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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because S32 in Fig. 20 has two paths for a “No” option and S33 has zero paths for a “No” option. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “setter configured or programmed to set a first threshold” and “controller configured or programmed to cause the working vehicle to stop traveling” in claim 1, “changer configured or programmed to change the second threshold” in claims 4 and 5, “remote-control travel permitter configured or programmed to permit the working vehicle in a tilted state to travel” in claim 6, and “limiter configured or programmed to limit content of an operation of the working vehicle in a tilted state” in claim 14. Namely, in light of Fig. 18 and paragraph [0072] of the specification, the components are interpreted as being part of a controller “constituted by electric/electronic circuits, a processor, and a memory”.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites that the second threshold is changed if the working device includes one or more wheels or one or more crawlers, and that the second threshold is not changed if the working device has a center of gravity higher than a predetermined position. It is not clear whether or not the threshold would be changed in the case of a working device including one or more wheels or one or more crawlers which additionally has a center of gravity higher than the predetermined position. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as indicating that the second threshold is changed based on the center of gravity of the working vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki et al. (US 20180024563) in view of Friedrick et al. (US 20240341214).
Claim 1.
Matsuzaki et al. teaches:
A working vehicle to perform automatic operation including doing work at an agricultural field using a working device, the working vehicle comprising:
(Matsuzaki – [0023]) “the work vehicle is a tractor that travels and works in a field (work field) separated by ridges as boundaries.”
a setter configured or programmed to set a first threshold for the automatic operation and a second threshold for
(Matsuzaki – [0018]) “Three thresholds are set in the work vehicle, which can have a size relationship of a warning threshold < an automatic steering travel prohibition threshold < a travel prohibition threshold.”
a controller configured or programmed to cause the working vehicle to stop traveling if a tilt angle of the working vehicle reaches the first threshold during the automatic operation or the second threshold during the remote operation
(Matsuzaki – [0038]) “When the vehicle body inclination angle exceeds the travel prohibition threshold, the travel limit information generation unit 62 requests the travel control unit 50 to output a stop signal that causes the vehicle body 1 to stop.”
Matsuzaki et al. does not explicitly teach remote operation; however, Friedrick et al. teaches:
remote operation controlled by a remote controller
(Friedrick – [0036]) “The refined remote interfaces permit the conduct of remote operation (e.g., monitoring, control, or both) of agricultural vehicles, for instance, to check on agricultural operations and status, navigate obstacles, or address other issues that may arise for a remote agricultural vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the work vehicle of Matsuzaki et al. with the remote operation capabilities of Friedrick et al. Both Matsuzaki et al. and Friedrick et al. are directed towards control of a working vehicle; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined in this fashion with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow operation in an area which would be inconvenient or unsafe for a human operator to work.
Claim 2.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al. and Friedrick et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Matsuzaki et al. further teaches:
wherein the second threshold has a greater absolute value than the first threshold
(Matsuzaki – [0018]) “Three thresholds are set in the work vehicle, which can have a size relationship of a warning threshold < an automatic steering travel prohibition threshold < a travel prohibition threshold.”
Claim 3.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al. and Friedrick et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Matsuzaki et al. further teaches:
wherein the first threshold has a greater absolute value than the second threshold
(Matsuzaki – [0018]) “Three thresholds are set in the work vehicle, which can have a size relationship of a warning threshold < an automatic steering travel prohibition threshold < a travel prohibition threshold… These three thresholds and the vehicle body control for triggering the three thresholds are merely an example. Thresholds to be set may be reduced or increased in number.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art that, in light of the remote operation taught by Friedrick et al., an additional remote operation travel prohibition threshold could be added to the thresholds of Matsuzaki et al. Furthermore, it would have been a design choice to make such a threshold lower than the automatic steering travel prohibition threshold. One would have been motivated to set such a threshold at such a relative level because the automatic steering system would be able to more quickly and accurately respond in a potential rollover condition than would a remote operator, and thus the automatic system would be capable of handling more dangerous tilt angles.
Claim(s) 4-6, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsuzaki et al. and Friedrick et al. as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Sawaki (JP 2019094035, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 4.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al. and Friedrick et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Matsuzaki et al. nor Friedrick et al. explicitly teaches changing a threshold based on a condition; however, Sawaki teaches:
a changer configured or programmed to change the second threshold based on a predetermined condition
(Sawaki – [0039]) “the vehicle control unit 100 sets the predetermined tilt angle based on the vehicle speed.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the work vehicle of Matsuzaki et al. with the variable tilt angle thresholds of Sawaki et al. Both Matsuzaki et al. and Sawaki et al. are directed towards monitoring tilt of a working machine; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because a tip-over risk of a work vehicle increases with an increased vehicle speed.
Claim 5.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 6.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al., Friedrick et al., and Sawaki teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Sawaki further teaches:
a remote-control travel permitter configured or programmed to permit the working vehicle in a tilted state to travel under the remote operation controlled by the remote controller if the tilt angle of the working vehicle is smaller than the changed second threshold changed by the changer
(Sawaki – [0042]) “After the inclination angle becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined inclination angle, the vehicle control unit 100 ends the overturn prevention control when the inclination angle becomes smaller than the predetermined inclination angle.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 4.
Claim 10.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al., Friedrick et al., and Sawaki teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Sawaki further teaches:
wherein the changer is configured or programmed to change the second threshold based on a type of the working device as the predetermined condition
(Sawaki – [0070]) “the vehicle control unit 100 in the modified example may set the predetermined inclination angle (first predetermined inclination angle, second predetermined inclination angle, third predetermined inclination angle) according to the type of work implement 6 and the work content performed by the work implement 6.”
Claim 12.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al., Friedrick et al., and Sawaki teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Sawaki further teaches:
wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition in which, if the type of the working device is a traveling type including one or more wheels or one or more crawlers, the changer changes the second threshold such that an absolute value of the second threshold increases, and if the type of the working device is a separation type that has a center of gravity higher than a predetermined position and that does not contact a ground, the changer does not change the second threshold
(Sawaki – [0070]) “when a work machine 6A having a center of gravity higher than that of the work machine 6 in FIG. 1 is connected, the predetermined tilt angle may be reduced.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the work vehicle of Matsuzaki et al. with the variable tilt angle thresholds of Sawaki et al. Both Matsuzaki et al. and Sawaki et al. are directed towards monitoring tilt of a working machine; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow appropriate execution of anti-tip control based on the type of work implement (Sawaki – [0070]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsuzaki et al., Friedrick et al., and Sawaki as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fujiie et al. (JP 2018085960).
Claim 13.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al., Friedrick et al., and Sawaki teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly make a distinction between front-back and left-right tilt; however, Fujie et al. teaches:
wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition in which, if the working device is tilted in a front-back direction, the changer changes the second threshold such that an absolute value of the second threshold increases, and if the working device is tilted in a left-right direction, the changer does not change the second threshold
(Fujiie – [0007]) “a preset safety limit left/right tilt angle… a preset safe front-rear inclination angle”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the work machine of Matsuzaki et al. with the axis-dependent tilt angle thresholds of Fujiie et al. Both Matsuzaki et al. and Fujiie et al. are directed towards monitoring the tilt of a working machine; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the references could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because the moments of inertia along different axes of the work vehicle are different, and thus the tilt risk about each axis is different.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsuzaki et al. and Friedrick et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gloeckner et al. (US 20230392350).
Claim 14.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al. and Friedrick et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Matsuzaki et al. nor Friedrick et al. explicitly teaches limiting content of an operation of the working vehicle; however, Gloeckner et al. teaches:
a limiter configured or programmed to limit content of an operation of the working vehicle in a tilted state when the working vehicle travels in the tilted state under the remote operation controlled by the remote controller
(Gloeckner – [0029]) “the longitudinal dynamic aggressiveness of the self-driving working machine that can be requested by the operator can be limited in order to ensure the stability safety of the self-driving working machine and to avoid tilting of the self-driving working machine.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the work machine of Matsuzaki et al. with the limited operation of Gloeckner et al. Both Matsuzaki et al. and Gloeckner et al. are directed towards the operation of a work machine on a slope; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the references could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure the safety of the working machine and avoid tilting (Gloeckner – [0029]).
Claim 15.
The combination of Matsuzaki et al., Friedrick et al., and Gloeckner et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above. Gloeckner et al. further teaches:
wherein the limiter is configured or programmed to limit at least one of a vehicle speed of the working vehicle in the tilted state, an acceleration of the working vehicle in the tilted state, changing a speed stage of the working vehicle in the tilted state, steering of the working vehicle in the tilted state, or content of an operation of the working device
(Gloeckner – [0029]) “The step of intervening in the longitudinal dynamics may include limiting a speed request or an acceleration request.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 11, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7: While the closest available art, Sawaki, teaches setting a predetermined tilt angle based on a speed of a working machine, a type of the working machine, and a center of gravity of the working machine, Sawaki fails to teach setting a predetermined tilt angle based on a signal strength of a remote control signal.
Regarding claim 8: While the closest available art, Sawaki, teaches setting a predetermined tilt angle based on a speed of a working machine, a type of the working machine, and a center of gravity of the working machine, Sawaki fails to teach setting a predetermined tilt angle based on a distance between a remote controller and the working machine.
Regarding claim 9: While the closest available art, Sawaki, teaches setting a predetermined tilt angle based on a speed of a working machine, a type of the working machine, and a center of gravity of the working machine, Sawaki fails to teach setting a predetermined tilt angle based on a remote controller being positioned higher on a slope than the working machine.
Regarding claim 11: While the closest available art, Sawaki, teaches setting a predetermined tilt angle based on a speed of a working machine, a type of the working machine, and a center of gravity of the working machine, Sawaki fails to explicitly teach setting a predetermined tilt angle based on whether or not the working machine does work by contacting a ground. It would not have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art that this result would follow on the basis of a generically recited “type” of working machine.
Regarding claim 16: While the closest available art, Gloeckner et al., teaches limiting a speed and an acceleration of a working vehicle, Gloeckner et al. fails to teach limiting a steering angle of the working vehicle. The closest available art, Miwa (JP 2019170223) teaches correcting a tilt angle based on a calculated centrifugal force; however, Miwa fails to teach limiting a steering angle of a working vehicle. Morimoto et al. (US 20250374847) would teach the creation of a route which limits steering towards a downslope prohibited zone; however, Morimoto et al. postdates the present application and does not constitute valid prior art.
Regarding claim 17: While the closest available art, Gloeckner et al., teaches limiting a speed and an acceleration of a working vehicle, Gloeckner et al. fails to teach limiting a steering angle of the working vehicle. The closest available art, Miwa (JP 2019170223) teaches correcting a tilt angle based on a calculated centrifugal force; however, Miwa fails to teach limiting a steering angle of a working vehicle. Morimoto et al. (US 20250374847) would teach the creation of a route which limits steering towards a downslope prohibited zone; however, Morimoto et al. postdates the present application and does not constitute valid prior art.
Regarding claim 18: While the closest available art, Sawaki, teaches setting a predetermined tilt angle based on a speed of a working machine, a type of the working machine, and a center of gravity of the working machine, Sawaki fails to teach a remote operator performing an operation to change a second threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669