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
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus, US 2022/0142034 A1, in view of Ito, et al., US 2023/0135242 A1.
As per Claim 1, Kraus teaches an agricultural vehicle (¶ 20; harvester implement 20 of Figure 1) comprising:
a chassis comprising: a first chassis portion (¶ 24; harvester head 24 of Figures 1 and 2); and
a second chassis portion pivotably coupled to the first chassis portion (¶ 22; traction unit 22 of Figures 1 and 2);
a plurality of tractive elements, each of the tractive elements coupled to the first chassis portion or the second chassis portion (¶¶ 26-28; first drive wheel 42 and second drive wheel 44 of Figures 1 and 2);
a steering input device configured to steer the agricultural vehicle to perform a turn; a steering control system configured to operate the steering input device (¶ 34; steering control system 68 of Figure 2), the steering control system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain steering condition data corresponding to steering conditions of the steering input device (¶ 35; the “steering sensor 72 is operable to sense data related to a steering angle 74 of the traction unit 22” as in Figures 2 and 3);
obtain partial curvature data corresponding to curvatures of the first chassis portion (¶¶ 57-58; through “the first head speed sensor 122 and the second head speed sensor 124” of Figure 3); and
determine, based on the partial curvature data, curvature data corresponding to curvatures of the agricultural vehicle (¶ 58; e.g., “the primary radius 110 of curvature of the travel path 104 of the traction unit 22” as in Figure 3).
Kraus does not expressly teach: generating, based on the steering condition data and the curvature data, a primary curvature model that determines steering condition data given commanded curvature data; and operate the steering input device using (1) the primary curvature model and (2) a given command curvature. Ito teaches:
generating, based on the steering condition data and the curvature data, a primary curvature model that determines steering condition data given commanded curvature data (¶ 110; as “the threshold ρth of the radius of curvature is corrected based on a lateral width of the vehicle 1, the lane width, curvature of the lane, and an angular change of the lane” as in Figures 2 and 5); and
operating the steering input device using (1) the primary curvature model and (2) a given command curvature (¶¶ 96-98).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the chassis system of Kraus with the steering modeling system of Ito, in order to keep a vehicle centered properly within a desired lane of travel.
As per Claim 8, Kraus teaches a steering control system (¶¶ 28-29) configured to operate a steering input device of an agricultural vehicle to perform a turn (¶ 20; harvester implement 20 of Figure 1), the steering control system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain steering condition data corresponding to steering conditions of the steering input device (¶ 35; the “steering sensor 72 is operable to sense data related to a steering angle 74 of the traction unit 22” as in Figures 2 and 3);
obtain partial curvature data corresponding to curvatures of a first chassis portion of the agricultural vehicle (¶ 58; e.g., “the primary radius 110 of curvature of the travel path 104 of the traction unit 22” as in Figure 3); and
determine, based on the partial curvature data, curvature data corresponding to combined curvatures of the first chassis portion and a second chassis portion pivotably coupled to the first chassis portion (¶¶ 57-58; through “the first head speed sensor 122 and the second head speed sensor 124” of Figure 3).
Kraus does not expressly teach: generating, based on the steering condition data and the curvature data, a primary curvature model that determines steering condition data given commanded curvature data; and operating the steering input device using (1) the primary curvature model and (2) a given command curvature. Ito teaches:
generating, based on the steering condition data and the curvature data, a primary curvature model that determines steering condition data given commanded curvature data (¶ 110; as “the threshold ρth of the radius of curvature is corrected based on a lateral width of the vehicle 1, the lane width, curvature of the lane, and an angular change of the lane” as in Figures 2 and 5); and
operating the steering input device using (1) the primary curvature model and (2) a given command curvature (¶¶ 96-98).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 14, Kraus teaches a method for controlling a steering input device (¶¶ 28-29) of an agricultural vehicle (¶ 20; harvester implement 20 of Figure 1), the method comprising:
obtaining steering condition data corresponding to steering conditions of the steering conditions of the steering input device (¶ 35; the “steering sensor 72 is operable to sense data related to a steering angle 74 of the traction unit 22” as in Figures 2 and 3);
obtaining partial curvature data corresponding to curvatures of a first chassis portion of the agricultural vehicle (¶ 58; e.g., “the primary radius 110 of curvature of the travel path 104 of the traction unit 22” as in Figure 3); and
determining, based on the partial curvature data, curvature data corresponding to combined curvatures of the first chassis portion and a second chassis portion pivotably coupled to the first chassis portion (¶¶ 57-58; through “the first head speed sensor 122 and the second head speed sensor 124” of Figure 3).
Kraus does not expressly teach: generating, based on the steering condition data and the curvature data, a primary curvature model that determines steering condition data given commanded curvature data; and operating the steering input device using (1) the primary curvature model and (2) a given command curvature. Ito teaches:
generating, based on the steering condition data and the curvature data, a primary curvature model that determines steering condition data given commanded curvature data (¶ 110; as “the threshold ρth of the radius of curvature is corrected based on a lateral width of the vehicle 1, the lane width, curvature of the lane, and an angular change of the lane” as in Figures 2 and 5); and
operating the steering input device using (1) the primary curvature model and (2) a given command curvature (¶¶ 96-98).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claims 2, 9 and 15, Kraus teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to determine the curvature data following the steps of:
determining, based on the partial curvature data, an articulation angle between the first chassis portion and the second chassis portion (¶ 39; after sensing “data related to an angle of the first steerable wheel 60 relative to the central longitudinal axis 26” as shown in Figure 3); and
determining, based on the articulation angle, the curvature data corresponding to the curvatures of the agricultural vehicle (¶ 58).
As per Claims 3, 10 and 16, Kraus teaches that the articulation angle is determined by minimizing a function that relates the curvatures of the first chassis angle to the articulation angle and a rate of change of the articulation angle (¶ 60; as calculated from “angular velocity”).
As per Claims 4, 11 and 17, Kraus teaches that the agricultural vehicle further comprises a sensor coupled to the first chassis portion, the sensor configured to generate the partial curvature data corresponding to the curvatures of the first chassis portion (¶ 39; “a first steerable wheel angle sensor 84 and a second steerable wheel angle sensor 86” of Figure 3).
As per Claim 5, Kraus teaches that the curvatures of the agricultural vehicle are combinations of first curvatures of the first chassis portion (¶ 51; as measured by “a first head speed sensor 122 and a second head speed sensor 124” as in Figure 3) and second curvatures of the second chassis portion (¶ 39 as measured by first and second steerable wheel angle sensors 84 and 86 of Figure 3).
As per Claim 6, 12 and 18, Kraus does not expressly teach: that the primary curvature model is configured to determine a steering condition of the steering input device that corresponds with the given command curvature; and that the processing circuitry operates the steering input device according to the steering condition. Ito teaches:
that the primary curvature model is configured to determine a steering condition of the steering input device that corresponds with the given command curvature (¶¶ 28; as a controller “transmits a target steering angle”); and
that the processing circuitry operates the steering input device according to the steering condition (¶ 63; “to achieve the target steering angle”).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claims 7, 13 and 19, Kraus does not expressly teach that the primary curvature model comprises a non-linear relationship between the curvatures of the agricultural vehicle and the steering conditions of the steering input device. Ito teach that the primary curvature model comprises a non-linear relationship between the curvatures of the agricultural vehicle and the steering conditions of the steering input device (¶¶ 50, 56). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 20, Kraus does not expressly teach: determining if a deviation between the primary curvature model and a calibration curvature model exceeds a threshold; and performing at least one of generating an alert or stop operating the steering input device using (1) the primary curvature model of the agricultural vehicle and (2) the steering if the deviation is above the threshold; wherein a calibration curvature model is generated following the steps of: operating the steering input device of the agricultural vehicle for the given commanded curvature using the primary curvature model; obtaining the steering condition data of the steering input device; obtaining the partial curvature data corresponding to the curvatures of the first chassis portion of the agricultural vehicle; determining, based on the partial curvature data, the curvature data corresponding to the combined curvatures of the first chassis portion and the second chassis portion; and using the steering condition data and the curvature data to obtain the calibration curvature model that predicts the steering condition data given the commanded curvature data. Ito teaches:
determining if a deviation between the primary curvature model and a calibration curvature model exceeds a threshold (¶ 59); and
performing at least one of generating an alert or stop operating the steering input device using (1) the primary curvature model of the agricultural vehicle and (2) the steering if the deviation is above the threshold; wherein a calibration curvature model is generated following the steps of: operating the steering input device of the agricultural vehicle for the given commanded curvature using the primary curvature model (¶ 44); obtaining the steering condition data of the steering input device (¶¶ 41, 44);
obtaining the partial curvature data corresponding to the curvatures of the first chassis portion of the agricultural vehicle (¶¶ 54-55);
determining, based on the partial curvature data, the curvature data corresponding to the combined curvatures of the first chassis portion and the second chassis portion (¶¶ 52-55); and
using the steering condition data and the curvature data to obtain the calibration curvature model that predicts the steering condition data given the commanded curvature data (¶ 71).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,495,726 (“the ‘726 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘726 patent teaches an agricultural vehicle, and a method for controlling steering of the vehicle according to a curvature model that adjusts in response to received steering inputs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661