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 23, 2026. Claims 1-7, 10-15, & 17-18 are currently pending. Claims 8-9 & 16 are cancelled.
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. JP2023-180089, filed on October 19, 2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JP2014-118447 on July 24, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2014-118447 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted March 23, 2026 have overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. However, the prior art rejection is maintained for the reasons below. Further, a 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections are added in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pg. 9 of the applicant’s arguments that Claim 1 now contains limitations from the canceled Claim 9. However, where claim 9 recited …the working ground includes a plurality of outlines…, claim 1 now recites …setting a position of an allowable limit line, based on a first outline of the working ground, wherein the first outline comprises a plurality of second outlines and the position of the allowable limit line is set individually for each of the plurality of second outlines. which is not the same meaning as the cancelled claim 1. This is gone into further detail below in with the 35 USC 112(a) rejections. A prior art rejection is also made based on the examiner’s interpretation of the new matter in claim 1.
The applicant further argues that Nishii does not teach the content of the cancelled claim 9. Specifically, the applicant argues that [0090] of Nishii refers to headlands rather than a plurality of second outlines. The examiner concedes that Nishii may not teach this content of amended claim 1. However, as discussed above, the content of claim 9 is not properly amended into claim 1 and is therefore new matter. For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
Remaining arguments are essentially the same as the ones addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-15, & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15, & 17 recite …wherein the first outline comprises a plurality of second outlines and the position of the allowable limit line is set individually for each of the plurality of second outlines,… however, the specification expressly defines “first outline” as f11, which is the left side of the whole outline. Further, the second outline is defined as f12 which is the north side of the whole outline. Therefore, the amended content recited above is considered as new matter.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites … protrusion of the work vehicle outward from the first outline. outline of the working ground is allowed. The examiner believes outline of the working ground is allowed is a typo due to the position of the period before it. For examination on its merits, the claim will be interpreted as “protrusion of the work vehicle outward from the first outline of the working ground is allowed”.
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 1-7, 12, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0304215 A1, to Shirafuji et al. (hereafter Shirafuji).
Regarding Claim 1, Shirafuji discloses A processor-implemented control method for a work vehicle capable of performing work while traveling on a working ground, the processor-implemented control method comprising (Shirafuji [0020], Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses a manned or unmanned work vehicle, Abstract discloses the process disclosed being done by an automatic travel control unit (i.e. processor implemented control method)):
setting a position of an allowable limit line, based on a first outline of the working ground, wherein the first outline comprises a plurality of second outlines and the position of the allowable limit line is set individually for each of the plurality of second outlines (Shirafuji [0049], Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses headland areas (i.e. allowable limit line), A2a, as well as outlines in the up, left, down, and right directions (i.e. first and second outlines)),
wherein the allowable limit line refers to and that is a limit position which protrusion of the work vehicle is allowed, the allowable limit line being specified by the plurality of margin value (Shirafuji [0049], [0094], & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses an headland areas (i.e. allowable limit), A2a, which is the working area the tractor needs, including the width of the rotary tiller, (i.e. protrusion) in order to turn, which is set based on the distance to the inside, multiple headland widths (i.e. margin values), W, based on an outline of a work area shown in Fig. 4), and
wherein each of the plurality of margin values is indicative of a corresponding distance from a corresponding second outline in the plurality of outlines to a corresponding location inside of the working ground Shirafuji [0049], [0094], & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses an headland areas (i.e. allowable limit), A2a, which is the working area the tractor needs, including the width of the rotary tiller, (i.e. protrusion) in order to turn, which is set based on the distance to the inside, multiple headland widths (i.e. margin values), W, based on an outline of a work area shown in Fig. 4);
generating a route for causing the work vehicle to travel on the basis of the allowable limit line (Shirafuji [0093]-[0095] & Fig. 7 & 8, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses a travel area (i.e. route) to be selected which is based in part by the headland area, A2a); and
causing the work vehicle to automatically travel on the basis of the allowable limit line (Shirafuji [0063], Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses executing the steering control along the path which includes the headland areas).
Regarding Claim 2, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising
Shirafuji further discloses designating a setting mode related to setting of the position of the allowable limit line in accordance with a traveling mode of the work vehicle (Shirafuji [0093] & Fig.7, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses the headland area (i.e. allowable limit) being set (i.e. setting mode) by a user when a target path is generated).
Regarding Claim 3, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising
Shirafuji further discloses designating a traveling mode of the work vehicle in accordance with a setting mode related to setting of the position of the allowable limit line (Shirafuji [0093] & Fig.7, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses the headland area (i.e. allowable limit) being set (i.e. setting mode) by a user when a target path is generated when a travelable area, a3, is selected (i.e. traveling mode)).
Regarding Claim 4, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
Shirafuji further discloses the traveling mode includes any of manned traveling which requires an operator to get in the work vehicle, and unmanned traveling which does not require an operator to get in the work vehicle (Shirafuji [0086], Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses both a manual travel control and an automatic (i.e. unmanned) travel control).
Regarding Claim 5, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
Shirafuji further discloses the traveling mode includes a turning mode (Shirafuji [0095] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses the path following process require one or more turning phases (i.e. turning mode)).
Regarding Claim 6, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
Shirafuji further discloses a relative relationship between the traveling mode and the setting mode is applied to a same single work (Shirafuji [0093] & Fig.7, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses the headland area (i.e. allowable limit) being set (i.e. setting mode) by a user when a target path is generated when a travelable area, a3, is selected (i.e. traveling mode)).
Regarding Claim 7, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
Shirafuji further discloses the position of the allowable limit line is set in accordance with whether or not based on the degree of allowed protrusion of the work vehicle outward from the first outline. outline of the working ground is allowed (Shirafuji [0049], [0094], & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses an headland areas (i.e. allowable limit), A2a, which is the working area the tractor needs, including the width of the rotary tiller, (i.e. protrusion) in order to turn, which is set based on the distance to the inside, headland width (i.e. margin value), W, based on an outline of a work area shown in Fig. 4. [0067], Examiner Note: The rotary tiller can be raised to a non-working height in which the width of the rotary tiller is no longer relevant to the allowable limit (i.e. no protrusion allowed)).
Regarding Claim 12, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
Shirafuji further discloses the allowable limit line determines a position of an inside area where the work vehicle reciprocates along a working direction (Shirafuji [0049] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses that the headland areas are where the work vehicle turns around and works along an opposite direction (i.e. reciprocates)).
Regarding Claim 14, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
Shirafuji further discloses the position of the allowable limit line in first work is set on the basis of information related to second work to be performed on the working ground after the first work to be performed on the working ground by the work vehicle (Shirafuji Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Shirafuji discloses a path P going one direction (i.e. first work) and coming back (i.e. second work) the other way after turning around. Which would change the size of the headland area (i.e. allowable limit area) dependent on the size of the path).
Regarding Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1; Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1; Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1; Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being rendered obvious over US 2022/0304215 A1, to Shirafuji et al. (hereafter Shirafuji).
Regarding Claim 11, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
Though Shirafuji does not specifically designate “W” as a negative value, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to define W as either a negative value or positive value in order to accommodate for the invention’s datum point during calculations.
Claims 8-10 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0304215 A1, to Shirafuji et al. (hereafter Shirafuji). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0081284 A1, to Nishii et al. (hereafter Nishii).
Regarding Claim 10, as shown above, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
However, Shirafuji does not specifically disclose the working ground includes a plurality of second outlines, and in a case where the plurality of outlines are divided into a plurality of groups depending based on a working direction, the position of the allowable limit line is able to be set individually for each group in the plurality of groups.
Nishii teaches the working ground includes a plurality of second outlines, and in a case where the plurality of outlines are divided into a plurality of groups depending based on a working direction, the position of the allowable limit line is able to be set individually for each group in the plurality of groups (Nishii [0090] & Fig. 7, Examiner Note: Nishii discloses width Wb which is designated based on the length of the direction which is parallel to the advancing direction (i.e. working direction) of the vehicle and creates different groups of outlines (e.g. HA, HB, & HC)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the automatic travel system of a work vehicle of Shirafuji with the outlines of Nishii in order for the operator to create accurate work areas for the work vehicle (Nishii [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 13, Shirafuji discloses The control method for a work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising
However, Shirafuji does not specifically disclose disabling the allowable limit line or moving the allowable limit line toward outside of the working ground in a case where a specific condition is satisfied.
Nishii teaches disabling the allowable limit line or moving the allowable limit line toward outside of the working ground in a case where a specific condition is satisfied (Nishii Claims 1 & 5, Examiner Note: Nishii teaches changing the size of the work area and headland area based in input setting information (i.e. specific condition is satisfied)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the automatic travel system of a work vehicle of Shirafuji with the outlines of Nishii in order for the operator to create accurate work areas for the work vehicle (Nishii [0005]-[0006]).
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 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights