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
This action is reply to the Application Number 18/911,138 filed on 05/14/2026.
Claims 1, 3 – 11 and 13 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
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) is/are:
“one or more ground engaging elements for…” in claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzdog et al. (EP 3850932 A1), further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20210155407 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hertzdog teaches a mobile machine comprising: a chassis; a motive system; (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0026: “The agricultural work vehicle (or tractor) may include one or more control devices”: Paragraph 0038: “Turning to Figure 2, a typical operation of an agricultural machinery comprising an agricultural vehicle 7 and a plough implement 10 is described. In use, the plough implement 10 is drawn as an attachment (implement) behind the agricultural towing vehicle 7 (e.g. an agricultural vehicle). It will be appreciated that it is equivalently feasible to locate the plough implement 10 in front of or both in front of and behind the agricultural vehicle 7.”,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Figure A, the tractor has wheels and a chassis)
PNG
media_image1.png
769
1285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Hertzdog; Figure 2
one or more ground engaging elements for supporting the chassis on a ground surface and moving the mobile machine along the ground surface, at least one of the ground engaging elements being driven by the motive system to move the mobile machine along the ground surface; and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0039: “Figure 2 shows a schematic field 1, e.g. a crop field, which is divided into a main work area 3 and headlands 5,6. An agricultural vehicle 7 draws the plough implement 10 across the work area 3 in generally parallel working rows. The working rows are part of the trajectory 8 of the agricultural vehicle 7 and typically run in parallel with a long edge of the work area 1.”)
a controller configured to: determine a slope of the ground surface (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0062: “Another embodiment of the control-data may comprise field-data indicative of field conditions of the field across which the agricultural plough is being moved. Examples of field-data comprise the dimensions of the headland, ground contours, a soil status of the headland and/or obstacles within the field. Sloped headlands, for example, may require different headland turning routines compared to flat headlands.”)
on which the mobile machine will execute a turn; (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0063: “In one example, a control unit may consider control-data such as the size, slope, and soil status of the headland together with the plough speed to determine the most appropriate headland turning routine.”)
determine a location of a next working path; (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0080: “It should be understood that the control unit may also act to optimise the operational time in determining the appropriate headland turning routine. For example, the control unit may consider a plurality of possible working row orientations and their appropriate headland turning routines and select the combination of working rows and headland turning routines that exhibits the shortest total operational time for the agricultural plough. In other words, one factor in determining a suitable headland turning routine may be an optimised trajectory of the agricultural plough. To this end, the control-unit may indeed utilise a non-optimal (e.g. longer or more damaging to the soil than necessary) headland turning routine if it enables a shorter and/or quicker overall trajectory, for example due to fewer working rows.”,
Supplemental Note: the control unit can optimize the operational time by selecting headland turning routines and a combination of the working row that exhibit the shorted operational time, thus is able to determine the location of the next working path)
… plan a turn maneuver according to the slope of the ground surface (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0076: “In one embodiment, the control-data may include field-contour-data as part of the map-data, the field contour-data being indicative of gradients within the field, i.e. the work area and the headland(s). A control unit may compare one or more values of the field-contour-data, e.g. the values of the field-contour-data that are indicative of a gradient on a section of the headland that will be used for the next turning routine, with a headland-gradient-threshold. If one or more values of the field-contour data exceed the headland-gradient-threshold, the control unit may determine that a "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 is required.”,
Supplemental Note: the field contour data is able to determine slopes of the working field in which the control unit determines the appropriate turning routine for)
on which the mobile machine will execute the turn maneuver (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075: “The "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 may be used to connect the end of the first working row 510 to the beginning of the adjacent, second working row 512 when space on the headland 504 is restricted. Furthermore, the control unit may determine to utilize the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 especially if the control-data indicates that the headland 504 is sloped in order to increase the stability of the agricultural plough 508 during the headland turning routine.”,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure B, the “y-turn” is used when the headland is sloped as to not reverse downward)
PNG
media_image2.png
718
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Hertzdog; Figure 7
… according to the location of the next working path; and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075: “In the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516, the end of the first working row 510 is connected to the beginning of the second working row 512 via the "Y-turn" path shown on the headland 504. The "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 shown in Figure 7 comprises three sections. In a first section 518, the agricultural plough 508 is turned at 90 degrees away from the next working row 512, e.g. by automatically steering the work vehicle of the agricultural plough 508 at 90 degrees. In a second section 520, the agricultural plough 508 is then reversed in the direction of, and in this example beyond, the second working row 512. In a last, third section 522 of the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516, the agricultural plough is then again turned at around 90 degrees, e.g. by means of automatically steering the agricultural work vehicle, so as to face the boundary 506 of the headland 504. The "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 may be used to connect the end of the first working row 510 to the beginning of the adjacent, second working row 512 when space on the headland 504 is restricted. Furthermore, the control unit may determine to utilize the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 especially if the control-data indicates that the headland 504 is sloped in order to increase the stability of the agricultural plough 508 during the headland turning routine.”)
automatically control the mobile machine to execute at least a portion of the planned turn maneuver (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0066: “As mentioned above, in a last step S208, the control unit automatically executes the selected headland turning routine once the boundary-data indicates that the agricultural plough is crossing or about to cross the border between the work area 3 and the headland 5, 6.”: Paragraph 0075: “In a last, third section 522 of the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516, the agricultural plough is then again turned at around 90 degrees, e.g. by means of automatically steering the agricultural work vehicle, so as to face the boundary 506 of the headland 504.”).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches a mobile machine comprising: a chassis; a motive system; one or more ground engaging elements for supporting the chassis on a ground surface and moving the mobile machine along the ground surface, at least one of the ground engaging elements being driven by the motive system to move the mobile machine along the ground surface; and a controller configured to: determine a slope of the ground surface on which the mobile machine will execute a turn; determine a location of a next working path; plan a turn maneuver according to the slope of the ground surface on which the mobile machine will execute the turn maneuver according to the location of the next working path; and automatically control the mobile machine to execute at least a portion of the planned turn maneuver. Hertzdog however does not teach based at least partially on the determined slope of the ground surface such that the mobile machine does not move in reverse downward on a sloping ground surface.
Kim teaches based at least partially on the determined slope of the ground surface (Kim: lines 117 – 119: “The slope determining unit 121 determines the slopes 1 and 3 in front of the vehicle 2 . Specifically, the slope determining unit 121 receives the longitudinal acceleration from the acceleration sensor 111 provided in the inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the vehicle 2 , and the slope 1 in front of the vehicle 2 , 3) is judged. Here, the inertial measuring device includes direction sensors that continuously track where the vehicle is, where it is heading, and the like, for example, an acceleration sensor 111 and a gyroscope.”: lines 128 – 130: “Also, when the longitudinal acceleration is a positive (+) value and is equal to or greater than the first reference value, the slope determining unit 121 determines the uphill slope 3 in front of the vehicle. That is, the slope determining unit 121 determines an uphill slope having a predetermined slope.”)
… such that the mobile machine does not move in reverse downward on a sloping ground surface and (Kim: lines 98 – 102: “if the engine continues to operate without stopping in such a situation, the transmission may be damaged. Therefore, in order to protect the transmission, when the driver engages the gear to the forward (D) stage and releases the pressure of the brake pedal 11 while the vehicle 2 is located on the front uphill slope 3, the shift controller , an engine stop signal may be transmitted to the engine controller. Then, the engine controller may stop the engine according to the engine stop signal.”; lines 106 – 107: “In order to prevent such a situation, the present invention provides an emergency braking device for securing the braking force of the vehicle 2 when the vehicle 2 stops the engine on the ramps 2 and 3.”,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Figure C, the vehicle is stopped from rolling downhill in reverse by the engine stopping function).
PNG
media_image3.png
611
947
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C: Kim: Fig. 2(b)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. Hertzdog teaches the ability of a farming vehicle able to gather the contour data of a farm field and the vehicle’s control unit being able to determine the appropriate turning maneuver to travel from one working row to the next. One of the turning maneuvers able to be performed is a “Y-turn” further shown above in Figure B. Kim teaches a vehicle able to determine the slope of a roadway and determine if the vehicle will roll downwards on a uphill, as seen in Figure C, stopping the engine per an emergency braking device to halt the vehicle on the ramp. This ability of Kim would be obvious to try to combine with the farming vehicle of Hertzdog by one of ordinary skill in the art as the vehicle will now be able to prevent backwards rolling along an upward slope. For example, when the farming vehicle is making a U or Y-turn on a headland, the slope of the headland can be identified by further integrating the slope determining unit of Kim. This unit provides additional vehicle parameters which provides greater detail about the slope’s impact on the vehicle over than just acquiring contour data for a farming field. Furthermore, if the farming vehicle is making a Y-turn and is on the reversing section 520, the ability to determine that the vehicle will reverse on a downward slope and prevent the vehicle from rolling downhill by activating an engine stop function to hold the vehicle on the ramp provides efficiency and safety benefits. For example, this mitigates situations of the farming vehicle rolling into attached equipment or accidentally going to a wrong working row, both of which can be costly to the operator. If there is a person behind the farming vehicle or if the farming vehicle tips due to the slope and reverse movement, this combination can mitigate these issues as it holds the vehicle on the slope.
Regarding claim 9, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches the controller further configured to use pre-existing data to determine the slope of the ground surface (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0060: “Other examples of suitable control-data include trajectory-data indicative of past, current, or future trajectories of the agricultural plough within the work area. In one example, depending on the current trajectory of the agricultural plough, the control unit may decide that some headland turning routines are not appropriate. For example, a forward turning maneuver may be more appropriate for cases where the trajectory intersects the boundary at an oblique angle. In some embodiments, steps S204 and S206 may be completed before step 202.”; Paragraph 0063: “In detail, the method may consider one or more parameters of the control-data to determine the most appropriate headland turning routine. In one example, a control unit may consider control-data such as the size, slope, and soil status of the headland together with the plough speed to determine the most appropriate headland turning routine.”).
Regarding claim 11, Hertzdog teaches a method of controlling a mobile machine, the method comprising: (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0001: “The present disclosure relates to a computer implemented method for controlling an agricultural plough, particularly, but not exclusively, during headland maneuvers. Other aspects of the present disclosure relate to an agricultural plough.”)
determining, using a controller, a slope of a ground surface (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0062)
on which the mobile machine will execute a turn; (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0063)
determining, using the controller, a location of a next working path; (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0080,
Supplemental Note: the control unit can optimize the operational time by selecting headland turning routines and a combination of the working row that exhibit the shorted operational time, thus is able to determine the location of the next working path)
… planning, using the controller, a turn maneuver according to the slope of the ground surface on which the mobile machine will execute the turn maneuver (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure B, the “y-turn” is used when the headland is sloped as to not reverse downward)
… according to the location of the next working path; and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075)
automatically controlling the mobile machine, using the controller, to execute at least a portion of the planned turn maneuver (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0066).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches a method of controlling a mobile machine, the method comprising: determining, using a controller, a slope of a ground surface on which the mobile machine will execute a turn; determining, using the controller, a location of a next working path; planning, using the controller, a turn maneuver according to the slope of the ground surface on which the mobile machine will execute the turn maneuver according to the location of the next working path; and automatically controlling the mobile machine, using the controller, to execute at least a portion of the planned turn maneuver. Hertzdog however does not teach based at least partially on the determined slope of the ground surface such that the mobile machine does not move in reverse downward on a sloping ground surface.
Kim teaches based at least partially on the determined slope of the ground surface (Kim: lines 117 – 119; lines 128 – 130)
… such that the mobile machine does not move in reverse downward on a sloping ground surface and (Kim: lines 98 – 102; lines 106 – 107: ,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Figure C, the vehicle is stopped from rolling downhill in reverse by the engine stopping function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 15, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches further comprising determining, using the controller, the slope of the ground surface using pre-existing data (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0060; Paragraph 0063).
Claims 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzdog et al. (EP 3850932 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20210155407 A) as applied to independent claims 1 above, further in view of Dang et al. (US 20170144702 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hertzdog, as modified, does not teach the controller further configured to plan the turn maneuver such that the turn maneuver includes a first downhill forward path segment, a second uphill reverse path segment, and a third downhill forward path segment.
Dang teaches the controller further configured to plan the turn maneuver such that the turn maneuver includes a first downhill forward path segment, a second uphill reverse path segment, and a third downhill forward path segment (Dang: Paragraph 0038: “For example, AB lines 108 may end on a left sloping hill promoting a first left curve segment, a second reverse curve segment, and a third left curve segment. In another example, based on the maximum steering curvature and vehicle maximum steering curvature rate, guidance system 114 may select one of K-turns 130A-130E using the least amount of overall headland area 106, smallest width, and/or smallest height.”,
Supplemental Note: sloping is known to one with knowledge in the art to be an incline or decline from a current plane. Thus the cited vehicle is interpreted to first turn left downhill the slope, then reversing uphill and finally traveling forward while turning left again to get on the new path. This is shown below in Figure D).
PNG
media_image4.png
622
445
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure D: Dang; Figure 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Dang with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hertzdog and Dang teach methods of turning a farming vehicle on the headland of an agricultural field. Dang further teaches the ability of making a K turn which turns towards the slopped headland, reverses and then turns left again while traveling forward to the adjacent working row. One with knowledge in the art would find this ability as a simple substitution with Hertzdog. Hertzdog already teaches the ability of its tractor to make a K turn on its headland (Hertzdog: Figure E).
PNG
media_image5.png
571
421
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure E: Hertzdog; Figure 8
Both Hertzdog and Dang utilize this turn to reduce the amount of space the farming vehicle is to take to make a turn into the adjacent working row, therefore a simple substitution of making the same type of K turn on a headland.
Regarding claim 4, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches the first path segment being a curved path segment from an end of a first working path to a first end of the second path segment, the second path segment being substantially straight, and the third path segment being a curved path segment from a second end of the second path segment to an end of a second working path (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075: “The "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 may be used to connect the end of the first working row 510 to the beginning of the adjacent, second working row 512 when space on the headland 504 is restricted. Furthermore, the control unit may determine to utilize the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 especially if the control-data indicates that the headland 504 is sloped in order to increase the stability of the agricultural plough 508 during the headland turning routine.”,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure B, the “y-turn” teaches the various claimed paths).
Claims 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzdog et al. (EP 3850932 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20210155407 A) as applied to independent claim 11 above, further in view of Dang et al. (US 20170144702 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hertzdog, as modified, does not teach further comprising planning, using the controller, the turn maneuver such that the turn maneuver includes a first downhill forward path segment, a second uphill reverse path segment, and a third downhill forward path segment.
Dang teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, the turn maneuver such that the turn maneuver includes a first downhill forward path segment, a second uphill reverse path segment, and a third downhill forward path segment (Dang: Paragraph 0038,
Supplemental Note: sloping is known to one with knowledge in the art to be an incline or decline from a current plane. Thus the cited vehicle is interpreted to first turn left downhill the slope, then reversing uphill and finally traveling forward while turning left again to get on the new path. This is shown in Figure D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Dang with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 14, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches the first path segment being a curved path segment from an end of a first working path to a first end of the second path segment, the second path segment being substantially straight, and the third path segment being a curved path segment from a second end of the second path segment to an end of a second working path (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure B, the “y-turn” teaches the various claimed paths).
Claims 5 – 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzdog et al. (EP 3850932 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20210155407 A) as applied to independent claim 1 above, further in view of Damme et al. (US 20190261550 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches the controller further configured to plan a K turn if the next working path is to the right and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0077: “In the example of Figure 8, the agricultural plough 608 comprises a work vehicle and a plough implement attached to the back of the work vehicle. In order to connect the end of the first working row 610 to the beginning of the second working row 612, a "K-turn" headland turning routine 616 is followed. The "K-turn" headland routine 616 comprises three sections 618, 620, 622. In a first section 618, the agricultural plough 608 is turned by around 90 degrees towards the second working row 612. In a second section 620 of the "K-turn" headland turning routine 616, the agricultural plough 608 is reversed towards the first working row 610. Finally, in a third section 622, the agricultural plough 608 is again turned by 90 degrees towards the headland boundary 606 to connect to the beginning of the second working row 612. The first and third sections 618, 622 cross during the "K-turn" headland turning routine.”,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure E, a K turn can be performed to get from one working path to another. The working path can be on either on the left or right of the current path as the same K-turn can be used to get from path 612 to 614).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches the controller further configured to plan a K turn if the next working path is to the right. Hertzdog however does not teach the ground surface is sloped downward toward the right.
Damme teaches the ground surface is sloped downward toward the right (Damme: Paragraph 0003: “The recited methods facilitate to travel over a predetermined agricultural surface, e.g. a field in an optimized manner. Thus the drive track is tracked in real time by a navigation system. Additional sensors that are arranged e.g. at the vehicle or in a portion of the agricultural machine that is pulled or otherwise moved by the vehicle record local properties of the drive track, e.g. slopes or so called pitch angles of the vehicle. This prevents that the vehicle tilts at a dangerous angle, that the tools of the agricultural machine dig into the ground or that the processing of the soil, dispensing of seeds, herbicides or fertilizer is done in an unsatisfactory manner due to the orientation of the ground. Thus it becomes possible to counter steer the vehicle when or shortly before a situation occurs that is critical or disadvantageous with respect to ground processing.”: Paragraph 0020: “During an optimized imaging of the vehicle and machine model onto the 3 dimensional terrain model a first optimization algorithm is executed in one embodiment wherein an optimum drive track is computed in view of the current predictable ground properties of the terrain and while avoiding sliding positions, slope positions or tilted positions that are dangerous for the vehicle and machine model, wherein the an optimized operating condition of the agricultural machine that is adapted to the drive track is computed in a second optimization algorithm and the data of the optimum drive track and the data of the optimized operating condition is transferred into the drive track data and the machine control data.”,
Supplemental Note: the ground slope is able to be determined by the sensors of the farming vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hertzdog and Damme teaches methods of controlling a farming vehicle as it travels on an agricultural surface. Damme further teaches evaluating the slopes of the ground surface so as to prevent the vehicle from tilting at a dangerous angle. Damme teaches the control of the vehicle to be in real time as the sensors are checking the vehicle situation for any possible changes enroute. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this with the teaching of Hertzdog to further improve the safety of the farming vehicle as it travels along a sloped headland. For example, the turning movement of the farming vehicle as taught by Hertzdog will be able to determine the ground slope and update the turning maneuver so as to not tip over. This increases the functionality of the farming vehicle as it is now able to sense the environment, such as analyzing the slopes to mitigate any tipping overturning movements.
Regarding claim 6, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches the controller further configured to plan a K turn if the next working path is to the left and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0077: “In the example of Figure 8, the agricultural plough 608 comprises a work vehicle and a plough implement attached to the back of the work vehicle. In order to connect the end of the first working row 610 to the beginning of the second working row 612, a "K-turn" headland turning routine 616 is followed. The "K-turn" headland routine 616 comprises three sections 618, 620, 622. In a first section 618, the agricultural plough 608 is turned by around 90 degrees towards the second working row 612. In a second section 620 of the "K-turn" headland turning routine 616, the agricultural plough 608 is reversed towards the first working row 610. Finally, in a third section 622, the agricultural plough 608 is again turned by 90 degrees towards the headland boundary 606 to connect to the beginning of the second working row 612. The first and third sections 618, 622 cross during the "K-turn" headland turning routine.”,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure E, a K turn can be performed to get from one working path to another. The working path can be on either on the left or right of the current path as the same K-turn can be used to get from path 612 to 614).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches the controller further configured to plan a K turn if the next working path is to the left. Hertzdog however does not teach the ground surface is sloped downward toward the left.
Damme teaches the ground surface is sloped downward toward the left (Damme: Paragraph 0003: “The recited methods facilitate to travel over a predetermined agricultural surface, e.g. a field in an optimized manner. Thus the drive track is tracked in real time by a navigation system. Additional sensors that are arranged e.g. at the vehicle or in a portion of the agricultural machine that is pulled or otherwise moved by the vehicle record local properties of the drive track, e.g. slopes or so called pitch angles of the vehicle. This prevents that the vehicle tilts at a dangerous angle, that the tools of the agricultural machine dig into the ground or that the processing of the soil, dispensing of seeds, herbicides or fertilizer is done in an unsatisfactory manner due to the orientation of the ground. Thus it becomes possible to counter steer the vehicle when or shortly before a situation occurs that is critical or disadvantageous with respect to ground processing.”: Paragraph 0020: “During an optimized imaging of the vehicle and machine model onto the 3 dimensional terrain model a first optimization algorithm is executed in one embodiment wherein an optimum drive track is computed in view of the current predictable ground properties of the terrain and while avoiding sliding positions, slope positions or tilted positions that are dangerous for the vehicle and machine model, wherein the an optimized operating condition of the agricultural machine that is adapted to the drive track is computed in a second optimization algorithm and the data of the optimum drive track and the data of the optimized operating condition is transferred into the drive track data and the machine control data.”,
Supplemental Note: the ground slope is able to be determined by the sensors of the farming vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 7, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches the controller further configured to plan a Y turn if the next working path is to the left and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075: “In the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516, the end of the first working row 510 is connected to the beginning of the second working row 512 via the "Y-turn" path shown on the headland 504. The "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 shown in Figure 7 comprises three sections. In a first section 518, the agricultural plough 508 is turned at 90 degrees away from the next working row 512, e.g. by automatically steering the work vehicle of the agricultural plough 508 at 90 degrees. In a second section 520, the agricultural plough 508 is then reversed in the direction of, and in this example beyond, the second working row 512. In a last, third section 522 of the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516, the agricultural plough is then again turned at around 90 degrees, e.g. by means of automatically steering the agricultural work vehicle, so as to face the boundary 506 of the headland 504. The "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 may be used to connect the end of the first working row 510 to the beginning of the adjacent, second working row 512 when space on the headland 504 is restricted. Furthermore, the control unit may determine to utilize the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 especially if the control-data indicates that the headland 504 is sloped in order to increase the stability of the agricultural plough 508 during the headland turning routine”: Paragraph 0076: “A control unit may compare one or more values of the field-contour-data, e.g. the values of the field-contour-data that are indicative of a gradient on a section of the headland that will be used for the next turning routine, with a headland-gradient-threshold. If one or more values of the field-contour-data exceed the headland-gradient-threshold, the control unit may determine that a "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 is required.”,
Supplemental Note: the type of turning from one working row to another is analyzed to determine the best type of turn to make. This is interpreted as determining a “y-turn” based on the headland parameters, no matter if the working row is to the left or right).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches the controller further configured to plan a Y turn if the next working path is to the left. Hertzdog however does not teach the ground surface is sloped downward toward the right.
Damme teaches the ground surface is sloped downward toward the right (Damme: Paragraph 0003: “The recited methods facilitate to travel over a predetermined agricultural surface, e.g. a field in an optimized manner. Thus the drive track is tracked in real time by a navigation system. Additional sensors that are arranged e.g. at the vehicle or in a portion of the agricultural machine that is pulled or otherwise moved by the vehicle record local properties of the drive track, e.g. slopes or so called pitch angles of the vehicle. This prevents that the vehicle tilts at a dangerous angle, that the tools of the agricultural machine dig into the ground or that the processing of the soil, dispensing of seeds, herbicides or fertilizer is done in an unsatisfactory manner due to the orientation of the ground. Thus it becomes possible to counter steer the vehicle when or shortly before a situation occurs that is critical or disadvantageous with respect to ground processing.”: Paragraph 0020: “During an optimized imaging of the vehicle and machine model onto the 3 dimensional terrain model a first optimization algorithm is executed in one embodiment wherein an optimum drive track is computed in view of the current predictable ground properties of the terrain and while avoiding sliding positions, slope positions or tilted positions that are dangerous for the vehicle and machine model, wherein the an optimized operating condition of the agricultural machine that is adapted to the drive track is computed in a second optimization algorithm and the data of the optimum drive track and the data of the optimized operating condition is transferred into the drive track data and the machine control data.”,
Supplemental Note: the ground slope is able to be determined by the sensors of the farming vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 8, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches the controller further configured to plan a Y turn if the next working path is to the right and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075: “In the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516, the end of the first working row 510 is connected to the beginning of the second working row 512 via the "Y-turn" path shown on the headland 504. The "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 shown in Figure 7 comprises three sections. In a first section 518, the agricultural plough 508 is turned at 90 degrees away from the next working row 512, e.g. by automatically steering the work vehicle of the agricultural plough 508 at 90 degrees. In a second section 520, the agricultural plough 508 is then reversed in the direction of, and in this example beyond, the second working row 512. In a last, third section 522 of the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516, the agricultural plough is then again turned at around 90 degrees, e.g. by means of automatically steering the agricultural work vehicle, so as to face the boundary 506 of the headland 504. The "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 may be used to connect the end of the first working row 510 to the beginning of the adjacent, second working row 512 when space on the headland 504 is restricted. Furthermore, the control unit may determine to utilize the "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 especially if the control-data indicates that the headland 504 is sloped in order to increase the stability of the agricultural plough 508 during the headland turning routine”: Paragraph 0076: “A control unit may compare one or more values of the field-contour-data, e.g. the values of the field-contour-data that are indicative of a gradient on a section of the headland that will be used for the next turning routine, with a headland-gradient-threshold. If one or more values of the field-contour-data exceed the headland-gradient-threshold, the control unit may determine that a "Y-turn" headland turning routine 516 is required.”,
Supplemental Note: the type of turning from one working row to another is analyzed to determine the best type of turn to make. This is interpreted as determining a “y-turn” based on the headland parameters, no matter if the working row is to the left or right).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches the controller further configured to plan a Y turn if the next working path is to the right. Hertzdog however does not teach the ground surface is sloped downward toward the left.
Damme teaches the ground surface is sloped downward toward the left (Damme: Paragraph 0003: “The recited methods facilitate to travel over a predetermined agricultural surface, e.g. a field in an optimized manner. Thus the drive track is tracked in real time by a navigation system. Additional sensors that are arranged e.g. at the vehicle or in a portion of the agricultural machine that is pulled or otherwise moved by the vehicle record local properties of the drive track, e.g. slopes or so called pitch angles of the vehicle. This prevents that the vehicle tilts at a dangerous angle, that the tools of the agricultural machine dig into the ground or that the processing of the soil, dispensing of seeds, herbicides or fertilizer is done in an unsatisfactory manner due to the orientation of the ground. Thus it becomes possible to counter steer the vehicle when or shortly before a situation occurs that is critical or disadvantageous with respect to ground processing.”: Paragraph 0020: “During an optimized imaging of the vehicle and machine model onto the 3 dimensional terrain model a first optimization algorithm is executed in one embodiment wherein an optimum drive track is computed in view of the current predictable ground properties of the terrain and while avoiding sliding positions, slope positions or tilted positions that are dangerous for the vehicle and machine model, wherein the an optimized operating condition of the agricultural machine that is adapted to the drive track is computed in a second optimization algorithm and the data of the optimum drive track and the data of the optimized operating condition is transferred into the drive track data and the machine control data.”,
Supplemental Note: the ground slope is able to be determined by the sensors of the farming vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 10, Hertzdog, as modified, does not teach the controller further configured to determine the slope of the ground surface by detecting and recording elevation and/or tilt of the mobile machine as it travels along the ground surface.
Damme teaches the controller further configured to determine the slope of the ground surface by detecting and recording elevation and/or tilt of the mobile machine as it travels along the ground surface (Damme: Paragraph 0003: “ The recited methods facilitate to travel over a predetermined agricultural surface, e.g. a field in an optimized manner. Thus the drive track is tracked in real time by a navigation system. Additional sensors that are arranged e.g. at the vehicle or in a portion of the agricultural machine that is pulled or otherwise moved by the vehicle record local properties of the drive track, e.g. slopes or so called pitch angles of the vehicle. This prevents that the vehicle tilts at a dangerous angle, that the tools of the agricultural machine dig into the ground or that the processing of the soil, dispensing of seeds, herbicides or fertilizer is done in an unsatisfactory manner due to the orientation of the ground. Thus it becomes possible to counter steer the vehicle when or shortly before a situation occurs that is critical or disadvantageous with respect to ground processing.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed in claim 5, both Hertzdog and Damme teaches methods of controlling a farming vehicle as it travels on an agricultural surface. Damme further teaches evaluating the slopes of the ground surface so as to prevent the vehicle from tilting at a dangerous angle. Damme teaches the control of the vehicle to also be in real time as the sensors are checking the vehicle situation for any possible changes to the route. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this with the teaching of Hertzdog to further improve the safety of the farming vehicle as it travels along a sloped headland. For example, constantly sensing the ground slope can update the turning maneuver so the farming vehicle is not prone to tilting over. This increases the functionality of the farming vehicle as it is now able to sense the environment as it will be able to analyze the slopes to mitigate any tipping overturning movements.
Claims 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzdog et al. (EP 3850932 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20210155407 A) as applied to independent claim 11 above, further in view of Damme et al. (US 20190261550 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hertzdog, as modified, does not teaches further comprising determining, using the controller, the slope of the ground surface by detecting and recording elevation and/or tilt of the mobile machine as it travels along the ground surface.
Damme teaches further comprising determining, using the controller, the slope of the ground surface by detecting and recording elevation and/or tilt of the mobile machine as it travels along the ground surface (Damme: Paragraph 0003: “ The recited methods facilitate to travel over a predetermined agricultural surface, e.g. a field in an optimized manner. Thus the drive track is tracked in real time by a navigation system. Additional sensors that are arranged e.g. at the vehicle or in a portion of the agricultural machine that is pulled or otherwise moved by the vehicle record local properties of the drive track, e.g. slopes or so called pitch angles of the vehicle. This prevents that the vehicle tilts at a dangerous angle, that the tools of the agricultural machine dig into the ground or that the processing of the soil, dispensing of seeds, herbicides or fertilizer is done in an unsatisfactory manner due to the orientation of the ground. Thus it becomes possible to counter steer the vehicle when or shortly before a situation occurs that is critical or disadvantageous with respect to ground processing.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 10 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 17, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, a K turn if the next working path is to the right and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0077,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure E, a K turn can be performed to get from one working path to another. The working path can be on either on the left or right of the current path as the same K-turn can be used to get from path 612 to 614)
In sum, Hertzdog teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, a K turn if the next working path is to the right. Hertzdog however does not teach the ground surface is sloped downward toward the right.
Damme teaches the ground surface is sloped downward toward the right (Damme: Paragraph 0003; Paragraph 0020,
Supplemental Note: the ground slope is able to be determined by the sensors of the farming vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 18, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, a K turn if the next working path is to the left and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0077,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure E, a K turn can be performed to get from one working path to another. The working path can be on either on the left or right of the current path as the same K-turn can be used to get from path 612 to 614).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, a K turn if the next working path is to the left. Hertzdog however does not teach the ground surface is sloped downward toward the left.
Damme teaches the ground surface is sloped downward toward the left (Damme: Paragraph 0003; Paragraph 0020,
Supplemental Note: the ground slope is able to be determined by the sensors of the farming vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 6 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 19, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, a Y turn if the next working path is to the left and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075; Paragraph 0076:,
Supplemental Note: the type of turning from one working row to another is analyzed to determine the best type of turn to make. This is interpreted as determining a “y-turn” based on the headland parameters, no matter if the working row is to the left or right).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, a Y turn if the next working path is to the left. Hertzdog however does not teach the ground surface is sloped downward toward the right.
Damme teaches the ground surface is sloped downward toward the right (Damme: Paragraph 0003; Paragraph 0020,
Supplemental Note: the ground slope is able to be determined by the sensors of the farming vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 20, Hertzdog, as modified, teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, a Y turn if the next working path is to the right and (Hertzdog: Paragraph 0075; Paragraph 0076,
Supplemental Note: the type of turning from one working row to another is analyzed to determine the best type of turn to make. This is interpreted as determining a “y-turn” based on the headland parameters, no matter if the working row is to the left or right).
In sum, Hertzdog teaches further comprising planning, using the controller, a Y turn if the next working path is to the right. Hertzdog however does not teach the ground surface is sloped downward toward the left.
Damme teaches the ground surface is sloped downward toward the left (Damme: Paragraph 0003; Paragraph 0020,
Supplemental Note: the ground slope is able to be determined by the sensors of the farming vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Hertzdog with the teachings of Damme with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 8 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102 of the REMARKS, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art rejection of claims 1, 9, 11 and 15 have been fully considered bur are not fully persuasive. Applicant states that the prior art of Hertzdog does not fully teach the amended claim limitation of “based at least partially on the determined slope of the ground surface, plan a turn maneuver according to the slope of the ground surface on which the mobile machine will execute the turn maneuver such that the mobile machine does not move in reverse downward on a sloping ground surface” (amended limitation underlined), as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Examiner agrees with the applicant that Hertzdog does not fully teach “based at least partially on the determined slope of the ground surface” and “such that the mobile machine does not move in reverse downward on a sloping ground surface”. However through further search and consideration, a rejection is made in view of Kim (KR 20210155407 A). Regarding the limitations of “plan a turn maneuver according to the slope of the ground surface on which the mobile machine will execute the turn maneuver “. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant and states that is taught by the prior art of Hertzdog. As stated in the reply by the Applicant, Hertzdog teaches the ability of gathering contour data of the field in which the control unit of the farming vehicle is able to determine the proper turn to make. This consists of a U or Y-turn. Due to this ability, Examiner states the slope of the ground surface is identified by the contour maps and the turn maneuver is determined for the vehicle based on the contour data. Please refer to section Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
