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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP 2023-180088 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a correction path which is different form the target path” should be “a correction path which is different from the target path.”
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “first work and second work which follows the first work are performed” should be “first work and second work, which follows the first work, are performed.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. The claim refers to the work being “performed by the work vehicle in a work area,” “an area positioned outside a work area,” and “a work area of the first work.” All of these reference of a work area are dependent on claim 7 which references “reducing a work area inside an area.” It is unclear whether each of these areas are different or if they are referencing the same work area.
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.
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) 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:
In claim 12, the “travel process part” in the limitation “the travel process part which causes the work vehicle to travel” invokes 112(f) as part is a term that does not have definite structure which causes the vehicle to travel.
In claim 12, the “correction process part” in the limitation “the correction process part which…causes the work vehicle to perform correction travel” invokes 112(f) as part is a term that does not have definite structure which causes the vehicle to perform correction travel.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0037] The vehicle control apparatus 11 has control equipment such as a CPU, a ROM and a RAM. The CPU is a processor that executes various arithmetic processes. [0038] …the vehicle control apparatus 11 includes various process parts such as a travel process part 111 and a correction process part 112.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not falling under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed “automatic travel program,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) thus not having a physical or tangible form (MPEP § 2106.03). See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims does not cover subject matter that have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of the statutory categories. Thus, the claims do not fall within a statutory category and failed the first criterion for eligibility. Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by providing the software on a “non-transitory computer readable medium”).
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.
(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 1-4 and 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takashi (WO 2020/111102 A1), hereinafter Takashi.
With respect to claims 1 and 11-12, Takashi discloses an automatic travel method for causing a work vehicle to automatically travel along a preset target path, (see at least [0002] “The present invention also relates to a control device for a work vehicle that automatically travels along a target travel route.”)
wherein the automatic travel method performs:
causing the work vehicle to travel along a plurality of work paths which cause the work vehicle to perform predetermined work, and a plurality of turning paths connecting the work paths, the work paths and the turning paths being included in the target path; (see at least Figs. 3, 16-17, and [0202] “The route traveled by the combine in the round trip travel pattern includes a work travel route parallel to one side of the polygon that defines the outline of the uncut area CA1. In addition, the route traveled by the combine in the round trip travel pattern includes a U-turn route.”)
and in a case where the work vehicle travels in the turning path, when it is decided that at least one of a predetermined positional displacement and a predetermined orientational displacement occurs with respect to a target start position of the work path which follows the turning path, causing the work vehicle to perform correction travel including reverse travel. (see at least Fig. 7, [0134] “the combine 1 deviates from this target turning line and reaches a position P5… the lateral deviation at the position P5 is greater than the second threshold value d2.” [0138] “when the combine 1 reaches position P5, the retry determination unit 28 determines that the retry condition is satisfied. As a result, the travel control unit 24 controls the travel of the combine 1 so that the combine 1 performs a retry travel.” [0177] “the lateral deviation and the turning output from the time when the combine 1 starts to reverse from position P5 until the combine 1 reaches position P6”)
With respect to claim 2, Takashi discloses when it is decided that the positional displacement occurs, the work vehicle correctively travels so that a distance of the positional displacement is equal to or below a predetermined distance with respect to the target start position, (see at least Fig. 7, [0040] “a vehicle position calculation unit that calculates the vehicle position of the work vehicle, a target point estimation unit that calculates an estimated target point as a position on the target travel route that is a predetermined distance away in the travel direction of the work vehicle from a projection point of the vehicle position onto the target travel route,”)
and when it is decided that the orientational displacement occurs, the work vehicle correctively travels so that the orientational displacement is equal to or below a predetermined orientation with respect to an extension direction of the work path which follows the turning path. (see at least [0040] “a correction orientation calculation unit that calculates a correction orientation that eliminates the deviation between the estimated target point and the vehicle position, and a control calculation unit that uses the correction orientation as an input parameter and outputs a control amount for controlling the work vehicle so as to reduce the deviation.”)
With respect to claim 3, Takashi discloses after the work vehicle correctively travels, the work vehicle travels forward toward the target start position in a straight advancing direction. (see at least Fig. 7, [0140] “In this retry run, the combine 1 moves backward from position P5 and reaches position P6. Then, it moves forward again from position P6 and attempts to enter the work area CA. As a result, the combine 1 reaches position P7 and enters the work area CA.”)
With respect to claim 4, Takashi discloses when it is decided that at least one of the positional displacement and the orientational displacement occurs, a correction path which is different form the target path is created, and the work vehicle correctively travels along the correction path. (see at least Fig. 7, [0134] “the target turning line at this time is shown by a broken line connecting positions P4 and P7. However, in the example shown in FIG. 7, the combine 1 deviates from this target turning line and reaches a position P5. [0138] “when the combine 1 reaches position P5, the retry determination unit 28 determines that the retry condition is satisfied. As a result, the travel control unit 24 controls the travel of the combine 1 so that the combine 1 performs a retry travel”)
With respect to claim 10, Takashi discloses in a case where the positional displacement and the orientational displacement fall within a predetermined range in halfway through the correction path when the work vehicle correctively travels along the correction path, the correction travel is ended, and the work vehicle travels forward toward the target start position in the straight advancing direction. (see at least Fig. 6-7, [0140] “In this retry run, the combine 1 moves backward from position P5 and reaches position P6. Then, it moves forward again from position P6 and attempts to enter the work area CA. As a result, the combine 1 reaches position P7 and enters the work area CA.” [0112] “a case in which the direction of the combine harvester 1's body is the same as or approximately the same as the direction in which the target cutting travel path LI extends, and the combine harvester 1 moves forward.” Note: Reaching position P6 would be considered a predetermined point halfway through, at which point it would be assessed for retry travel starting with the entry determination unit 29, in alignment with Fig. 6.)
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.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 2020/0331347 A1), hereinafter Sakaguchi.
With respect to claim 5, Takashi discloses a work vehicle retrying a turn, but does not explicitly disclose the counting of the corrected turn retries to compare against an upper limit.
However, Sakaguchi teaches an upper limit number of times the work vehicle correctively travels can be preset. (see at least [0101] “Here, it is conceivable to count the cumulative number of retries in harvesting work in a field, and determine that the turning precision of the combine has decreased if the cumulative number of retries is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the turning correction of Takashi to include the maximum number of retries disclosed in Sakaguchi, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency and precision of the work vehicle as the load increases, see Sakaguchi [0020-0021].
With respect to claim 6, Takashi discloses a work vehicle retrying a turn, but does not explicitly disclose the corrected turn retries reaches an upper limit causing a different specific process.
However, Sakaguchi teaches in a case where the positional displacement and the orientational displacement do not fall within a predetermined range at a time when the number of times the work vehicle correctively travels reaches the upper limit number of times, a specific process which is different from the correction travel is performed. (see at least [0101] “Here, it is conceivable to count the cumulative number of retries in harvesting work in a field, and determine that the turning precision of the combine has decreased if the cumulative number of retries is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value.” [0380] “if the turning precision of the combine 201 has decreased, the maximum value reducing unit 230 reduces the maximum value of the storage weight of grain in the grain tank 214.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the turning correction of Takashi to include the maximum number of retries disclosed in Sakaguchi, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency and precision of the work vehicle as the load increases, see Sakaguchi [0020-0021].
With respect to claim 8, Takashi discloses a work vehicle retrying a turn, but does not explicitly disclose the corrected turn retries reaches an upper limit causing a different specific process.
However, Sakaguchi teaches when first work and second work which follows the first work are performed by the work vehicle in a work area, the second work is performed by the work vehicle based on information about the specific process. (see at least [0382] “Also, if the determination unit 227 determines that the turning precision of the combine 201 has decreased, the discharge control unit 228 causes the combine 201 to start performing the grain discharge operation.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the turning correction of Takashi to include the maximum number of retries disclosed in Sakaguchi, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency and precision of the work vehicle as the load increases, see Sakaguchi [0020-0021].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teach the specific limitations of a predetermined number of times corrective traveling causing “wherein the specific process is a process for reducing a work area located inside an area where the turning path is set” stated in claim 7 , or “wherein when first work and second work which follows the first work are performed by the work vehicle in a work area, the second work is omitted at an area positioned outside a work area where a work area of the first work is reduced” stated in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shirafuji et al. (US 2022/0304215 A1) discloses the automatic travel control unit executes an automatic position adjustment travel control for causing the work vehicle to make a position adjustment so that the starting condition for the first automatic travel control is met.
Hiramatsu (US 2019/0227561 A1) discloses a control section is configured to cause the body part to travel from a current position to a work start point and then start work with the work machine in a case where an instruction of start of work with the work machine is issued in a headland.
Ishijima et al. (US 2017/0168490 A1) discloses a predetermined travel route corresponding to each of the one or a plurality of work target zones, by determining whether the condition is satisfied based on at least the travel route part of the predetermined distance from the travel route start position at least between the travel route start position and the work start position of the predetermined travel route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669