DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s 07/17/2026 response to the 04/23/2026 Office action have been considered and entered.
This is the First Final Office Action on claims 1-13 as presented and filed on 07/17/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is May 26, 2023 (20230526).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application claims the benefit of priority to Japanese Patent Application Nos. 2022-097599 and 2022-097600 filed on June 16, 2022 and is a Continuation Application of PCT Application No. PCT/JP2023/019734 filed on May 26, 2023 (20230526) (“Parent Application(s)”). See MPEP §201.07[R-08.2017]. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 [R-07.2015] Section A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b)[R-08.2017] (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) [R-08.2017] (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 [R-07.2015] Section A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 6-9 inter alia,
“For at least the following reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's proposed combination of Suzuki and Ray is improper, and Suzuki in view of Ray does not teach or suggest all of the features recited in Applicant's claim 1.
First, Ray does not disclose superimposing information onto a real-time camera video. Ray's display presents only computer-generated graphical representations-for example, the swath acquisition path 60, the guidance swath 80, and the implement path 104-which the controller determines by simulating movement of the agricultural vehicle using a guidance algorithm based on data from a spatial locating device (e.g., a GPS receiver) and an orientation sensor, rather than from an image of the real world captured by a camera. See Ray, paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0044], [0053], and Fig. 6.”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As set forth in the previous Office action SUZUKI does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the implement is connected to the work vehicle on an opposite side of the work vehicle from the travel direction, display on the screen, a superimposed video in which a path for the implement is superimposed on the video (emphasis added), which means that everything but the emphasis is taught by Suzuki) while RAY EXPRESSLY teaches a POSITA would have understood that when the implement is in the BACK of the tractor that its path would be different. Since Suzuki was already showing where an implement would track in the field it would have been obvious to show the track of the implement no matter where it is mounted on the tractor as it is the application of the tool to the field that is the goal of the farmer as is known in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that “Even if Ray's implement-path teaching could have been combined with Suzuki, which it clearly cannot be, the result would be, at best, the display of a computer-generated implement-path graphic. In other words, even such an improper, unsupported combination would not result in superimposing the path of an opposite-side implement onto the live, travel-direction camera image, as Applicant's claim 1 requires.“, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As is here the motivation comes from the art itself as set forth by the Examiner in the motivation to combine the art in said previous Office action:
“It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the path planning of the implement disclosed in Ray with the path planning taught in SUZUKI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “made more efficient path planning of the implement” as taught by Ray Para(s):
“[0002] Certain agricultural vehicles, such as tractors or other prime movers, may be controlled by a control system (e.g., without operator input, with limited operator input, etc.) during certain phases of operation. For example, a controller may instruct a steering control system and/or a speed control system of the agricultural vehicle to automatically or semi-automatically guide the agricultural vehicle along a guidance swath within a field. In certain agricultural vehicles, an operator may manually direct (e.g., steer) the agricultural vehicle to the guidance swath and align the agricultural vehicle with the guidance swath before engaging the control system. Unfortunately, the process of acquiring the guidance swath manually may be inefficient, thereby increasing fuel consumption and/or delaying agricultural operations.”.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5, 8, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015164001 A to SUZUKI D (cited in the 12/09/2024 IDS) in view of US 20170339821 A1 to Ray; Brian Robert et al. (hereinafter Ray).
Regarding claim 1 SUZUKI teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
312
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
633
451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
514
359
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
590
408
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a video display system comprising:
a camera attached to a work vehicle to which an implement is connected and configured to generate data of time-series images by performing imaging in a travel direction of the work vehicle (as shown in for example fig. 1, camera 32, work vehicle 10, etc. as explained in for example only:
“The camera 32 captures a field in front of the vehicle 10. The camera 32 includes a lens unit, an imaging unit including a CCD, an output unit for outputting a video signal, and the like. The camera 32 is attached slightly downward on the roof portion 13 of the vehicle 10. The lens portion of the camera 32 is disposed at a height h with respect to the ground G, and the optical axis of the lens portion forms a predetermined depression angle θ with respect to the horizontal direction. The camera 32 acquires an image in front of the agricultural machine 1 and outputs image information to the computer 35.”);
a screen (as shown in the figures above, and connotes display device 36 as explained in for example only :
“The display device 36 is display means for displaying the guide video output from the computer 35. For example, a liquid crystal display is used as the display 36. The input device 33 is a touch panel displayed on the display device 36, for example. When an instruction is input to the input device 33 by the operator, information indicating the instruction is output to the computer 35.”);
and a controller configured or programmed to display, on the screen, a video based on the data of the time-series images (as shown in the figures above and explained in for example:
“According to the guide device 30 of the agricultural working machine 1, the position information of the vehicle 10 is acquired by the GPS receiver 31. By the computing device 35b of the computer 35, the shape of the field where the vehicle 10 is located, the guide line indicating the route on which the vehicle 10 should travel, the travel locus of the vehicle 10, and the work area where the farm work has been performed by the vehicle 10 A guide image A1 indicating at least one is generated. Here, the captured image A2 captured by the camera 32 attached to the vehicle 10 is superimposed on the guide image A1 by the arithmetic device 35b of the computer 35 and displayed on the display 36 as AR (Augmented Reality). Is done. As shown in FIG. 5, the guide image A1 and the actual field shot image A2 are overlapped to display the guide image A3. Therefore, the information (for example, the guide line L, the travel locus X, etc.) shown in the guide image A1 is displayed. The relationship between the work area S, etc.) and the position of the crop C, structures, etc. can be grasped by the operator. Therefore, guide information according to the actual situation of the field can be provided.”);
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the implement is connected to the work vehicle, display on the screen, a superimposed video in which a path for the implement is superimposed on the video (as shown in the figure 8 above and explained in for example:
“The superimposed video generation unit 47 generates a superimposed video in which the captured video A2 is superimposed on the guide image A1. On the other hand, the traveling information acquisition unit 48 acquires the traveling locus of the vehicle 10 (for example, the locus of the center point in the left-right direction of the vehicle 10) and the work area of the farm work already performed by the farm work machine 1. Then, the guide video generation unit 49 superimposes at least one of the traveling area and the work area on the superimposed video generated by the superimposed video generation unit 47 based on, for example, an input instruction via the input device 33.
The working unit that performs farm work in the farm work machine 1 is not limited to the case of extending from the vehicle 10 like the boom nozzle device 22. A mode in which the liquid or powder is ejected from an ejection port provided in a side portion of the vehicle 10 may be employed.”).
SUZUKI does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the implement is connected to the work vehicle on an opposite side of the work vehicle from the travel direction, display on the screen, a superimposed video in which a path for the implement is superimposed on the video (emphasis added).
In analogous art Ray teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image6.png
648
363
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
610
463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
520
717
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
703
440
media_image9.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the implement is connected to the work vehicle on an opposite side of the work vehicle from the travel direction, display on the screen, a superimposed video in which a path for the implement is superimposed on the video (in for example Figures 1 and 6 wherein it is understood that item 104 connotes the path for the implement connected at the REAR of the tractor as explained in for example only paras:
“[0031] In the illustrated embodiment, the path visualization section 62 of the display 52 includes a graphical representation of the swath acquisition path 60 and a graphical representation of the guidance swath 80. The path visualization section 62 also includes a graphical representation of the agricultural vehicle 82. As illustrated, the graphical representation of the agricultural vehicle 82 is positioned remote from the graphical representation of the guidance swath 80, indicating that the agricultural vehicle is positioned remote from the guidance swath. In certain embodiments, the distance between the agricultural vehicle and the guidance swath may be manually entered (e.g., via a virtual numeric keypad) by depressing the “starting distance” virtual button 84. In addition, the initial speed of the agricultural vehicle (e.g., the speed of the agricultural vehicle before initiation of the swath acquisition process) may be manually entered (e.g., via a virtual numeric keypad) by depressing the “starting speed” virtual button 86. Furthermore, the angle between the initial agricultural vehicle path (e.g., the agricultural vehicle path before initiation of the swath acquisition process) and the guidance swath may be manually entered (e.g., via a virtual numeric keypad) by depressing the “starting angle” virtual button 88. Because the values may be manually entered, the operator may enter current values, expected values, test/example values, or a combination thereof. Furthermore, while the virtual buttons are located at the bottom of the path visualization section 62 of the display 52 in the illustrated embodiment, it should be appreciated that in alternative embodiments, the virtual buttons may be located in any other suitable portion of the display.
[0053] FIG. 6 is a diagram of an alternative embodiment of a display 52 that may be employed within a user interface of the control system of FIG. 2. In the illustrated embodiment, the controller is configured to determine a path of an agricultural implement coupled to the agricultural vehicle based at least in part on the swath acquisition path, and the controller is configured to output a signal to the display 52 indicative of instructions to present a graphical representation of the path of the agricultural implement 104. In certain embodiments, the controller may determine the path of the agricultural implement based at least in part on the type of agricultural implement, the configuration of the agricultural implement, the dimensions of the agricultural implement, the position and/or type of wheels/tracks on the agricultural implement (e.g., caster wheels/tracks, non-caster wheels/tracks, steerable wheels/tracks, etc.), the type/configuration of the hitch assembly coupling the agricultural implement to the agricultural vehicle, or a combination thereof, among other parameters. In the illustrated embodiment, the display 52 presents an “estimate implement path” checkbox that controls whether the agricultural implement path is displayed. In certain embodiments, the agricultural implement path may be automatically displayed if the controller detects the presence of an agricultural implement coupled to the agricultural vehicle. In such embodiments, the “estimate implement path” checkbox may be omitted.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the path planning of the implement disclosed in Ray with the path planning taught in SUZUKI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “made more efficient path planning of the implement” as taught by Ray Para(s):
“[0002] Certain agricultural vehicles, such as tractors or other prime movers, may be controlled by a control system (e.g., without operator input, with limited operator input, etc.) during certain phases of operation. For example, a controller may instruct a steering control system and/or a speed control system of the agricultural vehicle to automatically or semi-automatically guide the agricultural vehicle along a guidance swath within a field. In certain agricultural vehicles, an operator may manually direct (e.g., steer) the agricultural vehicle to the guidance swath and align the agricultural vehicle with the guidance swath before engaging the control system. Unfortunately, the process of acquiring the guidance swath manually may be inefficient, thereby increasing fuel consumption and/or delaying agricultural operations.”.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 1, wherein the implement is connected to a rear portion of the work vehicle;
the video shows an area in front of the work vehicle;
the controller is configured or programmed to display the video on the screen;
and the controller is configured or programmed to display, on the screen, the superimposed video in which the path for the implement is superimposed on the video (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that the combination of both SUZUKI AND Ray teach the claimed limitations in for example Ray Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to predict the path for the implement based on implement information relating to the implement and pose information relating to a current pose of the work vehicle (See the teachings of Ray, fig. 6, wherein it is understood that given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would see the path for the implement 104 is based on the pose of the vehicle which connotes path 60 and guidance swath 80 as explained in for example para:
“[0031] In the illustrated embodiment, the path visualization section 62 of the display 52 includes a graphical representation of the swath acquisition path 60 and a graphical representation of the guidance swath 80. The path visualization section 62 also includes a graphical representation of the agricultural vehicle 82. As illustrated, the graphical representation of the agricultural vehicle 82 is positioned remote from the graphical representation of the guidance swath 80, indicating that the agricultural vehicle is positioned remote from the guidance swath. In certain embodiments, the distance between the agricultural vehicle and the guidance swath may be manually entered (e.g., via a virtual numeric keypad) by depressing the “starting distance” virtual button 84. In addition, the initial speed of the agricultural vehicle (e.g., the speed of the agricultural vehicle before initiation of the swath acquisition process) may be manually entered (e.g., via a virtual numeric keypad) by depressing the “starting speed” virtual button 86. Furthermore, the angle between the initial agricultural vehicle path (e.g., the agricultural vehicle path before initiation of the swath acquisition process) and the guidance swath may be manually entered (e.g., via a virtual numeric keypad) by depressing the “starting angle” virtual button 88. Because the values may be manually entered, the operator may enter current values, expected values, test/example values, or a combination thereof. Furthermore, while the virtual buttons are located at the bottom of the path visualization section 62 of the display 52 in the illustrated embodiment, it should be appreciated that in alternative embodiments, the virtual buttons may be located in any other suitable portion of the display.”).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 3, wherein:
the work vehicle is capable of automatically traveling;
and the controller is configured or programmed to display, on the screen, the superimposed video in which a target line along a target path to be set to cause the work vehicle to automatically travel is further superimposed on the video (see the teachings of Suzuki Figs. 4 and 7 and Ray Fig. 6 and the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to predict the path for the implement including a predicted path for at least one of both end portions of the implement located in a width direction of the implement (see the figures of Suzuki which clearly displays where the ends of the paths meet, overlap or gap such as leakage region Sb in fig. 6).
PNG
media_image10.png
307
447
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to obtain the implement information including a size of the implement input by a user through an input interface (see the teachings of Ray para:
“[0029] FIG. 3 is a diagram of an embodiment of a display 52 that may be employed within the user interface of the control system of FIG. 2. In the illustrated embodiment, the display 52 is configured to present a visual representation of values of the swath acquisition parameters within a swath acquisition parameter section 58 and to present a graphical representation of the swath acquisition path 60 within a path visualization section 62 of the display 52. While the swath acquisition parameter section 58 is to the left of the path visualization section 62 in the illustrated embodiment, it should be appreciated that in alternative embodiments, the swath acquisition parameter section 58 and/or the path visualization section 62 may be in any suitable location on the display 52. In the illustrated embodiment, the display 52 is a touch sensitive display. Accordingly, the values of the swath acquisition parameters may be adjusted via interaction with the display 52. However, in alternative embodiments, the user interface may include other controls (e.g., switches, button, knobs, etc.) configured to enable an operator to adjust the values of the swath acquisition parameters.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the controls disclosed in Ray with the controls taught in Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “allowed the operator to adjust the values” as taught by Ray Para(s) [0029] above.
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation an agricultural machine comprising:
a work vehicle;
an implement;
and the video display system according to claim 1 (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015164001 A to SUZUKI D (cited in the 12/09/2024 IDS) in view of US 20170339821 A1 to Ray; Brian Robert et al. (hereinafter Ray) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20220161722 A1 to COBURN M et al. (hereinafter Coburn).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Suzuki and Ray does not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Coburn teaches in for example the figures below:
PNG
media_image11.png
817
608
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
452
617
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
673
507
media_image13.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts the limitation a video display system wherein the controller is configured or programmed to:
predict a path for a wheel of the work vehicle based on the pose information when the work vehicle is traveling (in para:
“[0038] In some embodiments, the control circuitry may also generate for display predicted paths of the front wheels of the vehicle 204, 206 overlaid over the view of the environment outside of the vehicle from the selected view angle. For example, the control circuitry may generate for display two arrows 204, 206 as seen in FIG. 2, where left arrow 204 indicates a turn angle of the left front wheel and its predicted path over the environment outside of the vehicle, and where right arrow 206 indicates a turn angle of the right front wheel and its predicted path over the environment outside of the vehicle. This technique may be utilized, for example, when the driver of the vehicle is trying to navigate around and over rocks and boulders off-road. This may eliminate the need for a spotter outside the vehicle to provide instructions to the driver.”);
and display, on the screen, the superimposed video in which the path for the wheel of the work vehicle is further superimposed on the video (in Fig. 2 and para:
“[0037] FIG. 2 shows an exemplary illustration 200 of display 202 of a vehicle (e.g., one of vehicles 104, 134, 164 of FIGS. 1A-1C), in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. In particular, FIG. 2 shows a view generated by the control circuitry on a heads-up display of a vehicle (e.g., one of displays 106, 136, 166). In some embodiments, the control circuitry generates for display a view of the environment outside of the vehicle (e.g., the rocky surface shown in FIG. 2) from the selected view angle and from the selected horizontal view position which were calculated according to techniques described above and below. For example, the view of the rocky surface may be a view generated by a virtual camera (e.g., one of virtual cameras 108, 138, 168) that is placed at the selected horizontal view position at the selected view angle. In some embodiments, the view generated for display on display 202 by the virtual camera may be the same or similar to a view that would be generated by a physical camera if it were physically positioned at the selected horizontal view position at the selected view angle.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the camera control system disclosed in Coburn with the display system taught in the combination of Suzuki and Ray with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have automatically “adjusted the view to suit the dynamic situation.” as taught by Coburn Para(s):
“[0002] A single camera of a vehicle can typically provide a view from only a single angle (e.g., a backup camera may provide only a single view angle). In one approach, a user may be allowed to manually select one of several views available from a camera (e.g., from a camera that has several selectable positions). However, when the user is engaged in driving a vehicle (e.g., driving the vehicle in off-road conditions), the user is typically unable to manually shift the camera view to fit the changing driving conditions. In addition, a single view from a camera may not provide the needed driving information. Consequently, what is needed is a camera control system that automatically adjusts the view to suit the dynamic situation.”.
Claims 6 and 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015164001 A to SUZUKI D (cited in the 12/09/2024 IDS) in view of US 20170339821 A1 to Ray; Brian Robert et al. (hereinafter Ray) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20050090938 A1 to Ranelli, Ronald J.
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to:
estimate a deviation amount of a predicted path for the implement from a reference path predicted from past tracks of the implement, based on the predicted path and the reference path;
and display different indications on the screen, depending on whether or not the deviation amount is less than a threshold (given the BRI connotes the figures shown in Suzuki especially fig. 4 as explained in for example:
“ Next, the comparison unit 45 compares the bird's-eye view with the captured video based on the video information. When the parameter is an initial value, the video of the camera 32 and the bird's eye view do not match due to an attachment error of the camera 32 or an individual difference of the cameras 32. Therefore, the comparison unit 45 captures the lattice pattern drawn on the ground G with the camera 32 and compares the captured image A2 with the guide image A1 based on the reference lattice data. Here, the grid pattern has a size and a shape corresponding to the reference grid data, and the comparison unit 45 compares the guide image A1 and the captured video A2 with a reference having the same size.
As shown in FIG. 4, the guide image A1 is shifted from the photographed video A2. More specifically, distortion B2 due to distortion of the camera 32 may occur at the peripheral edge between the guide image A1 and the captured video A2. Further, in the height and width of the display 36, a deviation B2 due to the viewing angle of the camera 32 may occur. In addition, a shift B3 due to the depression angle θ of the camera 32 may occur at the corner between the guide image A1 and the captured video A2. Further, a deviation B4 due to the ground height h of the camera 32 may occur at the side (end) of the guide image A1 and the captured video A2.
The comparison unit 45 detects these distortions or deviations and outputs a detection result. The parameter adjustment unit 46 changes the parameters so that the distortion or deviation detected by the comparison unit 45 is reduced, and generates the guide image A1 based on the changed parameters. In this way, the parameters are adjusted, and the guide image A1 is corrected so that the captured video A2 matches the guide image A1.“)
While the combination of Suzuki and Ray appears to teach the display while the deviation is within the threshold, the combination does not appear to expressly disclose what is displayed when the threshold is exceeded.
Ranelli teaches in for example the figures below:
PNG
media_image14.png
835
553
media_image14.png
Greyscale
generating a warning when a predicted path exceeds a threshold in for example step 132 as explained in for example para:
“[0037] Thus, if the comparison based upon the linear regression model warrants, a warning may be generated in step 132. The warning generated may be audible, visual, or a combination of the two. Also, as mentioned above with respect to FIG. 1, the audible and visual warnings may be external to the vehicle or internal to the vehicle. In step 134, should be the comparison predict a greater deviation from the predicted path such as beyond a threshold for generating warnings, driver intervention may be applied in step 134. As mentioned above, driver intervention may take the form of a driver intervention module 100 and various types of intervention due to the conditions may be provided. For example, the speed restriction, suspension center of gravity recovery, steering recovery, and gas tank load shifting may all be provided together, individually or in various combinations.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deviation warnings disclosed in Ranelli with the control system taught in the combination of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided the “vehicle operator an opportunity to correct the situation based on the conditions” as taught by Ranelli Para(s):
“[0004] In some situations, it may be desirable to provide the vehicle operator with an indication of a potential instability of the vehicle prior to losing control. This will provide the vehicle operator an opportunity to correct the situation based on the conditions.”.
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the deviation amount is not less than the threshold, display, on the screen, the superimposed video including a warning indication warning that the predicted path for the implement deviates from the past tracks (see the obviousness to combine and rejection of corresponding parts of claim 6 above incorporated herein by reference as well as Ranelli para:
“[0023] A visual indicator 90 such as a warning light, a navigation system display, or an instrument panel display may be controlled by a control signal from controller 14 in response to an unstable condition. Visual indicator 90 may also include an exterior visual indicator such as flashing headlamps.”)).
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 9, further comprising:
a sensor to obtain sensing data indicating a distribution of objects on the ground around the work vehicle (given the BRI connotes the sensors in Suzuki);
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to:
estimate a size of an object existing on the ground in the travel direction of the work vehicle based on the sensing data output from the sensor (given the BRI connotes the collision imminence taught in Ranelli para:
“[0029] By utilizing an active comparison of where the vehicle is to where it should be (predicted path versus desired path), the interactive features of the system may provide the driver with a warning to tell the driver how fast the vehicle should be going and the best steering action while traveling. It is possible for the warning module to compare what the sensors are reading versus ideal sensor readouts for any given stretch of road. The warnings and interventions may then be tailored for the route, the topography, and the driver actions. Active warnings and intervention based on road conditions, collision imminence, pitch and roll readouts, speed, and over and under steering relative to the driver's current lane. The warnings and interventions may be initiated based on rate of change to a base position and then compared to the GPS location.
[0030] The system may also have a lag time and delay that would amount to a debouncing of signals and inputs prior to the initiation of driver warnings and intervention. The system may perform a constant comparison of an ideal trip versus the driver's interactions, along with speed, turning, lane drifting, collision avoidance, and upcoming road hazard feedback. The system in its comparison may use a predictive approach to driving, slowing down, curves ahead, object ahead warnings and allow timely intervention through driver actions.”);
and display, on the screen, the superimposed video including a warning indication warning that the implement is likely to hit the object on the ground, depending on a result of comparison between the size of the implement and the size of the object on the ground (see the teachings of the combination of references wherein it is understood that a POSITA would have found it obvious to prevent collisions by displaying warnings superimposed on the video so that the operator can immediately see where a collision may be predicted by either the tractor or the implement itself).
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015164001 A to SUZUKI D (cited in the 12/09/2024 IDS) in view of US 20170339821 A1 to Ray; Brian Robert et al. (hereinafter Ray) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20200344939 A1 to Sporrer; Adam D. et al. (hereinafter Sporrer).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Suzuki does not appear to expressly disclose the video display system wherein the controller is configured or programmed to obtain the implement information including a size of the implement by communicating with the implement.
In analogous art Sporrer teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image15.png
508
697
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
729
523
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
707
522
media_image17.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a video display system wherein a controller is configured or programmed to obtain implement information including a size of the implement by communicating with the implement (as explained in for example paras:
“[0024] Once a residue coverage metric has been determined, the metric may be utilized to control aspects of a future operation over the field. For example, in an ongoing tillage operation, if residue metrics from a rearward image indicate insufficient residue coverage or size, various aspects of the tillage implement (e.g., disk or ripper depth) may be automatically adjusted in order to provide greater residue coverage or size. Similarly, if a comparison of residue metrics from forward and rearward images indicates that an ongoing tillage operation is decreasing residue coverage or size too aggressively, various aspects of the implement may be automatically adjusted accordingly. Additionally, if a comparison of residue metrics from lateral zones indicates that there is a lack of uniformity laterally across the rear of the implement, various aspects of the relevant implement may be automatically adjusted accordingly. For example, the angle of a disk gang may be adjusted to distribute residue from a highly concentrated zone to a lower concentrated zone to increase residue uniformity. Uniform residue coverage can be useful later for air seeders, planters, row cleaners, etc.
[0026] The computer system or device may be included on the relevant implement (e.g., as part of an embedded control system). In certain examples, the computer system or device may be included on another platform (e.g., a tractor towing the implement or a remote ground-station) and may communicate with various devices on the implement (e.g., various control devices) via various known means. In one example, the computer system or device may be in communication with a controller area network (CAN) bus associated with the implement or an associated vehicle, in order to send and receive relevant control and data signals.
[0050] In another example, a control system may have access to the dimensions of the implement and the locations of the camera assemblies 74 and 78 and the locations of the fields of view of the camera assemblies. In that way, based on the location of the implement 10, and as that location changes, the control system can determine when a rearward image is of the same portion of the field as a previously captured forward image. Thus, the two images can be corelated with one another based on a location where they were taken instead of, or in addition to, the time offset between the images and the speed and heading of the implement.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the communications disclosed in Sporrer with the system taught in the combination of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “minimized variances in residue coverage” as taught by Sporrer Para(s):
“[0018] In this light, it may be useful to provide a system and method for actively assessing aspects of residue coverage during a particular operation and utilizing this assessment to control ongoing aspects of the particular operation or a different, future operation. For example, for a primary tillage (or other) operation, it may be useful to provide a control system that determines the percent coverage and characteristic size of residue on a portion of field that has already been tilled (or otherwise addressed), then utilize the determined percent coverage and characteristic size to guide the continuing tillage (or other) operation or a future operation (e.g., a secondary tillage operation or planting operation) on the same field. For more specialized control of the tillage operation, the areas rearward and forward of the tillage implement can be divided into a plurality of different zones. Each zone can be independently monitored for percent coverage, characteristic size or other metrics. This way, variances of uniformity in residue coverage can be monitored and addressed.”.
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015164001 A to SUZUKI D (cited in the 12/09/2024 IDS) in view of US 20170339821 A1 to Ray; Brian Robert et al. (hereinafter Ray) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20220161722 A1 to COBURN M et al. (hereinafter Coburn) and US 20190075255 A1 to MATSUMOTO; Hideyuki et al. (hereinafter Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the video display system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a light source to be controlled by the controller;
and an optical system to receive light emitted from the light source and form a virtual image on the front of the screen (Ray teaches virtual items in for example paras:
“[0030] In the illustrated embodiment, the swath acquisition parameter section 58 includes an overshoot adjustment control 64, a swath turn rate control 66, an approach angle control 68, and an initial turn rate control 70. As illustrated, each control includes a virtual slider 72 configured to adjust the value of the respective parameter, and each control includes a numerical representation 74 of the value of the respective parameter. To adjust the value of each parameter, the respective slider 72 may be moved along a slider path. As the slider moves, the numerical representation 74 of the respective parameter changes based on the position of the slider 72 along the slider path. Each slider 72 may be moved by direct interaction, or by selecting an increase value arrow 76 or a decrease value arrow 78. While each control includes a slider and a numeric representation of the parameter value in the illustrated embodiment, it should be appreciated that in alternative embodiments, other control(s) and/or representation(s) of the parameter value may be displayed. For example, in certain embodiments, each control may include a virtual knob, a virtual dial, a field in which a number may be entered by a virtual keypad, or a combination thereof, among other input techniques. In addition, in certain embodiments, each control may include a graphical representation (e.g., a graph, a dial, etc.) of the value of the respective parameter. Furthermore, in certain embodiments, the parameter adjustment input/control may be positioned remote from the visual representation of the respective parameter.”;
Coburn teaches virtual images in for example paras:
“[0025] In some embodiments, one of the cameras of vehicle 104 may be a wide-angle camera. In this case, the control circuitry may modify the wide-angle output (e.g., by cropping and distortion techniques) to produce a view from the selected view angle. In some embodiments, vehicle 104 may have several cameras located at multiple positions and angles. In this case, the control circuitry may generate a virtual view from the selected view angle by combining outputs of the multiple cameras. The generated virtual view may then be displayed on the screen.
[0026] In some embodiments, the control circuitry may generate a view from a virtual camera. The term virtual camera may refer to any kind of camera object that is generated as software representation of a real camera that does not exist as a physical camera. For example, a virtual camera may be a software module that emulates operation of a real camera. In some embodiments, the virtual camera software module may emulate an output of a camera as if it were placed in a certain location. For example, the virtual camera software module may emulate an output of a real camera by combining output of real cameras and/or extrapolating the view based on the outputs of several real cameras. In some embodiments, the control circuitry may generate a virtual camera that emulates an output of a real physical camera, as if that real camera were placed in a position corresponding to the selected horizontal view position and oriented at a pitch corresponding to the selected view angle. Then, the control circuitry may use the virtual camera to generate a virtual view (e.g., by using outputs of multiple cameras) that is equivalent or similar to a view that would be produced if a real camera were placed in the position of the virtual camera. The generated virtual view may be displayed on a display of vehicle 104.”.
The combination of Suzuki does not appear to expressly disclose an optical system to receive light emitted from the light source and form a virtual image in front of the screen. (Emphasis added)
In analogous art Matsumoto teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image18.png
481
781
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
606
493
media_image19.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts and an optical system to receive light emitted from the light source and form a virtual image in front of a screen (as explained in for example para:
“[0030] FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an internal part of the vehicle 1 according to the first embodiment. FIG. 2 is diagram showing a driver's cabin inside the vehicle 1 seen from the driver's seat in the front direction of vehicle 1. The vehicle 1 includes a steering wheel 10, a dashboard 12, a windshield 14, a center console 16, a cluster panel 18 that displays the travelling speed and the engine speed of the vehicle etc. The center console 16 may further include a center display unit 20 that displays a navigation screen or the like. In the vehicle 1, a head-up display unit 22 on which video images are displayed by a head-up display may be provided on the upper part of the cluster panel 18. When the head-up display is a combiner type, the head-up display unit 22 is a combiner. Further, when the head-up display displays virtual images on the windshield 14, the head-up display unit 22 is an area of the windshield 14 where the virtual images are presented. Further, the vehicle 1 may include a rearview monitor 24. The rearview monitor 24 is arranged in a position similar to a position where a rearview mirror for checking the rear side of a vehicle in a typical vehicle, that is, at around the center of the upper part of the windshield 14.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the heads up display disclosed in Matsumoto with the display system taught in the combination of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have increased the safety of the vehicle by allowing the driver to keep their eyes in the direction of travel and see images/warnings/etc. overlaid on the windshield of the vehicle as taught by Matsumoto.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20180084710 A1 to Lawson; Joshua T. teaches, inter alia a System And Method For Guided Line Acquisitions in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Various embodiments of the present disclosure provide a guided line acquisition system and method for generating a path of a vehicle from its current location to a final guidance line. This path is referred to hereinafter as an acquisition path. The generated acquisition path starts at the current vehicle position and ends co-linear to the final guidance path. The acquisition path is generated using one constraint and one objective parameter. More specifically, the acquisition path is constrained by the minimum turning radius of the vehicle and angle of approach criteria, (i.e., the maximum heading relative to the guidance line). It should be appreciated that while the guided line acquisition system attempts to find an acquisition path that meets the angle of approach criteria, the guidance acquisition system will allow this objective to be sacrificed when it is not possible due to the minimum turning radius of the vehicle.”.
US 20140298259 A1 to MEEGAN; Robert et al. teaches, inter alia RETRACTING SHORTCUT BARS, STATUS SHORTCUTS AND EDIT RUN PAGE SETS in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“At least one example embodiment discloses a method for generating a touch screen display. The method includes establishing a first run screen associated with a first function of a work vehicle and establishing a second run screen associated with a second function of the work vehicle distinct from the first function and defining an order of appearance of the first run screen and the second run screen within a set of run screens that allows a user to select a run screen in the set of run screens that are displayable in accordance with the defined order.”.
PNG
media_image20.png
726
539
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
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, HUNTER B LONSBERRY can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260820
Prosecution Insights