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 is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on 25 November 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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 claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: “steering mechanism”, “steering driver”, and “route setter” as recited in claim 1, “input interface” and “determiner” as recited in claim 6, and “operation tool” as recited in claim 8. The terms “mechanism”, “driver”, “setter”, “interface”, “determiner”, and “tool” as recited in the aforementioned claims are considered generic terms which do not clearly indicate a corresponding structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the steering mechanism are interpreted as being performed by at least a steering wheel (“In addition, the steering mechanism 3 includes a steering wheel 3A, and the steering wheel 3A receives a steering operation of the operator.” – see at least paragraph 0041 of the specification of the instant application).
In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the steering driver are interpreted as being performed by at least an electric motor (“In an example embodiment of the present invention, the steering driver may include an electric motor, and the first target command value and the second target command value may be current values, respectively.” – see at least paragraph 0010 of the specification of the instant application). The limitations recited in claim 3 further support this interpretation of the steering driver.
In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the route setter and the determiner are interpreted as being performed by at least a controller including a microcomputer and a storage device (“The steering controller 1 may be a physical device such as a microcomputer or may be a combination of a device and software. Although not illustrated, the steering controller 1 includes a storage device… The steering controller 1 includes a first steering controller 11, a second steering controller 12, a route setter 13, and a determiner 14.” – see at least paragraphs 0038-0039 of the specification of the instant application).
In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the input interface are interpreted as being performed by at least an operation screen display device (“In addition, the input interface 37 may be, for example, a touch panel-type operation screen display device mounted on the tractor 5, and may be configured or programmed to allow the operator to input the type of the work device by operating the operation screen display device” – see at least paragraph 0060 of the specification of the instant application).
In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the operation tool are interpreted as being performed by at least one or more buttons (“The operation tool 38 is provided with a left operation button 38L and a right operation button 38R.” – see at least paragraph 0062 of the specification of the instant application).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 2020/0133216), hereinafter referred to as Anderson.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches:
An agricultural field work vehicle ("The host machine 102 may be a tractor or other similar machine used for agricultural equipment, construction equipment, turf care equipment, snow removal equipment, etc." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0022) (The examiner notes that Anderson further teaches an auxiliary machine 104 attached to the host machine, as illustrated in Fig. 1 shown below ("The auxiliary machine 104 of the example machine configuration 100 may be an autonomous and/or semi-autonomous machine to provide additional traction and/or power to the host machine 102 while in operation, and, in some examples, generating additional power to conserve overall energy consumption of the machine configuration." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0025). Anderson is being interpreted such that the entire machine configuration 100 as taught by Anderson, including both the host machine 102 and auxiliary machine 104, corresponds to the claimed agricultural field work vehicle),
PNG
media_image1.png
511
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising: a traveling body including a steered wheel ("In FIG. 6B, the machine configuration 600 begins to make a turn. The host machine 102 may initiate the turn itself by turning one or more of the wheels 114" – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0059),
a steering mechanism capable of steering the steered wheel ("In the example of FIG. 1, the auxiliary machine 104 includes connectors 118, 119, a machine controller 120, a battery 122, one or more motor generator(s) 124; one or more steering mechanism(s) 126 connected to the wheels 128." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0025),
and a steering driver capable of driving the steering mechanism to operate ("The example machine controller 120 controls power to the wheels 128 from the ICE 130 and/or motor(s) 124 and controls steering any combination of the wheels 128 via the steering mechanisms 1. The example steering mechanisms 126 include any appropriate mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, or other similar mechanisms for turning the wheels 128 to steer the auxiliary machine 104." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0026);
a route setter configured to set a target route ("The example path identifier 210 determines a desired trajectory and/or a desired work path that the machine configuration 100 is to traverse or is to follow." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0032);
a first steering controller configured or programmed to change a state to an automatic control state where driving of the steering driver is controlled to travel along the target route ("In FIG. 8, at block 812, the power controller 220 selects a power mode (e.g., a free-wheel, a min-slip mode, a trajectory assist mode, a braking/regenerative braking mode, etc.) for controlling the wheels 128 of the one or more auxiliary machine(s) 104 of the example machine configuration." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0043) (The examiner notes that the power controller 220 as taught by Anderson corresponds to the claimed first steering controller)
and a non-control state where driving of the steering driver is not controlled ("The host machine 102 of FIG. 1 may be operator-controlled (a machine having an operator in optional cab 132), autonomous (without an operator and/or cab), semi-autonomous or any combination of the foregoing characteristics." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0022) (The examiner notes that the host machine being operator-controlled (i.e., manually controlled) as taught by Anderson corresponds to the claimed non-control state. This interpretation of the claims is supported by the written description of the claimed invention ("Therefore, when the control mode of the first steering controller 11 is the manual steering mode, the state of the first steering controller 11 is a non-control state where the automatic steering is not performed." – see at least paragraph 0051 of the specification of the instant application));
and a second steering controller configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver separately from the first steering controller while maintaining the automatic control state in a case of the first steering controller being in the automatic control state ("In trajectory assist mode, the power assist controller 216 may calculate a necessary amount of power and/or traction that needs to be provided individually, simultaneously, or cooperatively to the wheels 128 by the power controller 220 to enable the auxiliary machine 104 (and/or the host machine 102) to get back on-course and/or remain on-course." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0043) (The examiner notes that the power assist controller 216 as taught by Anderson corresponds to the claimed second steering controller).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
wherein the first steering controller is configured or programmed to output a first target command value to the steering driver in the automatic control state, the first target command value being calculated to travel along the target route ("Accordingly, in FIG. 3A, an actual host machine location 310, an actual auxiliary machine location 312, an expected machine location 320, and an expected auxiliary machine 322 may be determined by the machine controller 120 (e.g., using GPS, machine measurement devices 110, etc.). In this example, the machine controller 120 controls the auxiliary machine 104 to align the actual locations 310, 312 with the expected locations 320, 322, as described below." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0049);
and the second steering controller is configured or programmed to output a second target command value to the steering driver, the second target command value being obtained by adding or subtracting a preset command value to or from the first target command value ("In some examples, the machine controller 120 may provide additional power to one or more of the wheels 128 and/or disengage or perform regenerative braking on one or more of the wheels 128 according to the power assist controller 216." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0050) (The examiner notes that the additional power provided according to the power assist controller 216 as taught by Anderson corresponds to an added command value as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
wherein the steering driver includes an electric motor ("Work machines for construction, agricultural, or domestic applications may be powered by an electric motor, an internal combustion engine, or a hybrid power plant including an electric motor and an internal combustion engine." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0003);
and the first target command value and the second target command value are current values, respectively ("The auxiliary machine 104 of FIG. 1 may also include an ICE 130 that may be used to charge the battery 122 provide electric current to the motor(s) 124, and/or provide mechanical power to the wheels 128." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
further comprising: an operation tool capable of receiving a manual operation ("In such examples, the example path identifier 210 may identify the desired work path using input from a user via the user interface 116 and/or data stored in the data storage device 206, which may be selected by the user via the user interface 116, and/or may be identified based on a default setting of the machine controller 120." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0033) (The examiner notes that the user interface 116 as taught by Anderson corresponds to the claimed operation tool);
wherein the second steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver with priority over the first steering controller ("Accordingly, in the trajectory assist mode, the power assist controller 216 may instruct the power controller 220 to provide different amounts of power to each of the wheels 128 and/or the same amount of power to all of the wheels 128 depending on what is necessary to get the machine configuration 100 back on-course or to keep the machine configuration 100 on-course." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0044)
in a case of the first steering controller being in the automatic control state and the operation tool being operated ("Referring now to FIG. 9, a state table 900 includes example power mode selections (in rows 1-8) based on one or more inputs or conditions and a current state of the auxiliary machine of FIG. 1. The state table 900 includes a current state column 902, an input or condition column 904, a next state column 906, and example power mode selections rows 1-8. Other example power mode selections may exist in addition to those disclosed in rows 1-8. The current state column 902 indicates a current state (e.g., a power mode, speed, etc.) of the example machine configuration. The input or condition column 904 identifies data and/or conditions received from and/or identified by at least one of the machine measurement devices 110, the user interface 116, the alignment monitor 212, and/or the trajectory controller 214." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0085) (The examiner notes that the power mode (e.g., a trajectory assist mode as described above) of the machine configuration taught by Anderson is taught to be selected based on one or more inputs or conditions, including a user input given through the user interface 116, which corresponds to the claimed operation tool being operated).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
wherein the second steering controller is configured or programmed not to control driving of the steering driver and the first steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver in a case of the first steering controller being in the automatic control state and the operation tool being not operated ("If the alignment monitor 212 determines that the example machine configuration is on-course, control advances to block 812. However, if the alignment monitor 212 determines that the example machine configuration is off-course and/or heading off-course, the alignment monitor 212 notifies the trajectory controller 214 and control advances to block 810. At block 810, the trajectory controller 214 performs a path correction procedure to return the example machine configuration to a desired work path identified by the path identifier 210 and/or prevent the machine configuration from veering off the desired work path." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0078) (The examiner notes that in view of at least the aforementioned teachings of Anderson, and Fig. 8 of Anderson as shown below, block 810 which performs a path correction procedure using the power assist controller (i.e., the second controller) is not performed as long as the machine configuration is determined to be on-course and as long as no user input is given to change the machine configuration to a trajectory assist mode).
PNG
media_image2.png
792
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Medagoda et al. (US 2019/0375450), hereinafter referred to as Medagoda. Medagoda is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling steering of an agricultural machine.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
wherein the second steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver in a case of a work device being mounted on the traveling body ("The configuration analyzer 208 in the example of FIG. 2 identifies and/or determines an arrangement of the machine configuration 100. The configuration analyzer 208 determines how the host machine 102 and auxiliary machine 104 are connected to each other (e.g., via the connectors 106, 118). Additionally, in some examples, the configuration analyzer 208 may determine how the machine configuration 100 or other machine configurations are connected to an implement. For example, the configuration analyzer 208 may determine that a machine configuration includes an implement connected in series (perhaps via a PTO and/or implement connection) between a host machine (e.g., the host machine 102) and an auxiliary machine (e.g., the auxiliary machine 104). The configuration analyzer 208 can determine a number of machines (e.g., a host machine 102, one or more auxiliary machine(s) 104, and/or one or more implements) in a machine configuration and how they are arranged." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0030) (The examiner notes that the implement connected to the machine configuration of Anderson corresponds to the claimed work device. Further, the system of Anderson is taught to be controlled based on the arrangement of the machine configuration, which includes the aforementioned implement ("Methods and apparatus disclosed herein include controlling the power and/or turning ground engaging elements of one or more machine(s) of a machine configuration based on one or more factor(s) including: an arrangement of the machine configuration, a desired work path of the machine configuration, an alignment of the machine configuration, a location of the machine configuration, machine characteristic(s) of the machine(s) of the machine configuration, and/or work path characteristic(s) of the desired work path." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0017)).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose, but Medagoda teaches:
and is configured or programmed to be unable to control driving of the steering driver in a case of the work device being not mounted on the traveling body ("Once implement 104 finally reaches a desired position error threshold, the dual-mode controller 102 switches into a second implement steering mode, forcing vehicle 100 to perform a final correction maneuver in stage 4 to eventually place implement 104 in-line with path 110 in stage 5." – see at least Medagoda: paragraph 0027) (The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the second "implement steering mode" as taught by Medagoda is only applicable when an implement (i.e., a work device) is mounted on the traveling body. Therefore, it is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Anderson and Medagoda to reach the claimed limitations, as set forth in further detail below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson with these above aforementioned teachings from Medagoda such that the second steering controller is configured or programmed to be unable to control driving of the steering driver in a case of the work device being not mounted on the traveling body. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Medagoda’s use of a second steering controller specifically for use with an attached implement with Anderson‘s method of controlling an agricultural machine in order to control an implement attached to the agricultural machine to be aligned with a desired path (“FIG. 1 illustrates the principles behind dual-mode implement steering. Initially in stage 1, vehicle 100 and implement 104 are offset from a desired path 110. A dual-mode controller 102 engages and steers vehicle 100 onto line 110 until acquisition is completed at stage 2. At stage 3, vehicle 100 is in-line with path 110; however, implement 104 has not yet reduced a position error relative to path 110 enough for initiating a second implement steering mode.” – see at least Medagoda: paragraph 0026). Doing so would provide the benefit of activating an alternative control mode specifically to account for differences in how the agricultural machine operates when an implement is attached compared to when an implement is not attached (“Conventional automated steering usually only steers based on vehicle location and the initial vehicle maneuver at stage 2 would normally be directly towards path 110. This rearward movement toward path 110 would cause implement 104 to head away from path 110 and ultimately jackknife. Guidance system 120 avoids these undesired situations by incorporating implement heading and position states into the steering control model describe above.” – see at least Medagoda: paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of Medagoda teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
further comprising: a determiner configured or programmed to determine whether the work device is mounted on the traveling body and to automatically detect the work device ("The configuration analyzer 208 in the example of FIG. 2 identifies and/or determines an arrangement of the machine configuration 100. The configuration analyzer 208 determines how the host machine 102 and auxiliary machine 104 are connected to each other (e.g., via the connectors 106, 118). Additionally, in some examples, the configuration analyzer 208 may determine how the machine configuration 100 or other machine configurations are connected to an implement. For example, the configuration analyzer 208 may determine that a machine configuration includes an implement connected in series (perhaps via a PTO and/or implement connection) between a host machine (e.g., the host machine 102) and an auxiliary machine (e.g., the auxiliary machine 104). The configuration analyzer 208 can determine a number of machines (e.g., a host machine 102, one or more auxiliary machine(s) 104, and/or one or more implements) in a machine configuration and how they are arranged." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of Medagoda teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
further comprising: an input interface capable of receiving a manual operation ("In such examples, the example path identifier 210 may identify the desired work path using input from a user via the user interface 116 and/or data stored in the data storage device 206, which may be selected by the user via the user interface 116, and/or may be identified based on a default setting of the machine controller 120." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0033) (The examiner notes that the user interface 116 as taught by Anderson corresponds to the claimed input interface);
and a determiner configured or programmed to determine whether the work device is mounted on the traveling body and to detect the work device based on information input to the input interface by the manual operation ("In some examples, a user can input the type of machines (host machine, auxiliary machine, implement etc. and/or corresponding characteristics, models of the machines, etc.) and how they are coupled together using graphical user interface (GUI) of the user interface 116." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of Medagoda teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
wherein the work device is a plow ("Alternative or additional machine configurations to the machine configuration 100 of FIG. 1 are possible, including machine configurations with an implement (e.g., a field plow, a cultivator, a tiller, a planter, a seeder, etc.) or multiple auxiliary machines 104." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0027).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Wu et al. (US 2015/0142237), hereinafter referred to as Wu. Wu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling power supply for a vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Anderson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
wherein the second steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver with priority over the first steering controller ("Accordingly, in the trajectory assist mode, the power assist controller 216 may instruct the power controller 220 to provide different amounts of power to each of the wheels 128 and/or the same amount of power to all of the wheels 128 depending on what is necessary to get the machine configuration 100 back on-course or to keep the machine configuration 100 on-course." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0044).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose, but Wu teaches:
in a case of the operation tool being operated for a long time of a preset first setting time or more ("In some embodiments, a heating button is provided in a control panel of the electric vehicle, if the heating button is pressed and the pressing is held for a preset time (for example, 2 seconds), the user confirms to heat the battery group. Those skilled in the art may understand that, the method for confirming the heating may be any of those in the art, without particular limit." – see at least Wu: paragraph 0093) (The examiner notes that the preset time as taught by Wu corresponds to the claimed preset first setting time).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu such that the second steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver with priority over the first steering controller in a case of the operation tool being operated for a long time of a preset first setting time or more. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wu’s method of operating a vehicle system based on a button input with Anderson’s method of controlling an agricultural machine in order to require the button to be pressed for a preset time duration to provide a corresponding functionality of the button (“At step S917, it is judged whether an operation of pressing the heating button again satisfies a preset condition (i.e., it is confirmed whether the heating button is pressed and held for 2 seconds). If yes, step S918 is followed, and if no, step S919 is followed.” – see at least Wu: paragraph 0105). Doing so would provide the benefit of confirming the intent of a user operating the button (“At step S907, a user confirms whether the battery group needs to be heated. If yes, step S909 is followed, and if no, step S908 is followed.” – see at least Wu: paragraph 0093). This benefit taught by Wu is consistent with the benefits described in the written description of the claimed invention (“Therefore, it is possible to confirm the intention of the operator to press the operation tool for a long time regarding whether to perform the control by the second steering controller.” – see at least paragraph 0025 of the specification of the instant application).
The examiner notes that while the heating button as taught by Wu does not provide the same particular functionality as the claimed operation tool, the same benefits set forth above of requiring the button to be held for at least a preset time to confirm the intention of a user would be realized regardless of the specific task that is being performed by actuating the button. In both Wu and the instant application, the operation of the respective operation tool (i.e., the heating button in the case of Wu) influences the manner in which power is supplied to systems within a vehicle. As such, both Wu and the claimed limitations of claim 10 provide the benefit of preventing an unintentional change in how power is distributed to vehicle systems.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson in view of Wu teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
wherein the second steering controller is configured or programmed to not control driving of the steering driver, and the route setter is configured or programmed to displace the target route to one of left and right without changing an extending direction of the target route in a case of the operation tool being operated for the first setting time or less ("In some examples, user may request the machine controller 120 to control the auxiliary machine 104 in an offset position. Based on selected settings (e.g., an offset distance 506 and/or direction), an offset method (e.g., controlling turning and/or variable power to one or more of the wheels 128, etc.), etc.), the machine controller 120 controls the auxiliary machine 104 to perform tasks offset (e.g., by an offset distance 506) from the host machine 102." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0055) (The examiner notes that the offset distance 506 as taught by Anderson, and as illustrated in Figs. 5A-5C of Anderson as shown below, corresponds to a displacement to one of left and right of the target route as claimed).
PNG
media_image3.png
647
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Wu, further in view of Gerbaud et al. (US 2010/0065291), hereinafter referred to as Gerbaud. Gerbaud is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling an agricultural work machine.
Regarding claim 11, Anderson in view of Wu teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson does not explicitly disclose, but Gerbaud teaches:
wherein the second steering controller is configured or programmed to not control driving of the steering driver and the first steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver in a case of the operation tool being operated for a second setting time or more which is longer than the first setting time ("According to an embodiment of the invention, such a power hoe also includes a functionality making it possible to supply additional power to the motor for a limited time period, which is available only in the normal operating mode." – see at least Gerbaud: paragraph 0016) (The examiner notes that the limited time period as taught by Gerbaud corresponds to the claimed second setting time).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson with these above aforementioned teachings from Gerbaud such that the second steering controller is configured or programmed to not control driving of the steering driver and the first steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver in a case of the operation tool being operated for a second setting time or more which is longer than the first setting time. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gerbaud’s method of controlling a power supply for a motor with Anderson’s method of controlling an agricultural machine in order to prevent excessive usage of a control mode which consumes additional power (“To avoid continuous use of the power hoe with this functionality, the higher speed button 313 must be held pressed by the user in order for the function to be active.” – see at least Gerbaud: paragraph 0056). Doing so would provide the benefit of temporarily providing additional power in appropriate situations (“Thus, a speed variation control 312 makes it possible to modify the rotation speed of the motor 15, and therefore of the tools 14. Similarly, according to the models, a higher speed button 313 can make it possible to supply additional power to the motor 15 for a limited time, for example when passing through harder earth or earth containing roots.” – see at least Gerbaud: paragraph 0056).
The examiner notes that Wu also teaches a similar functionality as the claimed limitation in the form of controlling a particular control mode (e.g., a battery heating mode) to be stopped after a preset amount of time (e.g., a heating time duration threshold) (“If the temperature of the battery group is higher than the first temperature threshold, or the continuous heating time is larger than the heating time duration threshold, or the maximum temperature of a single battery in the battery group is higher than the second temperature threshold, the battery heater stops sending the control pulse to the internal switch module to stop heating the battery group.” – see at least Wu: paragraph 0158).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lyzen et al. (US 2021/0070356), hereinafter referred to as Lyzen. Lyzen is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling an agricultural work machine.
Regarding claim 13, Anderson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Anderson further teaches:
wherein the operation tool includes a first actuator and a second actuator; and the second steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver such that the steered wheel is directed to one of left and right with respect to a steering direction based on the control of the first steering controller in a case of the first actuator being operated, and control driving of the steering driver such that the steered wheel is directed to the other of left and right with respect to the steering direction based on the control of the first steering controller in a case of the second actuator being operated ("In some examples, the user may indicate and/or input a desired work path of a particular maneuver (e.g., a turning maneuver such a light bulb turn or ninety degree turn, etc.) that is to be executed by the example machine configuration." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0072) (The examiner notes that the turning maneuver which is input by a user as taught by Anderson corresponds to controlling driver of the steering driver such that the steered wheel is directed to one of left and right as claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reached the aforementioned limitations of claim 13 based on the teachings of Anderson. While the user interface 116 of Anderson is primarily described as a graphical user interface as described in further detail above, Anderson further teaches the use of additional input devices, including physical actuators, to allow a user to provide inputs ("In the illustrated example, one or more input devices 1022 are connected to the interface circuit 1020. The input device(s) 1022 permit(s) a user to enter data and commands into the processor 1012. The input device(s) can be implemented by, for example, an audio sensor, a microphone, a camera (still or video), a keyboard, a button, a mouse, a touchscreen, a track-pad, a trackball, isopoint and/or a voice recognition system." – see at least Anderson: paragraph 0098). As such, it is considered obvious and easily conceivable for one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Anderson to implement the claimed steering control functionality using common and generic physical actuators such as buttons (e.g., a left button which controls the steered wheel to be directed to the left, and a right button which controls the steered wheel to be directed to the left), as is well-known in the art.
An example of a suitable physical controller for performing the claimed functionalities is taught by Lyzen as illustrated in Fig. 14D of Lyzen shown below, including a button 1430D corresponding to a left turn command and a button 1432D corresponding to a right turn command, which correspond to the claimed first actuator and second actuator, respectively (“In another embodiment, user input/output 1506 can include a hand-formed joystick-type device (e.g., 1400D of FIG. 14D) with user input buttons for inputting user commands (e.g., entering point A and point B of a primary parallel line; turn left button; turn right button; manual/auto steering selection or override, or the like).” – see at least Lyzen: paragraph 0189).
PNG
media_image4.png
533
723
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bebernes et al. (US 2016/0037707) teaches a multi-mode steering control for automatically controlling an agricultural vehicle based on a target path of travel.
Nelson, JR. et al. (US 2006/0167600) teaches an architecturally partitioned automatic steering system and method, including a steering controller which generates a steering angle adjust function to automatically steer a vehicle back onto an intended path line.
Morisaki (US 2016/0231123) teaches a vehicle controller including a control unit which sets a travel mode to one of a first mode or a second mode based on whether the vehicle deviates from a route specified by a travel plan.
Stahl et al. (US 2020/0262475) teaches a steering controller device for an agricultural work vehicle, including a method for allowing an operator to provide a manual input to override a steering control which was determined in an autonomous operating mode.
Hubalek (US 2012/0232760) teaches a steerable agricultural implement, including an implement sensor which determines whether an implement is in use and a method for selecting a steering mode based on the determination of whether the implement is in use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667