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 § 102
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, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR102145902 (hereinafter KR’902).
With respect to claim 1, KR’902 disclose a method to cultivate a piece of farmland using a permanently unmanned autonomous tractor (abstract - autonomous work vehicle for agricultural vehicle) that comprises an engine (page 6 - engine started in step S110) and at least one wheel (page 4 – wheel of working vehicle) operatively connected to the said engine (via system 10) and supported on a surface of the piece of farmland, the method comprising the steps of: running the engine to turn the at least one wheel in order impose a movement of the autonomous tractor over the surface of the piece of farmland (page 6 – when engine started in step S110, control unit 210 drives autonomous vehicle); cultivating the piece of farmland while the autonomous tractor is moving over its surface (see abstract -tractor which cultivates); assessing slip of the at least one wheel with respect to the surface (see abstract – calculate a slip rate); and when it is established that the at least one wheel slips in a longitudinal direction with respect to the surface of the piece of farmland, controlling the autonomous tractor is controlled to make an emergency stop (see abstract – stop autonomous driving based on calculated slip rate. In addition, although KR’902 teaches this limitation it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation and does not need to occur to meet the claim limitation (wherein if it is not established that the wheel slips, the vehicle continues driving) when the tractor does not move any more in the direction corresponding to the at least one turning wheel (see page 6, wherein the controller commands emergency stops) when the tractor does not move any more in the direction corresponding to the turning wheel (see page 3, wherein the vehicle turns and would stop if parameters outside range).
With respect to claim 3, KR’902 disclose wherein the step of controlling includes the step of controlling the autonomous tractor to make an emergency stop when the slip is above a predetermined threshold value (see page 6 - When it is determined that the detected parameters are within the standard range, the control unit 210 commands the VMU 230 to continue to perform autonomous driving and automation, while the detected parameters are determined to be outside the standard range. In this case, the control unit 210 commands the VMU 230 to stop autonomous driving and automated work).
With respect to claim 5, KR’902 disclose wherein the step of controlling includes the step of controlling the autonomous tractor to make an emergency stop when the slip occurs longer than a predetermined threshold period of time (see page 7 - If the comparison result in step S170 is determined to be out of the standard range, that is, out of the standard range, the step proceeds to S180, and the control unit commands the vehicle management unit (VMU) 230 to stop autonomous driving, and accordingly, the vehicle management unit The (VMU) 230 stops autonomous driving, and then in step S190, the vehicle management unit (VMU) instructs the work machine management unit connected to the vehicle management unit to stop the currently being performed work, and the work machine management unit stops the current work – wherein the period of time is real time – see page 6).
With respect to claim 6, KR’902 disclose wherein the step of controlling includes the step of interrupting the operative connection between the at least one wheel and the engine for making the emergency stop (see page 6 – VMU 230 stops the driving and this is considered interrupting the operative connection).
With respect to claim 8, KR’902 disclose wherein the autonomous tractor has an additional second wheel (wherein a tractor is disclosed and a tractor implicitly has more than one wheel) that is operatively connected to the said engine and
supported on the surface of the piece of farmland, and further comprising the step of, when it is established that at least one of the two wheels of the at least one wheel slips with respect to the surface of the piece of farmland, controlling the autonomous tractor to make an emergency stop (see abstract).
With respect to claim 10, KR’902 disclose a permanently unmanned autonomous tractor for cultivating a piece of farmland (abstract - autonomous work vehicle for agricultural vehicle), the tractor comprising: an engine (page 6 - engine started in step S110), and at least one wheel (page 4 – wheel of working vehicle) operatively connected to the said engine (via system 10) to support the tractor on a surface of the piece of farmland, and a central processing unit (CPU) (200) for assessing slip of the at least one wheel with respect to the surface of the piece of farmland when the autonomous tractor is moving over this surface (see abstract – calculate a slip rate) wherein the tractor is controlled by the CPU such that when it is established that the at least one wheel slips in a longitudinal direction with respect to the surface of the piece of farmland when moving over this surface, the CPU controls the autonomous tractor to make an emergency stop (see abstract – stop autonomous driving based on calculated slip rate) when the tractor does not move any more in the direction corresponding to the turning wheel of the at least one wheel (see page 3, wherein the vehicle turns and would stop if parameters outside range).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR’902 in view of Bucher (US 2022/0219697).
With respect to claim 2, KR’902 disclose assessing for slip but does not distinguish between the types of slip. Bucher disclose that tractors which lose traction may spin and/or slide (see paragraphs 21 and 23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KR’902 by assessing for spinning as taught by Bucher with a reasonable expectation of success in order to maintain and control traction of the tractor.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR’902.
With respect to claim 7, KR’902 disclose wherein the step of controlling includes the step of shutting off the engine for making the emergency stop (see page 6 – VMU 230 stops the driving and the engine controls the wheels and starts the vehicle so it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to stop the engine in order to stop the wheel).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR’902 in view of Boone et al. (US 2020/0205336).
With respect to claim 9, KR’902 disclose a wheel, but not an endless track. Boone et al. disclose that wheels may be replaced by endless ground engaging tracks (see paragraph 66). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the wheel in KR’902 with the endless track of Boone et al. for the predictable result of engaging the ground while moving the tractor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that KR ‘902 does not disclose a permanently unmanned autonomous tractor. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s definition of “permanently unmanned tractor” is a tractor wherein no human operator is on board. KR ‘902 meets this definition as in autonomous mode there is no operator on board. KR ‘902 discussing “personal damage” does not teach that an operator is on board the vehicle and the definition of “permanently unmanned does not preclude an operator onsite. Therefore, KR ‘902 teaches the claimed invention. With respect to the apparatus claim 10, it is further noted that since KR ‘902 teaches the tractor limitations as set forth after the phrase “comprising”, it teaches the “permanently unmanned autonomous tractor”.
The Applicant also argues that there is no emergency stop in KR ‘902 but rather only that autonomous mode is stopped. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The switch from autonomous to manual is considered an emergency stop.
With respect to the limitations of claim 4 now incorporated into claim 1, the Applicant argues that “it is advantageous to only make an emergency stop when the movement at any point in time has become zero.” It is first noted the word “only” does not appear in the claim. Second, this limitation has been incorporated into the contingent limitation, thus it is not required that the art discloses it to meet the limitation. As noted in the non-final rejection, if it is not established that the wheel slips, the vehicle continues driving. Third, the limitation from claim 4 of “when the tractor does not move any more in the direction corresponding to the at least one turning wheel” is also a contingent limitation. Thus, the “controlling step” only needs to occur when this condition is met, and if it is not met no controlling occurs.
The Applicant also argues that there is “no discussion whatsoever in KR ‘902 as to the direction corresponding to the turning wheel”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as noted above, this claim limitation is a contingent limitation and does not need to occur to meet the claim. Second, on page 3, KR ‘902 discusses the vehicle’s path. In order to move along the path, the vehicle would require a turning wheel. Third, the reference discusses that when the detected parameters are out of range the autonomous driving stops. A detected parameter includes speed, and an out of range speed would be too slow (no movement) or too fast. Therefore, although not required for the claim as currently written, KR ‘902 discloses making an emergency stop when the tractor does not move any more in the direction corresponding to the at least one turning wheel.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLE A COY whose telephone number is (571)272-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3:30pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights