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
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on March 11, 2026. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. JP2023-180090, filed on October 19, 2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on March 11, 2026 have overcome the claim objection, the 35 USC 101 rejections, and the prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-12, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of Claims 1-14 has been withdrawn. However, the prior art of Nakahata discloses the amended subject matter as shown in the updated rejection below. Therefore claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Nakahata.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-10 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0382288 A1, to Nakahata et al., hereafter Nakahata.
Regarding Claim 1, Nakahata discloses A processor-implemented control method of a work vehicle capable of working on a plurality of work rows aligned in a direction intersecting a traveling direction, while traveling in a work site, comprising (Nakahata [0040]-[0041] & Fig 6, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses a work vehicle at a work site working within more than one rows. [0052] Nakahata discloses the vehicle control device of the work vehicle being performed by a processor):
acquiring of outline information based on an outline of the work site (Nakahata [0105] & Figs 7A-7B, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses a work field (i.e. outline of work site) of crops in which the work vehicle works);
setting of a row-stop position for executing row-stop control during performance of agricultural operations by the vehicle, wherein the row-stop control sets a partial number of work rows of the plurality of work rows to non-work in the work site on the basis of the outline information, the partial number of work rows being less than all the plurality of work rows (Nakahata [0041]-[0042] & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses when working on crops (i.e. an agricultural operation) a work start position, S, and work end position, R, in which there are two work paths R1 and R2, in between. The vehicle travels from S to R in which R1 is a path in which work is done (i.e. work rows), and R2 in which work is not done (i.e. non-work) and in which the point connecting R1 and R2 is when work stops (i.e. row-stop position). [0088] Nakahata further discloses the capability of skipping rows (i.e. work rows less than all) during the work route selection process); and
executing, based on the set row-stop control, agricultural operations by the work vehicle (Nakahata [0116], Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses starting the work of the work vehicle to run autonomously according to the instructions).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 1,
Nakahata further discloses wherein the work site includes an inner side region in which the work vehicle is caused to reciprocatingly travel along a work direction and an outer peripheral region in which the work vehicle is caused to travel around along an outer periphery of the inner side region (Nakahata Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses the work vehicle traveling up and down paths, R1, (i.e. reciprocatingly) and along an outer region, R2, in order to begin the next R1 path in the opposite direction),
and in addition to the outline information, the row-stop position is set on the basis of the number of times of go-around of the work vehicle in the outer peripheral region (Nakahata Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses turning around (i.e. go-around) in the outer region which determines the position of the row-stop position (e.g. the odd number turn-arounds, R2, mean the row-stop positions are on the top part of Fig. 6 and the even number turn-arounds mean the row-stop positions are on the bottom of Fig. 6)).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
Nakahata further discloses the outline information includes information of an allowable limit line which is defined by a margin value, which is a distance to an inner side of the work site with an outline of the work site as a reference, the allowable limit line being a limit position at which the work vehicle is allowed to protrude (Nakahata [0105] & Fig. 7A-7B, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses points at which the inner region is defined as E1 to E2 (i.e. allowable limit line) and line segment L1 (i.e. distance to inner side, limit line), as the endpoints (i.e. limit position) at which the crops are planted), and the row-stop position is set on the basis of the allowable limit line (Nakahata [0105] & Fig. 7A-7B, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses end points which work stops (i.e. row stop-position) to transition to turn-around path).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 3, wherein
Nakahata further discloses a position of the allowable limit line is changeable, and the row-stop position is changed in accordance with a change of the position of the allowable limit line (Nakahata [0105] & Fig. 7A-7B, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses the lines L1 (i.e. limit line) which are different sizes (i.e. changeable) and therefore the endpoints, E1 & E2 (i.e. allowable limit line) also change to create L1).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
Nakahata further discloses a moving speed of the work vehicle is controlled in accordance with a start position and an end position of the row-stop control (Nakahata [0129]-[0130] & Fig. 16, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses steps S6 and S7 in which the travel speed of the work vehicle is changed , based on an incline, based on the work route, R1, and movement route, R2, and therefore each row-stop position at which the routes connect).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 5, wherein
Nakahata further discloses a moving speed of the work vehicle is suppressed to a predetermined speed or less at least at a start position of the row-stop control (Nakahata [0102], Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses reducing or decrease the speed based on the maximum speed (i.e. predetermined speed) of R1 (i.e. R1 contains each row-stop start and stop point)).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
Nakahata further discloses the row-stop position is set on the basis of a work width in the work vehicle in addition to the outline information (Nakahata Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses the work vehicle being centered on the paths (i.e. work width for a path is half the width of the vehicle), and therefore centered at the transition points between R1 and R2).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
Nakahata further discloses the row-stop position is set on the basis of a distance from a specific line included in the outline information to a reference point set with respect to the work vehicle (Nakahata [0042] & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses the work start position S in which the work vehicle begins work (i.e. reference point with respect to work vehicle) and the point in which work stops to turn around (i.e. the point where R1 transitions to R2)).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
Nakahata further discloses specifying of a row-stop width corresponding to the number of work rows to be set to non-work among the plurality of work rows at the row-stop position, when the row-stop position is to be set (Nakahata [0088], Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses considering width in the headland (i.e. work-stop width) when considering the number of skips and work routes to be performed).
Regarding Claim 10, Nakahata discloses The control method of a work vehicle according to claim 9, wherein
Nakahata further discloses when a plurality of values are specified as the row-stop width, a maximum value of the plurality of values is specified as the row-stop width (Nakahata [0088], Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses more than one row-stop width based on the number of skipped rows performed (e.g. one skipped row has a different width than two skipped rows) which is limited by the number of rows (i.e. maximum value) in the field).
Regarding Claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 & 2, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claims 1 & 2; Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 & 2.
Regarding Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claims 1 aside from where shown below; Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Nakahata further discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium embodying instructions, which, when executed by at least one processor, perform (Nakahata [0052], Examiner Note: Nakahata discloses a CPU and RAM inside the vehicle control device, 11)…
Regarding Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claims 1; Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claims 1; Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowable. However, the examiner will proceed with a final rejection due to the remaining independent claims. If the applicant were to include the allowable subject matter below into the remaining independent claims 1 & 13, they would likely be allowable as well pending further search and consideration.
The examiner encourages the applicant to request an interview to discuss phrasing if the applicant wishes to include the allowable subject matter in claims 1 & 13.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
…wherein row-stop control is executed in the overlapping region by setting a partial number of work rows of the plurality of work rows in the overlapping region to non-work, wherein the partial number of work rows is less than all of the plurality of work rows. Of Claim 11 when considered with the other claim features renders the independent claims, as well as their dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically the prior art neither discloses nor teaches an overlapping region in which rows are considered work rows and the remainder are considered non-work rows where the number of works is less than the total number of work rows.
The closest prior art of record is JP 2022/103649 A, to Takuto which discloses an outer and inner region which are overlap areas in which work is performed. However, there is no mention of a specific partial number of the work rows less than the total work rows that are worked while the remainder are not worked.
Another close prior art is US 2022/0382288 A1 to Nakahata which discloses an agricultural vehicle which performs work on some crop rows while skipping (i.e. non-work) on others. However, there is no mention of a specific partial number of the work rows less than the total work rows that are worked while the remainder are not worked.
The combination of Nakahata and Takuto fails to disclose or teach an overlapping region in which rows are considered work rows and the remainder are considered non-work rows where the number of works is less than the total number of work rows.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached at (571)-270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights