0061]; and FIG. 3, farmyard-1, field-6, vehicle-9, implements-10,11, road-12, and path segments-13-16).
Kaufmann teaches that an agricultural vehicle should travel autonomously from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard to improve the automatization process at the farmyard and to improve field process automatization (paragraphs [0038-0048]). Kaufmann further teaches that an ECU of the agricultural vehicle should adapt agricultural vehicle parameters according to a predefined set of farmyard parameters to improve safety while operating within the farmyard boundary (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 8, Aizawa does not disclose that the first permitted area is a field and the second permitted area is adjacent to the field. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
wherein the agricultural machine is a work vehicle having an implement attached thereto (paragraph [0041]); and
when the work vehicle is holding the implement at a height lower than a reference height, or the work vehicle is supplying power to the implement, the controller is configured or programmed to determine that the state of the agricultural machine does not satisfy the second condition, and disable the remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to enter from the first permitted area into the second permitted area (paragraphs [0054] and [0061]).
Kaufmann teaches that an agricultural vehicle should travel autonomously from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard to improve the automatization process at the farmyard and to improve field process automatization (paragraphs [0038-0048]). Kaufmann further teaches that an ECU of the agricultural vehicle should adapt agricultural vehicle parameters according to a predefined set of farmyard parameters to improve safety while operating within the farmyard boundary (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 11, Aizawa further discloses:
wherein in the remote manipulation mode, the controller is configured or programmed to cause a display of a terminal device used by an operator who performs the remote manipulation to display an image of an area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is not permitted, the area being determined, depending on the state of the agricultural machine or the type or state of the implement (paragraphs [0044-0048]; and FIG. 3, work machine-1, remote computer device-4, controller-27, topography sensor-35, cameras-36,37, display-401, and input device-402).
Regarding claim 12, Aizawa does not disclose that the first permitted area is a field and the second permitted area is adjacent to the field. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
wherein the plurality of permitted areas include a first permitted area in a field and a second permitted area outside the field (paragraphs [0039-0041]); and
when the state of the agricultural machine does not satisfy a first condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted in the field, the controller is configured or programmed to disable a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to enter from the second permitted area into the first permitted area (paragraphs [0054] and [0061]; and FIG. 3, farmyard-1, field-6, vehicle-9, implements-10,11, road-12, and path segments-13-16).
Kaufmann teaches that an agricultural vehicle should travel autonomously from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard to improve the automatization process at the farmyard and to improve field process automatization (paragraphs [0038-0048]). Kaufmann further teaches that an ECU of the agricultural vehicle should adapt agricultural vehicle parameters according to a predefined set of farmyard parameters to improve safety while operating within the farmyard boundary (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 15, Aizawa further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to obtain positional information of the agricultural machine from a positioning device to determine the position of the agricultural machine, and identify an area in which the agricultural machine is located, based on the positional information (paragraphs [0050] and [0053]; and FIG. 5, conveyance vehicle-2, controller-61, and second position sensor-63).
Regarding claim 16, Aizawa does not disclose that the first permitted area is a field and the second permitted area is adjacent to the field. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
wherein the plurality of permitted areas include a first permitted area in a field and a second permitted area outside the field (paragraphs [0039-0041]);
the storage is operable to store the type of an implement suitable for agricultural work scheduled in the field (paragraphs [0052] and [0061]); and
when the type of the implement attached to the agricultural machine is not suitable for the scheduled agricultural work in the field, the controller is configured or programmed to disable a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to enter from the second permitted area into the first permitted area (paragraph [0061], the path segment restrictions define by which type of vehicle or by which type of implements the corresponding path segment is allowed to be used; and FIG. 3, farmyard-1, field-6, vehicle-9, implements-10,11, road-12, and path segments-13-16).
Kaufmann teaches that path segment restrictions for a farmyard define by which type of vehicle or by which type of implements the corresponding path segment is allowed to be used (paragraph [0061]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 17, Aizawa does not disclose a third permitted area. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
wherein the plurality of permitted areas include a third permitted area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted only when a width of the implement is in a particular range (paragraphs [0039-0041] and [0061]);
when the width of the implement is not in the particular range, the controller is configured or programmed to disable a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to travel in the third permitted area (paragraph [0061], for each path segment the maximum weight, loading, dimensions and speed of the vehicle and the implement can be defined; and FIG. 3, farmyard-1, field-6, vehicle-9, implements-10,11, road-12, and path segments-13-16).
Kaufmann teaches that, for each path segment, the maximum weight, loading, dimensions and speed of the vehicle and the implement can be defined (paragraph [0061]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Regarding claim 19, Aizawa further discloses:
An agricultural machine comprising: the travel control system of claim 1; and a travel device to be controlled by the controller (paragraph [0049]; and FIG. 4, conveyance vehicle-2, vehicle body-51, and crawler belts-54).
Regarding claim 20, Aizawa further discloses:
A travel control method for an agricultural machine capable of performing remotely-manipulated traveling, the method comprising: (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0063-0068]; FIG. 8, Acquire position of conveyance vehicle-S202, and Acquire area data-S203; FIG. 9, In entry prohibition area? - S206, and Stop work-S215; FIG. 10, conveyance vehicle-2, and remote computer device-4; and FIG. 11, conveyance vehicle-2, and entry prohibition areas-A2,A3);
obtaining positional information of a permitted area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted conditionally (paragraphs [0050], [0064] and [0067]); and
obtaining information indicating a state of the agricultural machine (paragraphs [0050] and [0053]; and FIG. 5, conveyance vehicle-2, controller-61, and second position sensor-63).
Aizawa does not disclose conditions for remotely-manipulated traveling related to a state of an agricultural machine or attached implement. However, Kaufmann further discloses:
when, in a remote manipulation mode in which travel of the agricultural machine is controlled by remote manipulation, the state of the agricultural machine, or a type or state of an implement attached to the agricultural machine does not satisfy a condition under which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted in the permitted area, disabling a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to travel in the permitted area (paragraphs [0038-0048] and [0053-0054]; FIG. 1, farmyard-1, field-6, field boundary-7, field paths-8, vehicle-9, implements-10,11, and road-12; and FIG. 2, Track vehicle position-106, and Adapt vehicle parameters-108).
Kaufmann teaches that an agricultural vehicle should travel autonomously from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard to improve the automatization process at the farmyard and to improve field process automatization (paragraphs [0038-0048]). Kaufmann further teaches that an ECU of the agricultural vehicle should adapt agricultural vehicle parameters according to a predefined set of farmyard parameters to improve safety while operating within the farmyard boundary (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for predefining agricultural vehicle and attached implement conditions for operation within a farmyard boundary of Kaufmann into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving safety while operating an agricultural vehicle in a critical area.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa in view of Kaufmann, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sawaki (US-2019/0104674-A1, hereinafter Sawaki).
Regarding claim 13, Aizawa in view of Kaufmann does not disclose disabling a remote manipulation to cause an agricultural machine to enter an area in a field except for during a scheduled date and time. However, Sawaki discloses a work setting system for a working vehicle, including the following features:
wherein the storage is operable to store a date and time for which the agricultural machine is scheduled to perform agricultural work in the field (paragraphs [0050-0054] and [0071]; FIG. 1, tractor-1, server-101, administrator terminal (PC) - 102, and tablet-TAB; and FIG. 4, travel control unit-CA, engine control unit-CB, implement raising-lowering control unit-CC, and terminal control unit-CD); and
the controller is configured or programmed to disable a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to enter the first permitted area in the field, except for during the scheduled date and time (paragraphs [0050-0054] and [0071]).
Sawaki teaches that a remote control mode and a manual operation mode for a tractor may be switched when a specific time has been reached or when the tractor has entered a specific area of a farm field (paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for switching from remote control mode to manual operation mode based on a timetable and area of a farm field of Sawaki into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa in view of Kaufmann. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that remote operations occur at the scheduled time and location.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa in view of Kaufmann, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawamata et al. (US-2015/0112537-A1, hereinafter Kawamata).
Regarding claim 14, Aizawa further discloses:
the controller is configured or programmed to set an outside of the self-traveling area as a forbidden area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is not permitted (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0063-0068]); and
the controller is configured or programmed to set at least a portion of the self-traveling area as the permitted area (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0063-0068]).
Aizawa in view of Kaufmann does not disclose an agricultural machine which switches between a remotely-manipulated mode and a self-traveling mode. However, Kawamata discloses a system for switching control of a vehicle between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode, including the following features:
wherein the controller is operable in a self-traveling mode in which the agricultural machine is caused to perform self-traveling in a self-traveling area (paragraphs [0035-0040] and [0042-0043]; FIG. 2, mining dump truck-100, control center-150, and mode switching control unit-180; and FIG. 3, in-vehicle terminal system-200, vehicle control unit (maneuver mode) - 203, vehicle control unit (autonomous mode) - 206, host vehicle position measurement unit-209, and control center system-250).
Kawamata teaches that a dump truck autonomous traveling system enables switching between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode (paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for switching between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode of Kawamata into the system for remote operation of a conveyance vehicle of Aizawa in view of Kaufmann. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an operator of a vehicle with options for controlling maneuvering of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9-10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667