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
Claims 1-13 have been amended.
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 09 July 2026 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aznavorian (US 2012/0215395), hereinafter referred to as Aznavorian in view of Bebernes et al. (US 2016/0037707), hereinafter referred to as Bebernes. Aznavorian and Bebernes is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling steering of an agricultural machine.
Regarding claim 1, Aznavorian teaches:
A single agricultural field work vehicle ("The application generally relates to automated methods for controlling a path of a vehicle. The application relates more specifically to automatically controlling a steering system of an agricultural or construction vehicle along a predetermined swath path." – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0002),
comprising: a traveling body including a steered wheel, a steering mechanism capable of steering the steered wheel ("The steering actuator 206 can be coupled to and steer steerable wheels on the vehicle, changing their steering angle." – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0020),
and a steering driver capable of driving the steering mechanism to operate ("The automatic guidance system 200 can include an electronic control system or controller 202, a GPS receiver 112, a hitch angle sensor 203 (may be used with tractor and connected implement combinations), an implement or vehicle steering system 205 (including both passive steering systems and active steering systems), steering valves 204 and a steering actuator 206. The electronic control system 202 can be communicatively connected to the steering valves 204, the GPS receiver 112, the hitch angle sensor 203 and the implement or vehicle steering system 205. The steering valves 204 can be electrically controlled proportional or directional control valves that are hydraulically connected to the steering actuator 206." – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0020);
a route setter configured to set a target route ("The operator can select the appropriate or desired predetermined swath or path for the vehicle from stored or recorded swaths or paths in the automatic guidance system 200. In another embodiment, the predetermined swath or path for the vehicle can be determined by the automatic guidance system 200 based on a master swath and the satisfaction of several conditions. " – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0019);
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 ("The system also includes a first controller with a microprocessor to execute a computer program to calculate a control signal for the vehicle used to steer the vehicle in relation to a predetermined swath based a control parameter" – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0011)
and a second steering controller configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver prior to the first steering controller while maintaining the automatic control state in a case of the first steering controller being in the automatic control state ("and a second controller with a microprocessor to execute a computer program to generate an adjustment for the calculated control signal in response to a vehicle operating parameter" – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0011).
Aznavorian does not explicitly disclose, but Bebernes teaches:
a first steering controller configured or programmed to change a state to… a non-control state where driving of the steering driver is not controlled ("Among other benefits, the steering system (and method) described herein may allow for operation of a vehicle in multiple steering modes, including a manual steering mode (or “manual mode”), a manual mode with rear steering assist (i.e., a “rear steering assist mode”), and an automated steering mode (or “automated mode”)." – see at least Bebernes: paragraph 0035) (The examiner notes that the manual steering mode as taught by Bebernes 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)).
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 Aznavorian with these above aforementioned teachings from Bebernes to include that the first steering controller is configured or programmed to change a state to a non-control state where driving of the steering driver is not controlled. 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 Bebernes’ manual steering mode with Aznavorian’s system for automatic guidance control for a vehicle in order to enable operation of a vehicle via manual steering input (“In a manual steering mode, the front valve assembly may be disabled with respect to the front steering device, and the front hydraulic steering device may steer the front wheels based upon the manual steering input.” – see at least Bebernes: paragraph 0008). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing smooth transitions between manual and autonomous steering modes (“The disclosed steering system (and method) may also facilitate, among other things, faster and easier transitions between various steering modes. In certain embodiments, where no direct mechanical link is provided between the rear valve assembly and the steering input device, it may be possible to switch relatively quickly from the manual mode to the rear-steering assist mode or to the automated mode.” – see at least Bebernes: paragraph 0040).
The examiner notes that while the primary reference by Aznavorian is primarily directed towards an automatic steering control system, it is considered common practice for a vehicle control system with automatic and/or autonomous capabilities to be configurable to switch to a manual operating mode (i.e., a non-control state), such as taught by Bebernes. As such, it is considered obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature with the system taught by Aznavorian to reach the claimed invention as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Aznavorian in view of Bebernes teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Aznavorian 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 ("The system also includes a first controller with a microprocessor to execute a computer program to calculate a control signal for the vehicle used to steer the vehicle in relation to a predetermined swath based a control parameter" – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0011);
and the second steering controller is configured or programmed to output a second target command value to the steering driver ("The adaptive AG parameter control system 300 takes the calculated or generated AG control signals and determines response limits or adjustments for the generated control signals and/or corresponding AG parameters based on changes in the vehicle's operating parameters (step 32)… The determined response limits are then used to adjust the control signals determined by the automatic guidance control system (step 34) and the adjusted control signals are then applied to the corresponding components to control the steering of the vehicle (step 36)." – see at least Aznavorian: paragraphs 0032-0033) (The examiner notes the adjusted control signals determined by the AG parameter control system 300 as taught by Aznavorian corresponds to the claimed second target command value output by the second steering controller),
the second target command value being obtained by adding or subtracting a preset command value to or from the first target command value (“The adaptive AG parameter control system 300 can use fuzzy logic or look up table(s) to provide further adjustments to the control signals provided or generated by the automatic guidance control system based on how the vehicle's operating parameters are varying. In one exemplary embodiment, the adaptive AG parameter control system 300 may permit the operator to select from different membership functions (when using fuzzy logic controls) or from different look up tables to select a desired level of adjustments.” – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0029) (The examiner notes that the desired level of adjustments which may be selected from different look up tables as taught by Aznavorian corresponds to the claimed preset command values).
Regarding claim 3, Aznavorian in view of Bebernes teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Aznavorian further teaches:
wherein the steering driver includes an electric motor ("The steering valves 204 can be electrically controlled proportional or directional control valves that are hydraulically connected to the steering actuator 206. The steering actuator 206 can be coupled to and steer steerable wheels on the vehicle, changing their steering angle. In another embodiment, an electrical actuator and related components can be used in place of hydraulically operated steering actuator 206 and valves 204." – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0020);
and the first target command value and the second target command value are current values, respectively ("In one embodiment, the control signals can be pulse width modulation (PWM) control signals to control the current provided to the steering valves 204 to adjust the position of the valves 204 and thereby adjust the amount of hydraulic fluid provided to the steering actuator 206." – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0031).
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 4, the Applicant’s Response filed 11 May 2026 is considered persuasive in overcoming the pending rejections and distinguishing the claim from the prior art. In particular, none of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, teach “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, 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”. Although the prior art of record teaches certain aspects of the claimed invention, as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11 February 2026, the aforementioned limitation regarding the second steering controller being 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 is not taught by Anderson et al. (US 2020/0133216), hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Medagoda et al. (US 2019/0375450), hereinafter referred to as Medagoda, Wu et al. (US 2015/0142237), hereinafter referred to as Wu, Gerbaud et al. (US 2010/0065291), hereinafter referred to as Gerbaud, Lyzen et al. (US 2021/0070356), hereinafter referred to as Lyzen, nor any other combination of the cited prior art references.
As per the previously applied primary reference by Anderson, as pointed out in the Applicant’s Response, Anderson is not considered to teach the amended claim limitations, at least because the system of Anderson is directed towards a host machine with a connected auxiliary machine to assist in steering control, whereas the amended claims require that the claimed steering controllers are comprised within a single agricultural vehicle. In other words, Anderson is directed towards a vehicle configuration which is distinct from the claimed invention as recited in the amended claims, and it would not be obvious to modify the system of Anderson to reach the claimed invention. As such, the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 which are based on the teachings of Anderson have been withdrawn.
In order to address the amended claims, the examiner has introduced the reference by Aznavorian, which is considered to teach the limitations of amended claims 1-3 in view of the previously cited reference by Bebernes, as set forth in further detail above in the section for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, as per claim 4, Aznavorian is not considered to teach the limitations of “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, 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”.
At best, Aznavorian teaches that the steering control system may consider a vehicle configuration, including an attached implement (i.e., a work device) (“For example, the steered wheel turn rate may be varied based on vehicle travel speed, sharpness of swath turn or the width of the vehicle or attached implement.” – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0007). However, there is nothing is Aznavorian to teach or suggest that the adaptive AG parameter control system 300 (i.e., the second steering controller) is unable to control driving of the steering driver in a case where an implement is not attached. Further, none of the additional cited prior art is considered to cure this deficiency of Aznavorian.
Claims 5-7 are considered to contain allowable subject matter at least due to their dependence on claim 4.
As per claim 8, none of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, teach “an operation tool capable of receiving a manual operation; wherein 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 first steering controller being in the automatic control state and the operation tool being operated”. Although the prior art of record teaches certain aspects of the claimed invention, as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11 February 2026, the aforementioned limitation regarding the second steering controller being configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver with priority over the first steering controller in a case of the first steering controller being in the automatic control state and the operation tool being operated is not taught by Anderson, Medagoda, Wu, Gerbaud, Lyzen, Aznavorian, Bebernes, nor any other combination of the cited prior art references.
As set forth above, Anderson is not considered to teach the limitations recited in the amended independent claims, and the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 which are based on the teachings of Anderson have therefore been withdrawn.
As per the newly applied reference by Aznavorian, this reference is not considered to teach the limitations of “an operation tool capable of receiving a manual operation; wherein 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 first steering controller being in the automatic control state and the operation tool being operated”. Instead, as best understood by the examiner, Aznavorian teaches a system in which the adaptive AG parameter control system 300 (i.e., the second steering controller) is activated automatically upon the vehicle system sensing particular changes in the vehicle’s operating parameters (“The adaptive AG parameter control system 300 takes the calculated or generated AG control signals and determines response limits or adjustments for the generated control signals and/or corresponding AG parameters based on changes in the vehicle's operating parameters (step 32). For example, if the cross track error was very high, the rate of turn or steered wheel turn rate would be increased and then decreased as the cross track error was reduced.” – see at least Aznavorian: paragraph 0032). In other words, Aznavorian is primarily directed towards a system for automatically adjusting steering control in response to sensed changes in the vehicle’s operating parameters, whereas claim 8 requires a manual operation of an operation tool in order for the functions of the second steering controller to be performed. Aznavorian does not teach or suggest any means for manual operation of an operation tool to be considered when controlling the vehicle using the adaptive AG parameter control system 300. Further, none of the additional cited prior art is considered to cure this deficiency of Aznavorian.
Claims 9-13 are considered to contain allowable subject matter at least due to their dependence on claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Aznavorian and Bebernes.
As set forth in further detail above in the section for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Aznavorian in view of Bebernes is considered to fully teach claims 1-3 as amended. In particular, Aznavorian is considered to address the deficiencies of the previously applied prior art reference by Anderson by teaching a single agricultural field work vehicle comprising a first controller for generating a control signal for steering a vehicle, which corresponds to the claimed first steering controller, and a second controller for generating an adjusted control signal for steering a vehicle, which corresponds to the claims second steering controller.
Further, the reference by Bebernes is applied merely to teach the well-understood functionality of configuring a vehicle steering system to be changeable between an automatic steering mode and a manual steering mode. One of ordinary skill in the art is considered readily capable of applying this functionality to the system of Aznavorian to reach the claimed invention, as set forth in further detail above in the section for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner notes that while the claims recite that the second steering controller is configured or programmed to control driving of the steering driver separately from the first steering controller, when the claims are considered as a whole in view of the specification, the claims are interpreted such that the second steering controller is not necessarily controlled independently of the first steering controller. In particular, in view of at least claim 2 of the instant application, the second steering controller is interpreted as outputting a second target command value to the steering value, which is based on a first target command value output by the first steering controller. As such, there is considered to be some relation between the first steering controller and the second steering controller such that they are not operating completely independently from one another. With this in mind, the adaptive AG parameter control system 300 as taught by Aznavorian generating adjusted control signals based on an output from a first steering controller is considered to correspond to the functions of the claimed second steering controller.
No additional prior art was found to address the limitations of claims 4-13 as amended. As such, these claims are considered to contain allowable subject matter as set forth in further detail above in the section for Allowable Subject Matter.
Further, in view of the Applicant’s Response, there is considered to be sufficient evidence that the claim language, when read by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification, denotes sufficient structure as to not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As such, the claims are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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 3661
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights