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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent JP2023-216165, filed on 12/21/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 21 are amended.
Claims 1 – 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendments
Note that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). 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.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation 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 MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka [EP 3932164, now Yutaka], with Wolters et al. [US20170300064, now Wolters], further in view of Kusakari et al. [US20250204299, now Kusakari].
Note: the abstract and specification of Yutaka discloses the limitations of the instant application in their broadest reasonable interpretation. Wolters teaches a very similar work assistance device but in some cases teaches individual concepts more clearly.
Claim 1
Yutaka discloses a work assistance device comprising: an input interface to receive input of user-specified information [see at least Yutaka, Abstract (describes a working vehicle with autonomous and remote control features); Fig 2; ¶ 0005 (“remote controller”); describes the features in more detail]; and
a first controller configured or programmed to acquire the information received by the input interface and information relating to an agricultural field in which a working machine performs work, the working machine being operable to perform automatic travel [see at least Yutaka, Fig. 2, 4 descriptions;
¶ 0022 (feature 50 that is showing automatic travel; 0035 (40-controller); 0040 (100-remote controller)].
wherein the first controller is configured or programmed to:
define, based on the information acquired from the input interface, guide information including (i) position information of a guide point for the working machine to be guided from an automatic travel route to a predetermined position, the automatic travel route being a route to be automatically traveled by the working machine in the agricultural field and (ii) orientation information indicating an orientation of the working machine at the guide point; and output the guide information to the working machine [see at least Yutaka, Fig 5 (50B); ¶ 0042 (traveling state of the tractor/device); 0053 (explains track of the tractor/device); 0043 (R1- reference sign; indicating stop position control -50b and predetermined positions – R1; 53); 0045 (discusses using travel information to help control and output that data); 0014 and 0047 discuss orientation of device)].
Wolters teaches these limitations and expresses some of the features/concepts in the language of the instant application. [see at least Wolters, abstract (discusses work vehicle and boundary evaluation and more exacting use of more precise measurements for the contours of the field); Fig. 10 (shows control systems); ¶ 0028 (visualization of the working machine being guided within a field); 0036 (indicates optimal working directions of travel by analyzing fields to improve navigation); 0059 (“interface”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Neither Yutaka or Wolters specifically discloses/teaches but Kusakari does teach the guide information being information for the working machine to arrive at the guide point such that the working machine is in the indicated orientation [see at least Kusakari, ¶ 0007 (“based on the information acquired from the input interface, guide information including (i) position information of a guide point for the working machine to be guided from an automatic travel route to a predetermined position, the automatic travel route being a route to be automatically traveled by the working machine in the agricultural field and (ii) orientation information indicating an orientation of the working machine at the guide point, and output the guide information to the working machine.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters, further with the use of guide information that also includes orientation of Kusakari. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 2
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses the position information of the guide point is information based on which the working machine is to be guided to a position different from points on the automatic travel route [see at least Yutaka, Fig 5, points 50b, 50c; ¶ 0002 (discusses headland area and boundaries of the field); 0043 (looks at movement of the vehicle and stopping at different positions)].
Wolters teaches guide and using information to direct the vehicle to safe and productive points in the field bases on the information, [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0004].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 3
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 2.
Yutaka further discloses wherein the input interface is operable to receive input of a user-specified position of the guide point [see at least Yutaka, abstract and ¶ 0005 which discuss sending instructions to the device/vehicle/tractor].
Wolters more specifically teaches an interface [0059].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 4
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 3.
Yutaka further discloses the input interface is operable to receive input of, as the guide point, a user-specified position that is within the agricultural field in which the working machine performs work and that is in a vicinity of a contour of the agricultural field [see at least Yutaka, Abstract; 00055 (instructions conveyed).
Wolters more specifically teaches an interface [0059].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 5
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 3.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to acquire an off-limits area of the agricultural field, the off-limits area being an area where the working machine is prohibited from traveling, and, when the input interface is to receive the user-specified position of the guide point, cause the input interface to display whether the input interface is allowed to receive the user-specified position of the guide point based on the off-limits area [see at least Yutaka, Fig. 5 (53 the border area or restricted area of the field 50); ¶ 0042 (further describes the use of a border as a no work area for safety); Note that a border area in Yutaka is the same as a prohibited from travel area of the instant claims.].
Wolters teaches a boundary area which can vary depending on the field. [see Abstract; ¶ 0002 (“boundary”); 0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 6
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 3.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to: acquire an off-limits area of the agricultural field, the off-limits area being an area where the working machine is prohibited from traveling; and when the guide point received by the input interface is located in the off-limits area, perform a redefining process for the guide point [see at least Yutaka, Fig. 5 (53 the border area or restricted area of the field 50); ¶ 0042 (further describes the use of a border as a no work area for safety); Note that a border area in Yutaka is the same as a prohibited from travel area of the instant claims.].
Wolters teaches a boundary area which can vary depending on the field. [see Abstract; ¶ 0002 (“boundary”); 0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 7.
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 3.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to: acquire an off-limits area of the agricultural field, the off-limits area being an area where the working machine is prohibited from traveling; acquire a vehicle body position of the working machine performing the automatic travel in the agricultural field; and if each of one or more routes connecting the vehicle body position and the guide point passes through the off-limits area, perform a redefining process for the guide point [see at least Yutaka, Fig. 5 (53 the border area or restricted area of the field 50); ¶ 0002 (describes identifying the shape and boarders and headland area of a field); 0042 (further describes the use of a border as a no work area for safety); 0043 (further discloses using borders and headlands to help control a vehicle more safely); Note that a border area in Yutaka is the same as a prohibited from travel area of the instant claims.].
Wolters teaches a boundary area which can vary depending on the field. [see Abstract; ¶ 0002 (“boundary”); 0004 and 0058 (discuss correction of information and path/trajectory); 0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 8
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to: acquire a vehicle body position of the working machine performing the automatic travel in the agricultural field; and if an abnormality occurs in the working machine, perform a redefining process for the guide point [see at least Yutaka, ¶ 0002; 0015 (discusses error of an operator); Note that abnormality or error are similar in nature].
Wolters also teaches the concept of adjusting/correcting/redefining the process/path [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0058 (“correct trajectory”)]
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 9
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 6.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to, in performing the redefining process, command the input interface to receive re-input of a user-specified guide point and perform the redefining process based on the guide point thus received by the input interface [see at least Yutaka, Abstract; ¶0007 (“the controller stops the remote control traveling of the traveling body even while receiving the traveling instruction from the remote controller”); 0015 ( instructing the machine in the case of an error would be the same as redefining)].
Claim 10
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 8.
Yutaka in general terms discloses/suggests first controller is configured or programmed to: in performing the redefining process, define a new guide point instead of the guide point received by the input interface, the new guide point being a position that is within the agricultural field in which the working machine performs work and that is in a vicinity of a contour of the agricultural field, a travel distance and/or a travel time to the position from the vehicle body position at a time of occurrence of the abnormality being shortest; and redefine guide information based on the new guide point [see at least Yutaka, ¶0002 (describing previous art that accomplish the concept of the instant claims including altering start or guide point].
Wolters also teaches in more detail the limitations [see at least Wolters, ¶0004 (“ generate a detailed work travel path for an entire field.”); 0045 (discusses using the contour of the field for calculations); 0058; 0059 (discusses Fig 10 and the features of guidance/navigation/trajectory planning)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 11
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses The work assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the input interface is operable to receive input of a user-specified portion of a contour of the agricultural field in which the working machine performs work; and the first controller is configured or programmed to acquire a vehicle body position of the working machine performing the automatic travel in the agricultural field and, upon determining that the working machine has completed work in the agricultural field, define, as the guide point, a position within a predetermined distance to the user-specified portion of the contour received by the input interface, a travel distance and/or a travel time to the position from the vehicle body position at a time of completion of work by the working machine being shortest [see at least Yutaka, ¶ 0042 (indicates a gateway to the field to enter and exit the field); 0054 (discusses preferable distances)].
Wolters also teaches these limitations in a more specific way [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0045 (discusses a field centric technique and covers features “such as dog-leg shapes, finger-like shapes, and even oval and contoured shapes are geometric features of a field that provide a challenge when planning complete paths/routes, but are easily addressed by the embodiments hereof.”); 0059 (interface)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 12
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses in general terms the input interface is operable to receive input of a user-specified portion of a contour of the agricultural field in which the working machine performs work; and the first controller is configured or programmed to acquire a vehicle body position of the working machine performing the automatic travel in the agricultural field, and, if an abnormality occurs in the working machine, define, as the guide point, a position within a predetermined distance to the user-specified portion of the contour received by the input interface, a travel distance and/or a travel time to the position from the vehicle body position at a time of occurrence of the abnormality being shortest [see at least Yutaka, abstract, ¶ 0005 (aspects of the invention for controlling an agricultural machine)].
Wolters also teaches most of the features [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0004 (indicates features for field adjustments and “Effectively adjusting the swath width, by enabling or disabling rows, may be impractical when using equipment with a fixed width. Combine equipment with a fixed width, a standing crop, and swath passes that have been adjusted so rows are disabled for less effective width and the problem turns into potentially destroying the standing crop instead of the swath pattern containing point rows.”); 0033 (discusses terminology); 0097 (discusses using field geography and boundary, etc. for determining path/route); 0045 (use of the contour of a field)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 13
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to: acquire a vehicle body position of the working machine performing the automatic travel in the agricultural field; generate a guide route to be automatically traveled by the working machine based on the vehicle body position and the position information and the orientation information about the guide point; and define the guide route as the guide information [see at least Yutaka, Fig. 5; ¶ 0045-0049 (indicates generating a route based on different function of the machine and the location of the machine)].
Wolters also teaches obtaining a position and generating a route based on the information [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0004 (“generate a detailed work travel path for an entire field.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 14
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 13.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to: generate, based on the vehicle body position and the position information and the orientation information about the guide point, at least one of (i) a first guide route generated such that a travel distance from the vehicle body position to the guide point is as short as possible or (ii) a second guide route generated such that a travel time from the vehicle body position to the guide point is as short as possible; and define, as the guide information, one of the first guide route and the second guide route that is selected via the input interface [see at least Yutaka, abstract; ¶ 0002 (description of determining route); 0004 (route information for specific task determined)].
Wolters more specifically teaches interface [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0059].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 15
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses the input interface is operable to receive input of a user-specified orientation of the working machine at the guide point relative to an edge of the agricultural field; and the first controller is configured or programmed to define the orientation information based on the user-specified orientation received by the input interface [see at least Yutaka, 0045 (discusses remote control of the vehicle, edges/boundaries (R2)); 0047 (“orientation”); 0056].
Wolters more specifically teaches orientation and interface [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0005 (orientation); 0059].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 16
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to define the orientation information such that an entrance/exit of the working machine faces toward an edge of the agricultural field [see at least Yutaka, Fig 5; ¶ 0052; 0062 (final destination and gateway (exit and entrance)].
Wolters more specifically teaches orientation [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0005 (orientation)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Kusakari specifically teaches orientation information in more detail for guidance [see at least Kusakari, ¶ 0007 (“based on the information acquired from the input interface, guide information including (i) position information of a guide point for the working machine to be guided from an automatic travel route to a predetermined position, the automatic travel route being a route to be automatically traveled by the working machine in the agricultural field and (ii) orientation information indicating an orientation of the working machine at the guide point, and output the guide information to the working machine.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters, further with the use of guide information that also includes orientation of Kusakari. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 17
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to define, based on a position of a working device attached to a vehicle body of the working machine in an offset manner along a width direction relative to the vehicle body, the orientation information such that an opposite side of the vehicle body from a side to which the working device is offset relative to the vehicle body faces toward an edge of the agricultural field [see at least Yutaka, ¶0055 (width).
Wolters more specifically teaches orientation and other field and machine information [see at least Wolters, Fig. 7; ¶ 0005 (orientation); 0037 (working width)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 18
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to define the orientation information such that a direction of travel of the working machine is oriented toward an entrance/exit of the agricultural field [see at least Yutaka, ¶ 0047 (orientation); 0062 (gateway)].
Wolters also teaches orientation and other field and machine information [see at least Wolters, Fig. 7; ¶ 0005 (orientation); 0035 (entrance area) 0037 (working width)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 19
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses the first controller is configured or programmed to define the orientation information such that a supply portion is directed toward an edge of the agricultural field, the supply portion being provided on the working machine to receive a supply from an external source [see at least Yutaka, 0045 (indicates protect operator)].
Wolters also teaches orientation and other field and machine information [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0052 (discusses specific inputs for and efficiency for route development)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 20
Yutaka, Wolters and Kusakari disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Yutaka further discloses a second controller configured or programmed to control the automatic travel; wherein the first controller is configured or programmed to output the guide information to the second controller [see at least Yutaka, Abstract, ¶ 0005; 0006; 0007 (remote control is a second controller)].
Wolters also teaches multiple controllers [see at least Wolters, ¶ 0059-0061 (discusses controller and remote control systems which implies more than one controller)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working vehicle with controller of Yutaka, with the more specific features like an interface and technology of Wolters. Providing a more efficient and effective, as well as safer, work device/tractor/vehicle to work in an agricultural field.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is the method of Claim 1 and has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 21 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
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 JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights