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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to independent claim 1, Applicant argues Weisberg (US 20170112049) has not been shown to teach or suggest controlling a ground speed based on an offset distance from the boundary crossing point and Hiramatsu (US 20180181143) does not remedy this deficiency, containing no teaching, suggestion, motivation, or rationale for one of ordinary skill to arrive at this feature. Therefore, Applicant concludes the rejection should be withdrawn and claim 1 is allowable.
However, Weisberg teaches a tractor is controlled to follow a predicted path of an auto-guidance swath which is used to determine boundary crossing instances and determining a product delay edge, which is an offset location ahead of the tractor determined as a function of velocity and time values, and the intersection of the product delay edge and the field boundary is found. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor to create an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor when the intersection occurs, which at that precise moment also offsets the same distance from the boundary. Hiramatsu then teaches controlling traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on turning or working. By the combination of these references, as the tractor follows the auto-guidance swath, including instances of boundary crossing, speed of the tractor is automatically controlled at least by causing turning operations to begin, including changing between the turning speed and the work speed for the tractor based on the boundary crossing offset using the product delay edge through the auto-guidance path as a whole. At the offset is incorporated into the auto-guidance swath and speed control is based at least in part on the auto-guidance swath, the speed too is controlled based upon the offset. This is precisely what is required by the claim.
As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
In regards to independent claim 10, Applicant argues Hiramatsu has not been shown to remedy the deficiencies of Weisberg. Applicant argues, while Hiramatsu may disclose speed change means, it has not been shown to teach or suggest controlling speed based on a location of an effective boundary crossing point and Hiramatsu instead has been shown to detect travel speed. Therefore, Applicant argues the rejection of independent claim 10 should be withdrawn and the claim is allowable.
However, similarly to the above, Weisberg teaches determining an effective boundary point from the same offsetting using the product delay edge which is the time the product delay edge intercepts the work area’s boundary and controlling the tractor to follow a predicted path of an auto-guidance swath, which incorporates the effective boundary point. Hiramatsu teaches the same controlling traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on turning or working. By the combination of these references, as the tractor follows the auto-guidance swath, including instances of effective boundary crossing, speed of the tractor is automatically controlled at least by causing turning operations to begin, including changing between the turning speed and the work speed for the tractor based on the effective boundary crossing using the product delay edge through the auto-guidance path as a whole. At the effective boundary crossing is incorporated into the auto-guidance swath and speed control is based at least in part on the auto-guidance swath, the speed too is controlled based upon the effective boundary crossing. This is precisely what is required by the claim
As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency, as well as the newly amended features within the claims.
However, this argument is unpersuasive as independent claims 1 and 10 have been fully rejected. Amended claim 14 is once again objected to for the newly amended features as it would be allowable if amended into independent form incorporating the limitations of the base claim and all intervening claims and the remaining amended claims have been fully rejected.
As independent claim 19 is allowable, dependent claim 20 is found to be allowable at least by virtue of its dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In particular the claim recites:
“computing an offset distance so a distance between a location of an effective boundary crossing point and the location of the boundary crossing point exceeds a look-ahead distance, wherein the look-ahead distance is based on a system delay in performing section control”.
While certain features are certainly found to be similar within the prior art, the closest prior art available, Weisberg (US 20170112049) teaches determining a look ahead distance and an offset distance where the offset distance is found within the look ahead distance, where the offset produces a distance between the boundary crossing point and an effective boundary crossing point, and the offset is determined particularly within the look ahead distance. As such, this offset cannot exceed the look ahead distance, and therefore is different from the claim, and further would be illogical and unreasonable to rearrange.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Objections
Claim 5 and 14 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. In particular, while certain features are certainly found to be similar within the prior art, the closest prior art available, Weisberg (US 20170112049) teaches determining a look ahead distance and an offset distance where the offset distance is found within the look ahead distance, where the offset produces a distance between the boundary crossing point and an effective boundary crossing point, and the offset is determined particularly within the look ahead distance. As such, this offset cannot exceed the look ahead distance, and therefore is different from the claim, and further would be illogical and unreasonable to rearrange. Similarly, planning is performed up to the look ahead distance, such that speed would not be reasonably adjusted to a turn speed before entering the look ahead distance as in claim 14.
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 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisberg et al. (US 20170112049), in view of Hiramatsu (US 20180181143).
In regards to claim 1, Weisberg teaches a computer implemented method, comprising: (Claim 18, [0018].)
identifying a location of a boundary crossing point, corresponding to a boundary, for a mobile agricultural machine; ([0005] it is conventional for tractors to determine that an implement with the vehicle crosses a boundary at a boundary point, such as the edge boundary of a field.)
computing, based on a section control system delay corresponding to the mobile agricultural machine, an offset distance from the boundary crossing point; ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049] a product delay edge, which is an offset location ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor, and the time, distance, and location of when and where the product delay edge will intercept a field boundary is determined. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor which when determined to intersect the boundary of the field, creates an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor. At the moment of intersection between the product delay edge and the boundary, this also offsets the position of the vehicle from the boundary.)
and
automatically performing a section control operation of the mobile agricultural machine based on the location of the boundary crossing point. ([0032], [0033] implement is started or shut off based on approaching intercept between product delay edge and field boundary, which is a section control operation to selectively operate or not operate the implement.)
Weisberg also teaches the tractor is controlled to follow a predicted path of an auto-guidance swath which is used to determine boundary crossing instances ([0040], [0041]).
Weisberg does not teach:
automatically controlling a ground speed of the mobile agricultural machine based on the offset distance from the boundary crossing point;
However, Hiramatsu teaches controlling the traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on whether the work vehicle is turning through a turn area or traveling straight through a work area ([0070], [0085], [0102], [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control method of Weisberg, by incorporating the teachings of Hiramatsu, such that as the tractor of Weisberg is controlled to follow the auto-guidance swath, including the instances of boundary crossing, speed of the tractor is automatically controlled, at least by causing turning operations to begin including changing between a turning speed and a work speed for the tractor based on the boundary crossing offset using the product delay edge.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hiramatsu, this allows for more efficient field work ([0028]).
In regards to claim 2, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1 and further comprising;
applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain a location of the effective boundary crossing point. ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049] a product delay edge, which is an offset location at a distance ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor, and the time, distance, and location of when and where the product delay edge will intercept a field boundary is determined. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor which when determined to intersect the boundary of the field, creates an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor by applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain an effective boundary crossing point. More particularly, at the position where the product delay edge crosses the boundary, the vehicle is at the offset distance which is determined to be an effective boundary crossing point.)
In regards to claim 3, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 2 wherein applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point comprises:
applying the offset distance to increase a distance between the location of the effective boundary crossing point and a bounded area relative to a distance between the location of the boundary crossing point and the bounded area. ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049] a product delay edge, which is an offset location at a distance ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor, and the time, distance, and location of when and where the product delay edge will intercept a field boundary is determined. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor which when determined to intersect the boundary of the field, creates an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor by applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain an effective boundary crossing point. More particularly, at the position where the product delay edge crosses the boundary, the vehicle is at the offset distance which is determined to be an effective boundary crossing point, which when approaching from outside the field, increases the distance between the location of the effective boundary crossing point and a field area relative to a distance of the initial boundary crossing and the field area.)
In regards to claim 4, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 2 wherein the mobile agricultural machine travels along a route and wherein automatically performing section control comprises: ([0040], [0041] tractor is controlled to follow a predicted path of an auto-guidance swath which is used to determine boundary crossing instances.)
determining whether the route ahead of the mobile agricultural machine, by a look-ahead distance, includes a field feature for which a section control operation is to be executed, wherein the look-ahead distance is based on a system delay in performing section control. ([0038], [0040] look ahead along predicted path of tractor determines whether the product delay edge, a start early edge, or a stop late edge intersects a boundary of a field, where predicted paths are determined and looked ahead at based on latency of tractor components, which selectively operates tractor’s work implement.)
In regards to claim 10, Weisberg teaches a control system, comprising: (Figs 2-5.)
speed control system configured to identify a location of a boundary crossing point, corresponding to a bounded area, for a mobile agricultural machine and to modify the location of the boundary crossing point, based on a section control system delay corresponding to the mobile agricultural machine, to obtain a location of an effective boundary crossing point; ([0005] it is conventional for tractors to determine that an implement with the vehicle crosses a boundary at a boundary point, such as the edge boundary of a field.)
and
a section control system, configured to automatically perform a section control operation to control functionality of the mobile agricultural machine based on the location of the boundary crossing point. ([0032], [0033] implement is started or shut off based on approaching intercept between product delay edge and field boundary, which is a section control operation to selectively operate or not operate the implement.)
Weisberg does not teach:
a speed controller configured to automatically control a ground speed of the mobile agricultural machine based on the location of the effective boundary crossing point;
However, Hiramatsu teaches controlling the traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on whether the work vehicle is turning through a turn area or traveling straight through a work area ([0070], [0085], [0102], [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control system of Weisberg, by incorporating the teachings of Hiramatsu, such that as the tractor of Weisberg is controlled to follow the auto-guidance swath, including the instances of boundary crossing, speed of the tractor is automatically controlled, at least by causing turning operations to begin including changing between a turning speed and a work speed for the tractor based on the boundary crossing.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hiramatsu, this allows for more efficient field work ([0028]).
In regards to claim 11, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the control system of claim 10 wherein the speed control system comprises:
a distance offset computation processing system configured to compute an offset distance; ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049] a product delay edge, which is an offset location at a distance ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor by a distance. This offsets a distance.) and
an effective boundary crossing shift processing system configured to apply the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain the location of the effective boundary crossing point. ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049] a product delay edge, which is an offset location at a distance ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor, and the time, distance, and location of when and where the product delay edge will intercept a field boundary is determined. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor which when determined to intersect the boundary of the field, creates an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor by applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain an effective boundary crossing point. More particularly, at the position where the product delay edge crosses the boundary, the vehicle is at the offset distance which is determined to be an effective boundary crossing point.)
In regards to claim 12, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the control system of claim 11.
Claim 12 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
In regards to claim 13, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the control system of claim 12.
Claim 13 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisberg, in view of Hiramatsu, in further view of Lynch (US 20180339686).
In regards to claim 6, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 2 wherein automatically controlling the ground speed comprises
Weisberg also teaches a product delay edge, which is an offset location at a distance ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor, and the time, distance, and location of when and where the product delay edge will intercept a field boundary is determined. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor which when determined to intersect the boundary of the field, creates an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor by applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain an effective boundary crossing point. More particularly, at the position where the product delay edge crosses the boundary, the vehicle is at the offset distance which is determined to be an effective boundary crossing point. Turning begins after the vehicle crosses the boundary of the field ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049]).
Hiramatsu also teaches controlling the traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on whether the work vehicle is turning through a turn area or traveling straight through a work area ([0070], [0085], [0102], [0103]).
Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, does not teach:
changing the ground speed of the mobile agricultural machine from a first speed to a second speed, and further comprising determining, prior to the changing the ground speed, a speed change distance representing a distance over which the ground speed of the mobile agricultural machine is to be changed from the first speed to the second speed.
However, Lynch teaches activating detecting a curve entrance speed and operating the vehicle’s brakes at a predetermined distance ahead of the curve entrance to slow the vehicle down to the curve entrance speed ([0017]). This is determined at least in processing before the speed control is executed, and therefore is determined prior to executing the changing ground speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control method of Weisberg, as already modified by Hiramatsu, by further incorporating the teachings of Hiramatsu and incorporating the teachings of Lynch, such that as the tractor of Weisberg travels along the planned path, the planned path incorporates a predetermined distance before the field boundaries at which the speed of the tractor is controlled to slow the tractor down between a turn speed and a field speed, which is determined at least in part based on a shifted effective boundary crossing point on the planned path of the tractor.
The motivation to incorporate different turn speed and straight speed, are the same as acknowledged by Hiramatsu in regards to claim 1. The motivation to incorporate a predetermined speed control distance is that, as acknowledged by Lynch, this improves safety of vehicles ([0002]).
In regards to claim 7, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 6.
Weisberg also teaches a product delay edge, which is an offset location at a distance ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor, and the time, distance, and location of when and where the product delay edge will intercept a field boundary is determined. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor which when determined to intersect the boundary of the field, creates an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor by applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain an effective boundary crossing point. More particularly, at the position where the product delay edge crosses the boundary, the vehicle is at the offset distance which is determined to be an effective boundary crossing point. Turning begins after the vehicle crosses the boundary of the field ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049]). This includes any distance based on the speed of the tractor at which the product delay edge is determined.
Lynch teaches activating detecting a curve entrance speed and operating the vehicle’s brakes at a predetermined distance ahead of the curve entrance to slow the vehicle down to the curve entrance speed, for example at a distance of 25 meters or at distance 15 seconds before entering the curve ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control method of Weisberg, as already modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, by further incorporating the teachings of Lynch, such that as the offset distance of the boundary crossing of the tractor and the predetermined distance at which speed is changed are both determined including the necessary case in which the predetermined distance at which speed is changed is at least as large the offset distance and the tractor reaches the curve entrance speed at or before reaching the boundary.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Lynch in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 8, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 6.
Weisberg also teaches determining a product delay edge, stop late edge, and start early edge each of which govern a different selectable configuration at which the implement of the tractor is stopped or started ([0032], [0033]).
Hiramatsu also teaches controlling the traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on whether the work vehicle is turning through a turn area or traveling straight through a work area ([0070], [0085], [0102], [0103]), which are a turn speed and a field speed respectively.
Further, Lynch teaches activating detecting a curve entrance speed and operating the vehicle’s brakes at a predetermined distance ahead of the curve entrance to slow the vehicle down to the curve entrance speed, for example at a distance of 25 meters or at distance 15 seconds before entering the curve ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control method of Weisberg, as already modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, by further incorporating the teachings of Hiramatsu and Lynch, such that as the tractor of Weisberg approaches the boundary along the planned path, a necessarily included case arises that the tractor reaches the predetermined distance at which speed is changed and speed of the tractor is changed between the straight speed and the turn speed before the tractor determines the product delay edge, stop late edge, or start early edge cross the boundary causing the speed to be changed before the implement changes operation for the given boundary.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Hiramatsu in regards to claim 1 and Lynch in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 9, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 6.
Weisberg also teaches determining a product delay edge, stop late edge, and start early edge each of which govern a different selectable configuration at which the implement of the tractor is stopped or started ([0032], [0033]).
Hiramatsu also teaches controlling the traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on whether the work vehicle is turning through a turn area or traveling straight through a work area ([0070], [0085], [0102], [0103]), which are a turn speed and a field speed respectively.
Further, Lynch teaches activating detecting a curve entrance speed and operating the vehicle’s brakes at a predetermined distance ahead of the curve entrance to slow the vehicle down to the curve entrance speed, for example at a distance of 25 meters or at distance 15 seconds before entering the curve ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control method of Weisberg, as already modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, by further incorporating the teachings of Hiramatsu and Lynch, such that as the tractor of Weisberg approaches the boundary along the planned path, a necessarily included case arises that the tractor reaches the predetermined distance at which speed is changed and speed of the tractor is changed between the straight speed and the turn speed after the tractor determines earliest of the product delay edge, stop late edge, or start early edge crosses the boundary causing the speed to be changed after the implement changes operation for the given boundary.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Hiramatsu in regards to claim 1 and Lynch in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 15, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the control system of claim 11.
Weisberg also teaches a product delay edge, which is an offset location at a distance ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor, and the time, distance, and location of when and where the product delay edge will intercept a field boundary is determined. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor which when determined to intersect the boundary of the field, creates an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor by applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain an effective boundary crossing point. More particularly, at the position where the product delay edge crosses the boundary, the vehicle is at the offset distance which is determined to be an effective boundary crossing point. Turning begins after the vehicle crosses the boundary of the field ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049]).
Hiramatsu also teaches controlling the traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on whether the work vehicle is turning through a turn area or traveling straight through a work area ([0070], [0085], [0102], [0103]).
Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu, does not teach:
wherein the speed controller is configured to modify the ground speed of the mobile agricultural machine between a turn speed and a field speed, over a speed change distance, based on the effective boundary crossing point.
However, Lynch teaches activating detecting a curve entrance speed and operating the vehicle’s brakes at a predetermined distance ahead of the curve entrance to slow the vehicle down to the curve entrance speed ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control system of Weisberg, as already modified by Hiramatsu, by further incorporating the teachings of Hiramatsu and incorporating the teachings of Lynch, such that as the tractor of Weisberg travels along the planned path, the planned path incorporates a predetermined distance before the field boundaries at which the speed of the tractor is controlled to slow the tractor down between a turn speed and a field speed, which is determined at least in part based on a shifted effective boundary crossing point on the planned path of the tractor.
The motivation to incorporate different turn speed and straight speed, are the same as acknowledged by Hiramatsu in regards to claim 1. The motivation to incorporate a predetermined speed control distance is that, as acknowledged by Lynch, this improves safety of vehicles ([0002]).
In regards to claim 16, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, teaches the control system of claim 15.
Weisberg also teaches a product delay edge, which is an offset location at a distance ahead of the vehicle, is determined as a function of tractor velocity and product delay value times, which are section control system delays and allows for fine tuning start or shutoff of implements of the tractor, and the time, distance, and location of when and where the product delay edge will intercept a field boundary is determined. This offsets an edge ahead of the tractor which when determined to intersect the boundary of the field, creates an effective boundary crossing point at the location of the tractor by applying the offset distance to the location of the boundary crossing point to obtain an effective boundary crossing point. More particularly, at the position where the product delay edge crosses the boundary, the vehicle is at the offset distance which is determined to be an effective boundary crossing point. Turning begins after the vehicle crosses the boundary of the field ([0032], [0033], [0041], [0049]). This includes any distance based on the speed of the tractor at which the product delay edge is determined.
Lynch teaches activating detecting a curve entrance speed and operating the vehicle’s brakes at a predetermined distance ahead of the curve entrance to slow the vehicle down to the curve entrance speed, for example at a distance of 25 meters or at distance 15 seconds before entering the curve ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control method of Weisberg, as already modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, by further incorporating the teachings of Lynch, such that as the offset distance of the boundary crossing of the tractor and the predetermined distance at which speed is changed are both determined including the necessary case in which the predetermined distance at which speed is changed is at least as large the offset distance.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Lynch in regards to claim 15.
In regards to claim 17, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, teaches the control system of claim 15.
Weisberg also teaches determining a product delay edge, stop late edge, and start early edge each of which govern a different selectable configuration at which the implement of the tractor is stopped or started ([0032], [0033]).
Hiramatsu also teaches controlling the traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on whether the work vehicle is turning through a turn area or traveling straight through a work area ([0070], [0085], [0102], [0103]).
Further, Lynch teaches activating detecting a curve entrance speed and operating the vehicle’s brakes at a predetermined distance ahead of the curve entrance to slow the vehicle down to the curve entrance speed, for example at a distance of 25 meters or at distance 15 seconds before entering the curve ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control method of Weisberg, as already modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, by further incorporating the teachings of Hiramatsu and Lynch, such that as the tractor of Weisberg approaches the boundary along the planned path, a necessarily included case arises that the tractor reaches the predetermined distance at which speed is changed and speed of the tractor is changed between the straight speed and the turn speed before the tractor determines the product delay edge, stop late edge, or start early edge cross the boundary causing the speed to be changed before the implement changes operation for the given boundary.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Hiramatsu in regards to claim 1 and Lynch in regards to claim 15.
In regards to claim 18, Weisberg, as modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, teaches the control system of claim 15.
Weisberg also teaches determining a product delay edge, stop late edge, and start early edge each of which govern a different selectable configuration at which the implement of the tractor is stopped or started ([0032], [0033]).
Hiramatsu also teaches controlling the traveling speed of a work vehicle to travel at different speeds based on whether the work vehicle is turning through a turn area or traveling straight through a work area ([0070], [0085], [0102], [0103]).
Further, Lynch teaches activating detecting a curve entrance speed and operating the vehicle’s brakes at a predetermined distance ahead of the curve entrance to slow the vehicle down to the curve entrance speed, for example at a distance of 25 meters or at distance 15 seconds before entering the curve ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tractor control method of Weisberg, as already modified by Hiramatsu and Lynch, by further incorporating the teachings of Hiramatsu and Lynch, such that as the tractor of Weisberg approaches the boundary along the planned path, a necessarily included case arises that the tractor reaches the predetermined distance at which speed is changed and speed of the tractor is changed between the straight speed and the turn speed after the tractor determines earliest of the product delay edge, stop late edge, or start early edge crosses the boundary causing the speed to be changed after the implement changes operation for the given boundary.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Hiramatsu in regards to claim 1 and Lynch in regards to claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka et al. (US 20230403976) teaches controlling a work vehicle to travel along a turning route through a field while controlling a turning specific speed.
Non-patent Literature Miao “Stability Study of Time Lag Disturbance in an Automatic Tractor Steering System Based on Sliding Mode Predictive Control” teaches accounting for time lag of system to steer a tractor.
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 MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights