DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The remarks filed on 06/11/2026 have been entered and fully considered.
Claims 2-24 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Specification objection: Applicant’s amendment to the abstract has overcome the specification objection raised in the previous action; therefore the specification objection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding Double Patenting rejection: Applicant states on pages [8-9] of the remarks, that a Terminal Disclaimer was enclosed with the response. However, no Terminal Disclaimer has been received to date. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejections stands until a Terminal Disclaimer is received and approved.
Regarding 112(d) rejection: Applicant's arguments and remarks regarding claims 12 and 16 have overcome the 112(d) rejections raised in the previous action; therefore the 112(d) rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2-5 and 10-24 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8, 10,12-15, 19, and 21-22 of Hurd et al., U.S. Patent 11,609,569. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations. In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 2-5 and 10-24 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-2, 8, 10,12-15, 19, and 21-22 of US Patent 11,609,569, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Claims 2-5, 10-19, and 22-23 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-13, 15, 22, 24, and 28 of Hurd et al., U.S. Patent 12,147,231. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations. In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 2-5, 10-19, and 22-23 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1, 7-13, 15, 22, 24, and 28 of US Patent 12,147,231, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record is Lindores et al. [USPGPub 2014/0012732], hereinafter referred to as Lindores and Magalhaes de Matos [USPGPub 2010/0206649], hereinafter referred to as Magalhaes de Matos.
As per claims 2 and 17, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest:The prior art fails to explicitly teach or suggest or render obvious an application layer having the one or more autonomous field operations, each of the one or more autonomous field operations includes an autonomous field operation to be conducted and one or more operational parameters of the autonomous field operation to be conducted; an executive control layer in communication with one or more of the application layer or the cloud-side application layer, the executive control layer configured to coordinate syncing of operating systems between the one or more machines to generate the common operating system; a vehicle interface in communication with the executive control layer, the vehicle interface configured to integrate autonomous operating environment with physical interfaces of the one or more machines for controlling one or more autonomous field operations; and a perception and safety system in communication with each of the application layer, the cloud-side application layer, and the executive control layer, the perception and safety system configured to analyze input data collected by a plurality of sensors associated with one or more machines to detect and classify one or more objects or terrain characteristics for generating navigational control of the one or more machines relative to the one or more objects or the terrain characteristics during autonomous performance of the one or more autonomous field operations.
Claims 3-16 depend from claim 2 and claims 18-24 depend from claim 17 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2021/0383193 – Provides the techniques and methods for controlling and managing an environment, in particular, to a system for controlling and managing a process within an environment using artificial intelligence techniques and relative method.. USPGPub 2006/0178825 - a system and method for guiding agricultural vehicles during planting, cultivating, spraying, harvesting or other operations.
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 MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights