DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/920,363 filed on October 18, 2024 in which claims 1-10 were presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112(b), and 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed October 18, 2024 and June 24, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
It is the examiner’s duty to give claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, if the specification is silent to the meaning of claim terminology, “words of the claim must be given their plain meaning.” See MPEP § 2111.01.
Here, the present claims refer to a “work site.” The specification does not appear to address the meaning of this term. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning must be used. As is present understood, a “work site” is the area where work occurs. (Worksite Definition, yourdictionary.com, December 2, 2022, Page 1). Thus, within the scope of the claims, the work site shall be interpreted to be the area immediately surrounding the vehicle where the vehicle is currently or could immediately perform work.
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 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).
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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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 is: “correction information device” in claims 1-9.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it is 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 limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-9, the claim limitations “correction information device” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
When a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for a computer implemented means-plus-function claim, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm required to transform the general-purpose computing equipment into the required special purpose computer. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
The examiner could not find any specific structure or specific algorithm in the present specification, nor has Applicant pointed to such structure or algorithm. The closest structural support that the examiner could locate merely states that the correction information device is a “correction information terminal. (Spec. ¶ 90). However, this appears to merely replace one generic none word (i.e., device) with another generic nonce word (i.e., terminal) and does not provide the specific structure that converts the device from a general purpose hardware component to a special purpose computer.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 10, this claim depends from claim 9 and, therefore, inherits the rejection of that claim above.
Regarding claims 8-10, each of these claims refer to “a display.” It is unclear if this is referring to the correction information device that is claimed to display an operation state in parent claim 1 or if this is a second display that is different from the display of claim 1.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, these claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan Morrison, “The future of farming? John Deere unveils its first driverless tractor that can be controlled by farmers using a smartphone and even stops ploughing if animals run in front of it,” The Daily Mail, January 6, 2022, Pages 1-23 (hereinafter Morrison) in view of O’Conner et al., US Publication 2024/0138313 (hereinafter O’Conner).
Regarding claim 1, Morrison discloses a work vehicle including a device that receives positional information in a work site, comprising “a … information device configured to receive … information for … the positional information from a base station located outside the work site” (Morrison 5) where the smartphone (i.e., a base station located outside the work site) sends the programmed path (i.e., positional information) to the tractor. Additionally, Morrison discloses “a steering section for steering the vehicle” (Morrison 8) where the image of the tractor shows a steering wheel for steering the vehicle. Finally, Morrison discloses “wherein the … information device is configured to display an operation state of the … information device and is disposed in the steering section” (Morrison 8) where the image of the tractor shows a display device that is displaying position information of the vehicle (i.e., an operation state) placed with the steering wheel (i.e., disposed in the steering section).
Although Morrison discloses that information is displayed on the screens, it does not appear to explicitly disclose that the information is “correction information” and therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “a correction information device configured to receive correction information for correcting the positional information from a base station located outside the work site” or “the correction information device is configured to display an operation state of the correction information device and is disposed in the steering section.”
However, O’Conner discloses a work vehicle including a device that receives positional information in a work site, comprising “a correction information device configured to receive correction information for correcting the positional information from a base station …” (O’Conner ¶ 42) by receiving offset values for vehicle positions. Additionally, O’Conner discloses “a steering section for steering the vehicle” (O’Conner ¶ 56) where the steering wheel is used to control the vehicle. Finally, O’Conner discloses “wherein the correction information device is configured to display an operation state of the correction information device and is disposed in the steering section” (O’Conner ¶ 137) where the calibrated offset values are displayed.
Morrison and O’Conner are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of John Deere brand tractors.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Morrison and O’Conner before him or her to modify the information display of Morrison to include the offset information display of O’Conner.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy and robustness of the location and control systems. (O’Conner ¶ 132).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses “a cabin that covers the steering section, wherein the correction information device is disposed inside the cabin” (Morrison 3) where such a cabin is shown in the image.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses “wherein the correction information device is disposed such that display of the operation state is viewable from an outside of the cabin” (Morrison 2) where the video clip captured shows the displays being viewable from outside the cabin.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses “wherein the cabin has an open/close door for getting in and getting out of the steering section” (Morrison 9) where the image shows an opened door. Further, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses “the correction information device is disposed such that the operation state is viewable from an outside of the cabin through the open/close door in a closed state” (Morrison 2) where the video clip captured shows the displays being viewable from outside the cabin while the door is closed.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses “wherein the correction information device includes a display” (Morrison 8) where the image of the tractor shows a display device that is displaying position information of the vehicle. Further, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses “the correction information device is configured to display the operation state of the correction information device on the display by a light emitting mode of a light emitter” (Morrison 8) where the displays are shown to be emitting light.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses “wherein the light emitter is configured to display the operation state of the correction information device on the display by light emission in a plurality of light emission colors” (Morrison 8) where a plurality of colors are shown in the display.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of O’Conner, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tepper et al., US Publication 2019/0077331 (hereinafter Tepper).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses “wherein a driver's seat is disposed in the steering section” (Morrison 2) where the image of the tractor shows a driver’s seat placed with (i.e., disposed in) the steering section.
The combination of Morrison and O’Conner does not appear to explicitly disclose “the correction information device is disposed below the driver's seat.”
However, Tepper discloses and agricultural machine including a display that “is disposed below the driver's seat” (Tepper ¶ 35, Fig. 2) where the display is part of an apparatus that is shown attached (i.e., disposed) below the driver’s seat. Additionally, this apparatus is also shown to be fully vertically adjustable and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that the display itself could be lowered to any point in the cabin that the arm can reach.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Tepper was combined with Morrison and O’Conner, that the correction unit displays of Morrison and O’Conner would be attached to an adjustable arm disposed below the seat, according to Tepper. Therefore, the combination of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “the correction information device is disposed below the driver's seat,” rendering it obvious.
Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of agricultural machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper before him or her to modify the display of Morrison and O’Conner to include the adjustable arm mount located below the driver’s seat of Tepper.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the driver’s ability to interaction with the monitor. (Tepper ¶ 12).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper discloses “a reset operation portion for resetting a state of the correction information device” (O’Conner ¶ 60) where the user initiates a calibration operation, which is a reset operation within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Further, Tepper discloses and agricultural machine including a display that “is d disposed in a driver's seat support portion that supports the driver's seat” (Tepper ¶ 35, Fig. 2) where the display is part of an apparatus that is shown attached (i.e., disposed) below the driver’s seat as part of the seat support potion.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Tepper was combined with Morrison and O’Conner, that the correction unit displays, including the reset operation portion of Morrison and O’Conner would be attached to an adjustable arm disposed below the seat, according to Tepper. Therefore, the combination of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the correction information device is disposed in a driver's seat support portion that supports the driver's seat, and the reset operation portion is disposed in the driver's seat support portion,” rendering them obvious.
Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of agricultural machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper before him or her to modify the display of Morrison and O’Conner to include the adjustable arm mount located below the driver’s seat of Tepper.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the driver’s ability to interaction with the monitor. (Tepper ¶ 12).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the reset operation portion is disposed below the correction information device” (Tepper Fig. 1) where main computer 14 is shown to be disposed of below the display screen. As discussed in the rejections of claims 5 and 6 above, when Tepper was combined with Morrison and O’Conner, the correction information device of Morrison and O’Conner would be implemented as the display screen of Tepper, which the main computer 14 of Tepper is located below. Further, Morrison discloses that the O’Conner that the trigger detector 274 (i.e., the reset operation portion) is part of the offset value management system (O’Conner ¶ 81), which is part of the computer of the vehicle. (O’Conner ¶ 45). Therefore, when Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper were combined, the computer system of Morrison and O’Conner would be placed in the location of main computer 14 of Tepper, rendering this limitation obvious.
Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of agricultural machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Morrison, O’Conner, and Tepper before him or her to modify the computing equipment, including the trigger detector of Morrison and O’Conner to include the computer equipment located below the driver’s seat of Tepper.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that such a modification is obvious to try. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(E). At the time of invention, there was a recognized problem or need in the art, namely including computing equipment in agricultural machinery that can reset the offset values for correcting the machine’s positioning. Further, there were only three identified, predictable potential solutions for where to place the calibration reset equipment: (1) above the correction information device; (2) below the correction information device; and (3) substantially parallel to the correction information device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because the placement of the equipment would not generally be viewed to affect the performance of the equipment and, thus, a person of ordinary skill would motivated to try all three positions to find the location where the particular computing equipment being used best fits within the particular agricultural machine that it is being placed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of O’Conner, as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Hayashi et al., US Publication 2022/0383645 (hereinafter Hayashi)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, although the combination of Morrison and O’Conner discloses various displays, it does not disclose the specific manner of implementing the displays and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the display includes a plurality of light emitters arranged in a horizontal line at a predetermined interval.”
However, Hayashi discloses a construction machine (Hayashi ¶ 149) including a display “wherein the display includes a plurality of light emitters arranged in a horizontal line at a predetermined interval” (Hayashi ¶ 39) where the display device is refreshed at a predetermined refresh rate (i.e., a predetermined interval) and includes information including the locations of the image along a horizontal axis.
Morrison, O’Conner, and Hayashi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle mounted displays.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Morrison, O’Conner, and Hayashi before him or her to modify the display of Morrison and O’Conner to include the display technology of Hayashi.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(A). As discussed in the rejection above, the combination of Morrison and O’Conner teaches the “base device” of a tractor that includes display units for displaying particular data. Further, Hayashi teaches the particularly claimed manner of displaying data through the use of refresh rates and horizontal lines that is applicable to the base device of the combination of Morrison and O’Conner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because display units are generally considered “plug and play,” in that a person of ordinary skill in the art would merely have to unplug the existing display and plug in a display using refreshed rates and horizontal lines. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have recognized that the results are predictable because almost all display units have been operating in this manner for many decades and are, therefore, widely understood and implemented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
O’Conner et al., US Patent 12,490,678, This patent is the issued patent corresponding to O’Conner, US Publication 2024/0138313.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662