DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
2. Claims 1-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling (U.S. Patent # 11,090,990) in view of Neufeld et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2006/0042809).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Ling discloses a method for aligning a machine with a tow vehicle for connection therebetween (abstract, figs, etc), the method comprising:
determining, with one or more processors, a movement profile of a tongue (coupler 14) of the machine relative to a portion of the machine, the movement profile corresponding to a plurality of available positions of the tongue along a range of motion (figs 8-10, col 19: 33-45, etc; see also Neufeld figs 1-4, P33, 35, 39, 43, etc);
identifying, with the one or more processors, a target of the tow vehicle (fig 15: 214-224, etc: identify coupler position);
maneuvering one of the tow vehicle or the machine relative to the other of the tow vehicle or the machine (fig 15: 230, col 19:55- 65, etc); and
ceasing maneuvering of the tow vehicle or the machine relative to the other of the tow vehicle or the machine when a position of the target corresponds with one of the plurality of the available positions of the tongue (fig 15: 232-234, col 19:55- col 20:5, etc).
Ling fails to disclose that the machine is an agricultural machine.
In the same field of endeavor, Neufeld discloses that the machine is an agricultural machine (title, abstract, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ling to use an agricultural machine, as taught by Neufeld, in order to apply the invention of Ling to an agricultural machine and thus improve the accuracy and efficiency of aligning an agricultural machine to the tow vehicle, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses altering a position of the tongue along the range of motion to cause a position of a coupler provided on the tongue to correspond to the position of the target (fig 15: 230-234, col 19:55- col 20:5, etc; and/or Neufeld figs 1-4, P33, 35, 39, 43, etc).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses that altering a position of the tongue along the range of motion to cause a coupler provided on the tongue to correspond to the position of the target comprises: actuating, in response to a first signal from the one or more processors, a first actuator coupled to the tongue of the agricultural machine;
moving the tongue in response to actuation of the first actuator; determining, with the one or more processors, when the position of the coupler corresponds to the position of the target; and ceasing actuation of the first actuator when the position of the coupler is determined to correspond to the position of the target (fig 15: 230-234, col 19:55- col 20:5, etc; and/or Neufeld figs 1-4, P33, 35, 39, 43, etc).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses that the target is a hitch of the tow vehicle (abstract, fig 15, etc).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses engaging the coupler with the hitch (abstract, fig 15, other figs, etc).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses that engaging the coupler with the hitch comprises altering a vertical position of at least a portion of the tongue relative to the hitch (figs 8-10, col 1: 54- col 2: 13, col 15: 13-30, col 15: 53- col 16: 1, col 16: 44-50, etc).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses that altering the vertical position of the at least a portion of the tongue relative to the hitch comprises: actuating, in response to a second signal from the one or more processors, a second actuator to alter the vertical position of the at least portion of the tongue relative to the hitch (figs 8-10, col 1: 54- col 2: 13, col 15: 13-30, col 15: 53- col 16: 1, col 16: 44-50, etc).
Regarding claims 8 and 20-21, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses sensing, with one or more sensors electronically connected to the one or more processors, a location of the agricultural machine; sensing, with the one or more sensors electronically connected to the one or more processors, a position of the tongue of the agricultural machine (fig 15: 212-224, etc: identify coupler position); and
defining a curve representing a plurality of available locations of the coupler corresponding to the movement profile of the tongue (figs 8-10, col 19: 33-45, etc; see also Neufeld figs 1-4, P33, 35, 39, 43, etc), and
wherein ceasing maneuvering of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine relative to other of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine when a position of the target aligns with one of the plurality of available positions of the tongue comprises ceasing movement of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine when a position of the target corresponds to a location along the curve (fig 15: 232-234, col 19:55- col 20:5, etc).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses sensing, with one or more sensors, an area adjacent to the tow vehicle; generating a sensor output representative of the area; detecting, with the one or more processors, a tongue of the agricultural machine in the area using the sensor output (fig 15: 212-224, etc: identify coupler position); and
determining, with the one or more processors, the range of motion of the tongue relative to the portion of the agricultural machine (figs 8-10, col 19: 33-45, etc; see also Neufeld figs 1-4, P33, 35, 39, 43, etc).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses detecting, with the one or more processors, that the agricultural machine is present in the area using the sensor output (fig 15: 212-224 in combination with Neufeld, etc).
Regarding claim 11, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses that maneuvering one of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine relative to the other of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine includes operating a propulsion system of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine to move one of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine relative to the other of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine (fig 15: 230-234, col 19:55- col 20:5, etc).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Ling in view of Neufeld further discloses that maneuvering one of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine relative to the other of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine includes operating one or more of a steering system or a propulsion system of at least one of the tow vehicle or the agricultural machine (fig 15: 230-234, col 19:55- col 20:5, etc).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
April 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights