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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Specification Objections
On paragraph [0005] of the specification, the recitation of “large mechanical larker systems” at the end of the paragraph appears to be a typographical error and should be “large mechanical row marker systems”. Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation (s) “...in response to the headway signal a guidance signal representative of the headway signal…” appears to be a typographical error and should be “...in response to the headway signal, a guidance signal representative of the headway signal…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation (s) “...in response to the headland turning signal a guidance signal usable to automatically steer the associated work vehicle…” appears to be a typographical error and should be “...in response to the headland turning signal, a guidance signal usable to automatically steer the associated work vehicle…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation (s) “...in response to the headway signal a guidance image viewable by an operator of the associated work vehicle…” appears to be a typographical error and should be “...in response to the headway signal, a guidance image viewable by an operator of the associated work vehicle…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation (s) “...in response to the headway signal a guidance signal on a machine interface device operatively coupled with the controller…” appears to be a typographical error and should be “...in response to the headway signal, a guidance signal on a machine interface device operatively coupled with the controller…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation (s) “...in response to the headway signal a guidance image on a human readable display of a human interface device operatively coupled with the controller…” appears to be a typographical error and should be “...in response to the headway signal, a guidance image on a human readable display of a human interface device operatively coupled with the controller…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “D” has been used to designate both a component part as shown in Figs. 2A-2B and a direction D in the other Figures. Examiner suggest amending the drawings to change the character of the component in figures 2a-2b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) are: “a first a first position feedback device, wherein the first position feedback device is configured to generate a first position feedback signal representative of a position of the first ultrasound transducer on the transverse axis T”, “a second position feedback device, wherein the second position feedback device is configured to generate a second position feedback signal representative of a position of the second ultrasound transducer on the transverse axis T” and “a first prime mover device, wherein the first prime mover device is responsive to a first position command signal received from the controller to move the first carriage device carrying the first ultrasound transducer towards and away from the second ultrasound transducer along the transverse axis T in accordance with the first position command signal, “a second prime mover device, wherein the second prime mover device is responsive to a second position command signal received from the controller to move the second carriage device carrying the second ultrasound transducer towards and away from the first ultrasound transducer along the transverse axis T in accordance with the second position command signal”. Corresponding structure for above limitations is found on paragraphs 0055-0056 of the specification.
The first and second feedback devices are defined to be such as linear scales, resolvers or the like. The prime mover devices (first and second) are being referred to as motors in the specification to move first and second carriage devices carrying the first and second transducers.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 11, the recited limitation “the field adjacent to the furrow”, in line 5 and the velocity data, the bearing data” and “the field” in lines 6 and 11 and “the distance” in lines 7 and 12 are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 12-14 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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, 3-6, 8-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claim is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim recite determining a headway direction based on the variable output signal produced by the set of transducers, the headway direction being representative of a direction (D) to direct the implement moving in the forward direction (F) to guide the implement along the desired track relative to the furrow. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the controller comprising a processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as condition of field and furrow and position of vehicle could determining a headway direction based on the variable output signal produced by the set of transducers, the headway direction being representative of a direction (D) to direct the implement moving in the forward direction (F) to guide the implement along the desired track relative to the furrow. The mere nominal recitation of “the controller comprising a processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of produce a variable output signal related to a condition of field adjacent to the furrow; generate a headway signal representative of the determined headway direction; generate in response to the headway signal a guidance signal representative of the headway signal, the guidance signal being usable to automatically steer the associated work vehicle to move the implement along the desired track relative to the furrow; a set of transducers operable to produce a variable output signal related to a condition of field adjacent to the furrow; a controller operatively coupled with the set of transducers, the controller comprising a processor, a memory device and guidance logic stored in the memory device; a machine interface device operatively coupled with the controller. The producing step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (field condition, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The set of transducers are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a controller operatively coupled with the set of transducers, the controller comprising a processor, a memory device and guidance logic stored in the memory device; a machine interface device operatively coupled with the controller is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the producing and generating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
The dependent claims do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 USPQ645 (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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-18, and 20 of application No.17316159 (filed on 05/10/2021, now U.S. patent No. 12096708). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for at least independent claims. The limitations of claims 1-18 of the instant application is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claims 1, 3-18, and 20 of the related application. The breadth of the instant application claims (e.g. claims 1-18) would read on the narrow claims. These changes, in view of the related application, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application and/or the secondary reference(s) and the corresponding claims they are contained within.
Furthermore, the same analysis applies to the dependent claims 2-16 and 18 of the instant application which are seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claims 1, 3-18, and 20 of the related application and are be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coker (US 5410479).
With respect to claim 1, Coker discloses an automatic guidance system for guiding an implement of an associated work vehicle as the implement is moved in a forward direction (F) along a desired track relative to a furrow (see at least [abstract]), the automatic guidance system comprising: a set of transducers operable to produce a variable output signal related to a condition of field adjacent to the furrow (see at least [Col. 3 lines 41-57] and {col. 5 line 41-Col. 6 line 8], “ultrasonic transducers 22 and 32”…, “each transducer strikes an adjacent row and is reflected back”…, and “horizontal distance between transducers, can be adjusted to adapt for varying types of row conditions, row flatness, width, etc., to provide good performance in all conditions”.); a controller operatively coupled with the set of transducers (see at least [Col. 7 line 60- Col. 8 line10] and [Col. 8 lines 34-63]), the controller comprising a processor (see at least [Col. 7 line 60- Col. 8 line10] and [Col. 8 lines 34-63]), a memory device and guidance logic stored in the memory device (see at least [Col. 7 line 60- Col. 8 line10] and [Col. 8 lines 34-63]), the guidance logic being executable by the processor to: determine a headway direction based on the variable output signal produced by the set of transducers (see at least [Col. 2 line 59- Col. 3 line 6] and [Col. 4 lines 44-66], “the steering correction commands are transmitted to conventional guidance steering means of the vehicle which is then steered back to the desired track”…, “multipliers 46 and 56 multiply the filtered ranging signal by itself, thereby squaring the signal and increasing the sensitivity of the ranging signals to any change (x.sup.2) in distance of transducer sensors 22 and 32 from the rows or furrow sides. The system is thereby made very sensitive to any displacement of the agricultural vehicle from the desired track and consequently is able to quickly compensate for any such deviations”.), the headway direction being representative of a direction (D) to direct the implement moving in the forward direction (F) to guide the implement along the desired track relative to the furrow (see at least [Col. 2 line 59- Col. 3 line 6], [Col. 4 lines 44-66], and [Col. 5 lines 14-36], “the steering correction commands are transmitted to conventional guidance steering means of the vehicle which is then steered back to the desired track”…, “multipliers 46 and 56 multiply the filtered ranging signal by itself, thereby squaring the signal and increasing the sensitivity of the ranging signals to any change (x.sup.2) in distance of transducer sensors 22 and 32 from the rows or furrow sides. The system is thereby made very sensitive to any displacement of the agricultural vehicle from the desired track and consequently is able to quickly compensate for any such deviations”, “…In the event that a lateral displacement from the desired track is discovered, the steering correction output voltage from the composite circuit 60 (or multiplier 46 depending on whether a single or dual probe configuration is used) is varied based on the amount and direction of steering compensation required and in conformity with the conventional guidance steering system of the vehicle being used..”.); and generate a headway signal representative of the determined headway direction (see at least [Col. 2 line 59- Col. 3 line 6] and [Col. 4 lines 44-66]); a machine interface device operatively coupled with the controller, the machine interface device being operable to generate in response to the headway signal a guidance signal representative of the headway signal (see at least [Col. 2 line 59- Col. 3 line 6], [Col. 4 lines 44-66], and [Col. 5 lines 14-36], “…In the event that a lateral displacement from the desired track is discovered, the steering correction output voltage from the composite circuit 60 (or multiplier 46 depending on whether a single or dual probe configuration is used) is varied based on the amount and direction of steering compensation required and in conformity with the conventional guidance steering system of the vehicle being used..”.), the guidance signal being usable to automatically steer the associated work vehicle to move the implement along the desired track relative to the furrow (see at least [Col. 2 line 59- Col. 3 line 6], [Col. 4 lines 44-66], and [Col. 5 lines 14-36], “…In the event that a lateral displacement from the desired track is discovered, the steering correction output voltage from the composite circuit 60 (or multiplier 46 depending on whether a single or dual probe configuration is used) is varied based on the amount and direction of steering compensation required and in conformity with the conventional guidance steering system of the vehicle being used..”.).
With respect to claim 17, it is a method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claim 1. As such, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coker (US 5410479) in view of Rotem et al (US 4835691).
With respect to claim 3, Coker do not specifically disclose a mounting system configured to attach with the implement of the associated work vehicle, wherein the mounting system comprises a main frame member comprising: a boom attachment portion configured to attach the mounting system with an implement boom of the associated implement of the associated work vehicle; and a transducer attachment portion configured to couple the set of transducers with the mounting system in a mutually spaced apart relationship relative to each other along a transverse axis (T), wherein the transverse axis (T) and the forward direction (F) are substantially mutually perpendicular.
Rotem teaches a mounting system configured to attach with the implement of the associated work vehicle (see at least [Col. 3 lines 43-53], …” a distance-measuring unit, generally designated 10, mounted on the agricultural implement 2…”.), wherein the mounting system comprises a main frame member comprising: a boom attachment portion configured to attach the mounting system with an implement boom of the associated implement of the associated work vehicle (see at least [Col. 3 lines 43-53] and [Figs. 1 and 5, “10” and “102”]); and a transducer attachment portion configured to couple the set of transducers with the mounting system in a mutually spaced apart relationship relative to each other along a transverse axis (T) (see at least [Fig. 5, “10”, “102”, 110a, and “110b”]), wherein the transverse axis (T) and the forward direction (F) are substantially mutually perpendicular (see at least [Fig. 5, “10”, “102”, 110a, and “110b”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Coker to incorporate the teachings of Rotem of a mounting system configured to attach with the implement of the associated work vehicle, wherein the mounting system comprises a main frame member comprising: a boom attachment portion configured to attach the mounting system with an implement boom of the associated implement of the associated work vehicle; and a transducer attachment portion configured to couple the set of transducers with the mounting system in a mutually spaced apart relationship relative to each other along a transverse axis (T), wherein the transverse axis (T) and the forward direction (F) are substantially mutually perpendicular. This would be done to improve plantation/seeding when the agricultural vehicle comprises an implement, thus reducing crop/seed/etc. damage (see Rotem Col. 1 lines 13-38).
With respect to claim 5, Coker discloses wherein: the set of transducers comprises a plurality of transducers coupled with the transducer attachment portion of the mounting system (see at least [Col. 3 lines 41-57] and {col. 5 line 41-Col. 6 line 8], “ultrasonic transducers 22 and 32”…, “each transducer strikes an adjacent row and is reflected back”…, and “horizontal distance between transducers, can be adjusted to adapt for varying types of row conditions, row flatness, width, etc., to provide good performance in all conditions”.), each of the plurality of transducers being operative to produce a variable ranging output signal proportional to a distance between the respective transducer and field adjacent to the furrow (see at least [Col. 3 lines 41-57] and {col. 5 line 41-Col. 6 line 8]); and the controller is operatively coupled with the plurality of transducers and the guidance logic is executable by the processor to: determine the headway direction based on the plurality of variable ranging output signals received by the controller from the plurality of transducers (see at least [Col. 2 line 59- Col. 3 line 6] and [Col. 4 lines 44-66], “the steering correction commands are transmitted to conventional guidance steering means of the vehicle which is then steered back to the desired track”…, “multipliers 46 and 56 multiply the filtered ranging signal by itself, thereby squaring the signal and increasing the sensitivity of the ranging signals to any change (x.sup.2) in distance of transducer sensors 22 and 32 from the rows or furrow sides. The system is thereby made very sensitive to any displacement of the agricultural vehicle from the desired track and consequently is able to quickly compensate for any such deviations”.).
With respect to claim 6, Coker do not specifically disclose wherein: the plurality of transducers comprise a plurality of ultrasound transducers arranged on the mounting system in an array to span the furrow as the implement is moved in the forward direction F along the desired track relative to the furrow.
Rotem teaches wherein: the plurality of transducers comprise a plurality of ultrasound transducers arranged on the mounting system in an array to span the furrow as the implement is moved in the forward direction F along the desired track relative to the furrow (see at least [Col. 3 lines 43-53] and [Col. 7 lines 1-19],” …the agricultural implement 102 straddles a single row of crops 106, and includes two distance-measuring devices 110a and 110b on opposite sides of the crop row 106. Each of the two distance-measuring devices 110a, 110b includes a receiver or other sensor for receiving two input signals, one input signal representing the distance of device 110a from one side of the crop row 106, and the other input signal to device 110b representing the distance of that device from the other side of the crop row 106…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Coker to incorporate the teachings of Rotem wherein: the plurality of transducers comprise a plurality of ultrasound transducers arranged on the mounting system in an array to span the furrow as the implement is moved in the forward direction F along the desired track relative to the furrow. This would be done to improve plantation/seeding when the agricultural vehicle comprises an implement, thus reducing crop/seed/etc. damage (see Rotem Col. 1 lines 13-38).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coker (US 5410479) in view of Flamme et al (US 6070539).
With respect to claim 16, Coker do not specifically disclose a human interface device operatively coupled with the controller, the human interface device comprising a human readable display operable to generate in response to the headway signal a guidance image viewable by an operator of the associated work vehicle, the guidance image being representative of the headway signal for assisting the operator visualize the headway signal for steering the associated work vehicle to guide the implement along the desired track relative to the furrow.
Flamme teaches a human interface device operatively coupled with the controller, the human interface device comprising a human readable display operable to generate in response to the headway signal a guidance image viewable by an operator of the associated work vehicle (see at least [Col. 2 line 30-Col. 8 line 35]), the guidance image being representative of the headway signal for assisting the operator visualize the headway signal for steering the associated work vehicle to guide the implement along the desired track relative to the furrow (see at least [Col. 2 line 30-Col. 8 line 35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Coker to incorporate the teachings of Flamme of a human interface device operatively coupled with the controller, the human interface device comprising a human readable display operable to generate in response to the headway signal a guidance image viewable by an operator of the associated work vehicle, the guidance image being representative of the headway signal for assisting the operator visualize the headway signal for steering the associated work vehicle to guide the implement along the desired track relative to the furrow. This would be done to improve agricultural operations such as rate of fertilization and seeding.
With respect to claim 18, it is a method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claim 16. As such, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 16 and is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 7-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting, 35 U.S.C. 101, and 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ),2nd paragraph, set forth in this office action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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 on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667