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 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:
work device (claims 1-5, 7, and 8) – work vehicle such as a harvester, tractor, combine, spraying machine, drone, or the like (Published Application, ¶ [0030]
following device (claims 2, 3, and 7) – transport vehicle that follows the work vehicle (¶ [0059])
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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method of work management including the steps of determine an operation status of a work device, determining a ridge, or location, that the work device has performed work, and outputting information indicating a display image representing the operation status and location that the work device has performed work (claim 1) which is an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements. Claims 1-5 and 7 do require a display but merely recites a step of outputting of information “indicating a display image” (claim 1, ¶ 4, l. 1). The steps of observing the operating status of a work device and the location traveled by the work device are observations that can be performed in the human mind. The additional step of outputting information may be reasonably performed by a human recording these observations. The additional elements of a generic “work device” (claims 1-8), “following device” (claims 2, 3, and 7) and a step of “displaying the display image” (claims 6 and 8), considered separately and in combination, are conventional elements that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshimine et al. (JP 2022-117696 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimine et al. discloses a work management method (¶ [0002]) comprising: determining, based on operation information of a work device (30) that performs work in a field (400; fig. 2), an operation status of the work device (30) at each time (trajectory information output device 100 calculates work data, which is an operation status of work device 30, based on operational information received from work vehicle 30 in field 400; ¶ [0017]); determining, based on the operation information of the work device (30), a ridge (410) on which the work device (30) performed work at each time (trajectory information output device 100 determines a trajectory 410 that work was performed based on position information of work device 30 at each point in time; fig. 2 and ¶ [0017]); and outputting work information indicating a display image representing the operation status of the work device (30) and the ridge (410) on which the work device (30) performed work in association with each other at each time (trajectory information output device 100 outputs display data for displaying an image on terminal 200 showing trajectory 410 and the corresponding work type; ¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshimine et al. discloses wherein the operation status represents at least one classification of whether the work device (30) is operating and a speed of the work device (operational information represents at least a work type and speed of work vehicle 30; ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshimine et al. discloses wherein the display image represents each time in a strip shape and further represents the operation status of the work device (30) at each time and the ridge (410) on which work was performed in association with each other in a position corresponding to a position in which each time is represented (display image may be a map showing trajectory 410 representing each location where work was performed by vehicle 30 at each time in a strip shape; fig. 2 and ¶ [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimine et al. discloses further comprising: displaying the display image represented by the work information (image represented by work information of work vehicle 30 is displayed; ¶ [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshimine et al. discloses a work management method comprising: determining, based on operation information of a work device (30) that performs work in a field (400; fig. 2), an operation status of the work device (30) at each time (trajectory information output device 100 calculates work data, which is an operation status of work device 30, based on operational information received from work vehicle 30 in field 400; ¶ [0017]); determining, based on the operation information of the work device (30), a ridge (410) on which the work device (30) performed work at each time (trajectory information output device 100 determines a trajectory 410 that work was performed based on position information of work device 30 at each point in time; fig. 2 and ¶ [0017]); and displaying a display image (fig. 2) representing the operation status of the work device (30) and the ridge (410) on which the work device (30) performed work in association with each other at each time (trajectory information output device 100 outputs display data for displaying an image on terminal 200 showing trajectory 410 and the corresponding work type; ¶¶ [0018, 0028]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimine et al. (JP 2022-117696 A) in view of Brinker et al. (US 2023/0189689 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimine et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Yoshimine et al. is silent on a determining position information of a following device.
Brinker et al. teaches determining, based on position information of the following device (120), the following device (120; fig. 1) that follows a work device (102) at each time (based on position information of implement 120 from position sensors 142 and 144, the implement 120 that follows tractor 102 is determined; ¶ [0035]), wherein work information represents the following device (120) that follows the work device (102) in association with a ridge on which the work device (102) performed work at each time (work information represents implement 120 that follows tractor 102 in association with a ridge, or row position, on which tractor 102 performed work at each time from position sensors 142 and 144; ¶ [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Yoshimine et al. with the following device position information of Brinker et al. to improve crop yield mapping by allowing an operator to determine effective positioning of equipment at different parts of a field (Brinker et al., ¶¶ [0002, 0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshimine et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Yoshimine et al. is silent on a determining harvested crop information.
Brinker et al. teaches wherein operation information of a work device (102) includes harvested crop information (yield map) representing an amount of yield of a crop harvested by the work device (102) at each time (a yield map includes an amount of yield of a crop harvested by tractor 102 over time; ¶ [0050]), the work management method further includes determining, based on the harvested crop information (yield map), an amount of a crop stored by the following device (120) when the following device (120) follows the work device (102), and the work information represents information representing the amount of the crop stored by the following device (120) when the following device (120) follows the work device (102) in association with a period in which the following device (120) follows the work device (a yield map is combined with the row position map of implement 120, is work information representing an amount of a crop planted by implement 120 in association with a period in which implement 120 follows tractor 102; ¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Yoshimine et al. with the harvested crop information of Brinker et al. to improve crop yield mapping (Brinker et al., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshimine et al. discloses a work management method (¶ [0002]) comprising: determining, based on operation information of a work device (30) that performs work in a field (400; fig. 2), an operation status of the work device (30) at each time (trajectory information output device 100 calculates work data, which is an operation status of work device 30, based on operational information received from work vehicle 30 in field 400; ¶ [0017]); outputting work information indicating a display image representing the ridge (410) on which the work device (30) at each time (trajectory information output device 100 outputs display data for displaying an image on terminal 200 showing trajectory 410 and the corresponding work type; ¶ [0018]).
Yoshimine et al. is silent on a determining position information of a following device.
Brinker et al. teaches determining, based on position information of a following device (120), the following device (120; fig. 1) that follows a work device (102) at each time (based on position information of implement 120 from position sensors 142 and 144, the implement 120 that follows tractor 102 is determined; ¶ [0035]), and outputting work information indicating a display image representing a ridge (location) on which the work device (102) performed work and the following device (120) that follows the work device (102) in association with each other at each time (information of a yield map is combined with the row position map of implement 120, which is a display image representing the location on which tractor 102 performed work and implement 120 in association with each other at each time; figs. 7-9 and ¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Yoshimine et al. with the following device position information of Brinker et al. to improve crop yield mapping by allowing an operator to determine effective positioning of equipment at different parts of a field (Brinker et al., ¶¶ [0002, 0008]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights