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 1-13 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 11) 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 12) 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, 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata et al. (US-2015/0112537-A1, hereinafter Kawamata) in view of Aizawa et al. (US-2021/0165414-A1, hereinafter Aizawa).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamata discloses:
A travel control system for an agricultural machine capable of performing self-traveling and remotely-manipulated traveling (paragraphs [0035] and [0073]; FIG. 1, autonomous mode-300, and maneuver mode-310; and FIG. 12, mining dump truck-1100, operator terminal-1210, screen-1220, and operator-1230); and
a controller operable in a self-traveling mode in which the agricultural machine is caused to perform self-traveling in a self-traveling area and a remote manipulation mode in which travel of the agricultural machine is controlled by remote manipulation (paragraphs [0037-0040] 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 does not disclose disabling remote manipulation to prevent an agricultural machine from entering a forbidden area. However, Aizawa discloses a conveyance vehicle controlled by a remote computer device, including the following features:
the travel control system comprising: a storage to store a position of a permitted area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted and a position of a forbidden area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is forbidden (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);
to disable a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to enter the forbidden area (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0063-0068]); and
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to set at least a portion of the self-traveling area as the permitted area and an outside of the self-traveling area as the forbidden area, and to cause the storage to store the position of the permitted area and the position of the forbidden area (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0063-0068]).
Aizawa teaches that a controller should acquire area data indicative of the topography of a work site and entry prohibition areas of a conveyance vehicle (paragraph [0064]). Aizawa further teaches that, if the controller determines that the conveyance vehicle is positioned in an entry prohibition area, the controller should cause the conveyance vehicle to stop (paragraphs [0067-0068]). 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 preventing a vehicle controlled by a remote computer device from entering a prohibition area of Aizawa into the system for switching control of a vehicle between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode of Kawamata. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing a remote operator from inadvertently maneuvering the vehicle into an area in which the vehicle could not successfully function.
Regarding claim 8, Kawamata does not disclose disabling remote manipulation to prevent an agricultural machine from entering a forbidden area. However, 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 indicating the forbidden area (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).
Aizawa teaches that a remote computer device should include an operator input device and a display of camera images related to a work machine (paragraph [0048]). 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 remote computer device of Aizawa into the system for switching control of a vehicle between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode of Kawamata. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing a remote operator from inadvertently maneuvering the vehicle into an area in which the vehicle could not successfully function.
Regarding claim 9, Kawamata does not disclose disabling remote manipulation to prevent an agricultural machine from entering a forbidden area. However, Aizawa further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to cause the display to display an image in which display of the forbidden area overlays an image captured by a camera mounted on the agricultural machine (paragraphs [0044-0048]).
Aizawa teaches that a remote computer device should include an operator input device and a display of camera images related to a work machine (paragraph [0048]). 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 remote computer device of Aizawa into the system for switching control of a vehicle between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode of Kawamata. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing a remote operator from inadvertently maneuvering the vehicle into an area in which the vehicle could not successfully function.
Regarding claim 11, Kawamata further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to obtain positional information of the agricultural machine from a positioning device that determines the position of the agricultural machine, and identify an area in which the agricultural machine is located, based on the positional information (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 12, Kawamata further discloses:
An agricultural machine comprising: the travel control system of claim 1; and a travel device to be controlled by the controller (paragraph [0073]; and FIG. 11, mining dump truck-1100, cockpit-1110, in-vehicle monitor-1130, and screen-1140).
Regarding claim 13, Kawamata further discloses:
A travel control method for an agricultural machine capable of performing self-traveling and remotely-manipulated traveling (paragraphs [0035] and [0073]; FIG. 1, autonomous mode-300, and maneuver mode-310; and FIG. 12, mining dump truck-1100, operator terminal-1210, screen-1220, and operator-1230); and
operating in a self-traveling mode in which the agricultural machine is caused to perform self-traveling in a self-traveling area and a remote manipulation mode in which travel of the agricultural machine is controlled by remote manipulation (paragraphs [0037-0040] 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 does not disclose disabling remote manipulation to prevent an agricultural machine from entering a forbidden area. However, Aizawa further discloses:
the method comprising: obtaining information indicating a position of a permitted area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is permitted and a position of a forbidden area in which the remotely-manipulated traveling is forbidden (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);
disabling a remote manipulation to cause the agricultural machine to enter the forbidden area in the remote manipulation mode (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0063-0068]); and
setting at least a portion of the self-traveling area as the permitted area, and an outside of the self-traveling area as the forbidden area, and causing a storage to store the position of the permitted area and the position of the forbidden area (paragraphs [0050], [0058] and [0063-0068]).
Aizawa teaches that a controller should acquire area data indicative of the topography of a work site and entry prohibition areas of a conveyance vehicle (paragraph [0064]). Aizawa further teaches that, if the controller determines that the conveyance vehicle is positioned in an entry prohibition area, the controller should cause the conveyance vehicle to stop (paragraphs [0067-0068]). 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 preventing a vehicle controlled by a remote computer device from entering a prohibition area of Aizawa into the system for switching control of a vehicle between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode of Kawamata. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing a remote operator from inadvertently maneuvering the vehicle into an area in which the vehicle could not successfully function.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata in view of Aizawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fattey et al. (US-2020/0404846-A1, hereinafter Fattey).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamata in view of Aizawa does not disclose setting, as a forbidden area, a range within a distance of a tree trunk. However, Fattey discloses an autonomous agricultural vehicle, including the following features:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to set, as the forbidden area, a range in which a distance from a tree trunk included in the self-traveling area is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance (paragraphs [0023] and [0034-0036]; FIG. 1, shaker-M1; and FIG. 6, GPS limited/denied autonomous control system-100, offboard system-104, remote vehicle controller-106, graphic user interfaces-108, onboard system-110, processing unit(s) - 112, and vehicle/system control-114).
Fattey teaches that an autonomous shaker machine should stop at a pre-determined optimum distance from a target tree (paragraph [0023]). 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 stopping an autonomous shaker machine at a pre-determined distance from a target tree of Fattey into the system for switching control of a vehicle between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode of Kawamata in view of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that an agricultural vehicle avoids colliding with a tree during autonomous operation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata in view of Aizawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pilzweger et al. (US-2020/0288625-A1, hereinafter Pilzweger).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamata in view of Aizawa does not disclose setting, as a forbidden area, an area in which there is a crop row or an earthed-up ridge in a field included in a self-traveling area. However, Pilzweger discloses a track guidance system for an agricultural work vehicle, including the following features:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to set, as the forbidden area, an area in which there is a crop row or an earthed-up ridge in a field included in the self-traveling area (paragraphs [0029] and [0031]; FIG. 2, rows-14a-f,17a-f, row interspaces-15, and prespecified track-18; and FIG. 3, tractor-1, cropland surface-6, prespecified track-18, sowing machine-19, track marker-20, track-21, and specific distance-22).
Pilzweger teaches that an autonomous tractor should follow a line generated by a track marker to remain a specific distance from a crop row (paragraph [0031]). 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 maintaining a specific distance from a crop row of Pilzweger into the system for switching control of a vehicle between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode of Kawamata in view of Aizawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that required row interspaces are observed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata in view of Aizawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaufmann (US-2023/0363302-A1, hereinafter Kaufmann).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamata in view of Aizawa does not disclose generating a target path for self-traveling in a field and on a road around the field. However, Kaufmann discloses a method for automatic maneuvering of an agricultural vehicle at a farmyard, including the following features:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to generate a target path for self-traveling in a field and on a road around the field (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); and
in the self-traveling mode, the controller is configured or programmed to cause the agricultural machine to perform self-traveling with an area specified by the field and the road in which the target path is generated set as the self-traveling 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]). 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 autonomously maneuvering an agricultural vehicle from an agricultural field, along a road, and onto a farmyard of Kaufmann into the system for switching control of a vehicle between an autonomous mode and a remote maneuver mode of Kawamata in view 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 the efficiency of maneuvering the agricultural vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 10 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