DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Rejection in response to the communication filed on 07/08/2026. Claims 1 and 5—16 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of Foreign Patent Application JP2023—220773, filed in the Country of Japan on 12/27/2023, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 12/18/2024 and 07/14/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/08/2026 in response to the rejection of claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the rejection of record with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) hinged on the previously recited claim language included in claim 2 which has been both 1.) modified to overcome the rejection and 2.) amended into claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for the reasons stated in the Non-Final rejection dated 04/08/2026, is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/08/2026 in response to the rejection of claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The primary argument set forth appears to be that the identified judicial exceptions are adequately integrated because they provide for an improvement to a technology or technical field. For example, the Response at page 3—4 states “[a]s explained in the MPEP 2106.05(a), claims that provide a technical improvement to a technology or technical field may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Here the comparison between the stored position and the currently measured position determines whether automatic steering may be resumed using the stored orientation, thereby controlling the operation of the vehicle.” However, the above recited comparison and determination are both directed to portions of the claim which are identified as abstract ideas. An improvement to an abstract idea (e.g., such as an improvement directed to a comparison and/or a determination) cannot provide for an improvement to a technology or a technical field. For example, the MPEP states “[n]otably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a), Subsection II). Accordingly, the provided arguments are not persuasive in showing that the amended claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. A revised rejection of claims 1 and 5—16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below in view of the amendments. Examiner notes that interviews are often beneficial for discussing potential avenues for overcoming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/08/2026 in response to the rejection of claims 1—2, 4—5, and 14—16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive in overcoming the rejection of record. The amendments to claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 modify the claims such that the prior art rejection of record is no longer applicable. For example, claims 1, 14, and 16 have been amended to include the subject matter of claim 3 which was indicated allowable in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/08/2026. However, claim 15, which recites multiple conditional limitations is subject to new grounds for rejection as provided below
Examiner notes amended claim 15 recites the following conditional limitations:
“storing the position and the orientation of the work vehicle in a non-volatile memory in response to a key-off operation of the work vehicle when a predetermined saving condition is satisfied” (emphasis added);
“when the position and the orientation of the work vehicle are stored in the non- volatile memory, calculating a difference between the position stored in the non-volatile memory and a position measured by the positioning system in response to a key-on operation of the work vehicle” (emphasis added);
“when the difference is less than a threshold value, enabling an operation by a user to initiate the automatic steering control while the work vehicle is stopped” (emphasis added);
“after the operation by the user is performed, initiating the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as an initial orientation of the work vehicle when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., this limitation is predicated on the conditional limitations being performed).
The above identified conditional limitations are not required to be performed in order for claim 15 to be fully performed. Accordingly, the amendments applied to claim 15 broaden the scope of the claim such that the modified claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 rather than 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 are directed to a system (machine or manufacture), a system (machine or manufacture), a method (process), and a non-transitory computer product (machine or manufacture) respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
“estimate an orientation of the work vehicle based on a change over time of a position of the work vehicle” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“calculate a difference between the position stored in the non-volatile memory and a position measured by the positioning system” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“when the difference is less than a threshold value” (e.g., directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept related to making a determination regarding the calculated value compared to the threshold value); and
“when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept related to making a determination regarding a measured speed compared to a threshold value).
Claim 14 recites the following abstract ideas:
“estimate an orientation of the work vehicle based on a change over time of a position of the work vehicle” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“calculate a difference between the position stored in the non-volatile memory and a position measured by the positioning system” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“when the difference is less than a threshold value” (e.g., directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept related to making a determination regarding the calculated value compared to the threshold value); and
“when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept related to making a determination regarding a measured speed compared to a threshold value).
Claim 15 recites the following abstract ideas:
“estimating an orientation of the work vehicle based on a change over time of a position of the work vehicle” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“calculating a difference between the position stored in the non-volatile memory and a position measured by the positioning system” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, the limitation is directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“when the difference is less than a threshold value” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, the limitation is directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept further directed to making a determination regarding the calculated value compared to the threshold value); and
“when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, the limitation is directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept further directed to making a determination regarding a measured speed compared to a threshold value).
Claim 16 recites the following abstract ideas:
“estimate an orientation of the work vehicle based on a change over time of a position of the work vehicle” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“calculate a difference between the position stored in the non-volatile memory and a position measured by the positioning system” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“when the difference is less than a threshold value” (e.g., directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept related to making a determination regarding the calculated value compared to the threshold value); and
“when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept related to making a determination regarding a measured speed compared to a threshold value).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations thereof. For example, actions such as “estimating/estimate an orientation of the work vehicle [based on specific data]” and “calculating/calculate a difference [in a position of the work vehicle based on specific data]” constitute processes which may be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept or may be directed to a mathematical concept without a mental process. Furthermore, while the limitations are not positively recited, making determinations regarding the comparison of a measured/calculated value in view of a threshold value is directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept.
Regarding mental processes, the MPEP states the following:
“[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’… Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes’, is provided below with respect to point A.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III).
Regarding mathematical calculations, the MPEP states the following:
“[a] claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section I, Subsection C).
Accordingly, the above identified limitations are directed to abstract ideas such that claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“a work vehicle” (e.g., indicative of a field of use);
“a positioning system to measure a position of the work vehicle” (e.g., indicative of a field of use);
“a controller including a non-volatile memory” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“perform automatic steering control of the work vehicle based on the position and the orientation of the work vehicle and a set target route” (e.g., merely recites the idea of a solution in a manner equivalent to stating “apply it”);
“store the position and the orientation of the work vehicle in a non-volatile memory in response to a key-off operation of the work vehicle when a predetermined saving condition is satisfied” (e.g., directed to extra-solution activity);
“a key-on operation of the work vehicle” (e.g., indicative of a field of use in which the abstract ideas are applied);
“when the position and the orientation of the work vehicle are stored in the non- volatile memory” (e.g., directed to extra-solution activity);
“enable an operation by a user to initiate the automatic steering control while the work vehicle is stopped” (e.g., directed to a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“initiate the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as an initial orientation of the work vehicle when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., the limitation is not adequately integrated into the claims and is therefore equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception; “apply it”).
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
“a controller for a work vehicle” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“a non-volatile memory” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“at least one processor” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“perform automatic steering control of the work vehicle based on the position and the orientation of the work vehicle and a set target route” (e.g., merely recites the idea of a solution in a manner equivalent to stating “apply it”);
“store the position and the orientation of the work vehicle in a non-volatile memory in response to a key-off operation of the work vehicle when a predetermined saving condition is satisfied” (e.g., directed to extra-solution activity);
“a key-on operation of the work vehicle” (e.g., indicative of a field of use in which the abstract ideas are applied);
“when the position and the orientation of the work vehicle are stored in the non- volatile memory” (e.g., directed to extra-solution activity);
“enable an operation by a user to initiate the automatic steering control while the work vehicle is stopped” (e.g., directed to a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“initiate the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as an initial orientation of the work vehicle when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., the limitation is not adequately integrated into the claims and is therefore equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception; “apply it”).
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
“one or more computers” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“perform automatic steering control of the work vehicle based on the position and the orientation of the work vehicle and a set target route” (e.g., merely recites the idea of a solution in a manner equivalent to stating “apply it”);
“storing the position and the orientation of the work vehicle in a non-volatile memory in response to a key-off operation of the work vehicle when a predetermined saving condition is satisfied” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, the limitation is directed to extra-solution activity);
“a key-on operation of the work vehicle” (e.g., indicative of a field of use in which the abstract ideas are applied);
“when the position and the orientation of the work vehicle are stored in the non- volatile memory” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, the limitation is directed to extra-solution activity);
“enabling an operation by a user to initiate the automatic steering control while the work vehicle is stopped” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, the limitation is directed to a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“initiating the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as an initial orientation of the work vehicle when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, the limitation is not adequately integrated into the claims and is therefore equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception; “apply it”).
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
“[a] non-transitory computer readable medium” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“perform automatic steering control of the work vehicle based on the position and the orientation of the work vehicle and a set target route” (e.g., merely recites the idea of a solution in a manner equivalent to stating “apply it”);
“store the position and the orientation of the work vehicle in a non-volatile memory in response to a key-off operation of the work vehicle when a predetermined saving condition is satisfied” (e.g., directed to extra-solution activity);
“a key-on operation of the work vehicle” (e.g., indicative of a field of use in which the abstract ideas are applied);
“when the position and the orientation of the work vehicle are stored in the non- volatile memory” (e.g., directed to extra-solution activity);
“enable an operation by a user to initiate the automatic steering control while the work vehicle is stopped” (e.g., directed to a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“initiate the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as an initial orientation of the work vehicle when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed” (e.g., the limitation is not adequately integrated into the claims and is therefore equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception; “apply it”).
The above identified limitations of claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 constitute additional elements. However, for the reasons identified above, and discussed further below, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a work vehicle” and “a position system to measure a position of the work vehicle,” while claims 1 and 14—16 recite the additional element of “a key-on operation of the work vehicle.” The foregoing limitations are merely indicative of a field of use in which the judicial exceptions are applied and cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. For example, regarding field of use limitations the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the above identified limitations of claims 1 and 14—16 cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitations are directed to a field of use in which the identified abstract ideas are applied.
Claims 1 and 14—16 recite various generic computing components including “a controller” (e.g., claims 1 and 14); “a non-volatile memory” (e.g., claim 14 and 15); “at least one processor” (e.g., claim 14); “one or more computers” (e.g., claim 15); and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (e.g., claim 16). The recitation of generic computer components cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitations are equivalent to mere directive to apply the exception. For example, the MPEP states “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV V, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone).” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). As such, the generic computer components recited in claims 1 and 14—16 do not provide for a practical application of the above identified judicial exceptions.
Claims 1 and 14—16 recite the additional elements of, or substantially similar to “store the position and the orientation of the work vehicle in a non-volatile memory in response to a key-off operation of the work vehicle when a predetermined saving condition is satisfied,” and “the position and the orientation of the work vehicle are stored in the non- volatile memory,” which are directed to court-identified insignificant extra-solution activity and cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exception. For example, the MPEP states “[t]he courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (MPEP 2106.05(d), Subsection II). Accordingly, the limitation directed to storing a vehicle position in memory as recited in claims 1 and 14—16 cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions.
Claims 1 and 14—16 recite the following additional elements which are equivalent to mere directives to apply the identified judicial exceptions (e.g., equivalent to reciting “apply it” as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(f)):
“perform automatic steering control of the work vehicle based on the position and the orientation of the work vehicle and a set target route”;
“enable an operation by a user to initiate the automatic steering control while the work vehicle is stopped”; and
“initiate the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as an initial orientation of the work vehicle when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed”
The foregoing limitations do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because they do not properly integrate the abstract ideas into a solution as required under MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the manner in which the automatic steering is performed, as recited in item one (1) is not described in any particular way such that the identified abstract ideas are properly integrated. Regarding item two (2), enabling an operation to be performed (e.g., understood to be “allowing”) is not the same as performing the operation. Moreover, the operation is recited in a generic manner such that any operation could be enabled. For example, an operation which enables an operator to initiate automatic steering could include displaying a screen/button which allows an operator to make a selection which initiates automatic steering. However, such an operation would not be a practical application because merely displaying an option for selection is not a practical application. Moreover, an operation which allows an operator to make a choice is not a practical application. The outcome of the abstract idea should be directly tied to the physical operation performed by the vehicle (e.g., not merely providing/enabling the operation of a physical operation). Item three (3) is closer than items one (1) or two (2) in providing a practical application (e.g., a threshold is determined and a specific operation is performed as an outcome of the determination); however, the limitation of item three (3) is not adequately integrated into the claim because of the above discussed ambiguity generated by item two (2). Moreover, while the level of detail and structure of item three (3) is a good example of what proper integration would look like, it does not provide for proper integration because the item two (2) creates a gap in the claim between the abstract idea and any possible practical application. Accordingly, the above limitations constitute mere directives to apply a judicial exception where the MPEP states:
“[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, items one, two, and three of claims 1 and 14—16 are directed to the idea of a solution or outcome and do not properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examples of limitations which do properly integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application include the limitations of Diehr. For example, the MPEP states “[i]n contrast, the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation ‘in a rubber molding process’. Instead, the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. These specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the limitations of Diehr which integrated the abstract idea (e.g., calculations using the Arrhenius equation) into a practical application (e.g., opening the press automatically once the calculated cure time and elapsed time are equivalent) provided a more specific application which was directly tied to the outcome of the judicial exception than that of the instant claims. For example, Diehr did not merely state “enabling an operation by user to control the mold based on a calculated temperature.” Accordingly the limitations of claims 1 and 14—16 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “when the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value,” which is directed to an abstract idea comprising a mental process. Please see above MPEP citation regarding mental processes. Claim 5 further recites additional elements which cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception including:
“discard the position and the orientation stored in the non- volatile memory” (e.g., directed to insignificant extra-solution activity related to storing data in memory as discussed above with respect to MPEP 2106.05(d), Subsection II); and
“disable the operation by the user to initiate the automatic steering control until a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a reference speed” (e.g., equivalent to mere directive to apply the exception as discussed above with respect to MPEP 2106.05(f) where a non-application is not an application. Moreover, the practical application of a judicial exception cannot be to expressly not perform the action and/or “do nothing”).
Accordingly, claim 5 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a display terminal,” which is directed to generic computer components and therefore equivalent to reciting “apply it” as discussed above with respect to MPEP MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 6 further recites “when the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value,” which is directed to an abstract idea comprising a mental process and/or mathematical concept as discussed above in (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III) and (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section I, Subsection C) regarding abstract ideas. Claim 6 further recites the limitation “enable the operation by the user to initiate the automatic steering control when the traveling speed exceeds the reference speed,” which does not constitute a practical application for the same reasons as stated with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14—16. More specifically, allowing for a operation to occur is not the same as doing the doing such that a direct connection between the abstract idea and the application is not formed. Accordingly, claim 6 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein when the position and the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory are discarded” (e.g., directed to insignificant extra-solution activity related to storing data in memory as discussed above with respect to MPEP 2106.05(d), Subsection II). Claim 7 is further directed to displaying the result of an analysis (e.g., “display a message on the display terminal that indicates that the position and/or the orientation have been discarded”) which cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. For example, the MPEP states “the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:… Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Accordingly, claim 7 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites limitations directed to abstract ideas insofar as the limitations constitute mental processes or mathematical concepts (e.g., “when the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value” and “when the difference is less than the threshold value”). The claim additionally recites limitations which constitute mere instructions to apply an exception without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished (see above citation to MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, the limitation “enable the operation to initiate…” does not actually require the work vehicle to physically adjust vehicle operation from one phase to another. Additionally, the limitation “disable the operation by the user,” is directed to the removal of the option for an action (e.g., the action is a non-action) and cannot provide for a practical application. Accordingly, claim 8 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites limitations directed to abstract ideas insofar as the limitations constitute mental processes or mathematical concepts (e.g., limitations directed to comparing values to a threshold value). The claim further recites limitations which constitute mere instructions to apply an exception without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished. For example, the limitation “stop an operation of the work vehicle without storing the orientation” does not require the work vehicle to physically perform a task or adjust operation from one phase to another. Moreover, the limitation is directed to what the apparatus does not do (e.g., store data) rather than providing for a practical application. Additionally, the limitations of claim 9 do not address the issue set forth with item two (2) of claim 1 which, as discussed above, creates a gap in the application of claim 1. As such, claim 9 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites limitations directed to a field of use (e.g., a Global Navigation Satellite System) which are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to indicate the technological area in which the judicial exception of claim 1 is to be applied. Claim 10 is further directed to mere data gathering which cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because such limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: … iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.” (MPEP 106.05(g)). Limitations directed to mere data gathering do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 because the limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, limitations directed to a field of use cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 10 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions of claim 1.
Claim 11 is directed to the abstract idea including “estimate the position and orientation” based on generically recited data (e.g., collecting generically recited data constitutes “mere data gathering” as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(g)) which amounts to insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, claim 11 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites limitations directed to abstract ideas including mental processes (e.g., determining when the difference is greater than a threshold) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., “calculate a difference…”). Claim 12 further recites the limitation “stop automatic steering control when the difference is greater than a threshold value,” which does not cure the deficiency/gap identified regarding item two (2) as discussed above regarding claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites limitations directed to displaying the result of an analysis which cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. For example, the MPEP states “the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:… Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)). As such, claim 13 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published Japanese Patent Application to Tsuji (JP 2022166931 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Tsuji discloses [a] method to be executed by one or more computers to control an operation of a work vehicle capable of automatic steering driving, the method comprising (para. [0027], “[t]he control device 200 can control each part by electronic control, and includes a processing part having a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and the like, and stores various programs such as a hard disk and a ROM (Read Only Memory). , RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like.”):
estimating an orientation of the work vehicle based on a change over time of a position of the work vehicle measured by a positioning system to perform positioning of the work vehicle (para. [0024], “[t]he positioning device 150 is mounted on the upper part of the vehicle body 2 and measures the position of the vehicle body 2 at predetermined intervals, and acquires information about the vehicle body 2's own position (for example, latitude and longitude). The positioning device 150 is, for example, a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) and can perform positioning and timing by receiving radio waves from navigation satellites S orbiting in the sky.”; para. [0044], “[t]he driving trajectory is stored in the memory unit, linked to the position, orientation, and measured time of the vehicle 2.”; para. [0064], “When the vehicle body 2 stops, the control device 200 calculates the direction of the vehicle body 2 from the trajectory during at least one of the predetermined time before stopping and the predetermined distance traveled before stopping.” The control device 200 uses data from the positioning system 150 to generate the position and orientation information);
performing automatic steering control of the work vehicle based on the position and the orientation of the work vehicle and a set target route (para. [0006], “a control device (200) that performs autonomous driving control by adjusting the steering angle of the vehicle body (2) so that the vehicle body (2) travels along a set direction based on the position of the vehicle body (150)”; see also para. [0036]); storing the position and the orientation of the work vehicle in a non-volatile memory in response to a key-off operation of the work vehicle when a predetermined saving condition is satisfied (this limitation is conditional and, therefore, is not required to be performed in order for the method of claim 15 to be fully performed); when the position and the orientation of the work vehicle are stored in the non- volatile memory, calculating a difference between the position stored in the non-volatile memory and a position measured by the positioning system in response to a key-on operation of the work vehicle (this limitation is conditional and, therefore, is not required to be performed in order for the method of claim 15 to be fully performed); when the difference is less than a threshold value, enabling an operation by a user to initiate the automatic steering control while the work vehicle is stopped (this limitation is conditional and, therefore, is not required to be performed in order for the method of claim 15 to be fully performed); and after the operation by the user is performed, initiating the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as an initial orientation of the work vehicle when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed (this limitation is contingent on the above identified conditional limitations, therefore, is not required to be performed in order for the method of claim 15 to be fully performed).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Under the Prior Art
Claims 1, 5—14, and 16 are not rejected using the above prior art rejection; however, claims 1—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to patent ineligible subject matter. The following combination of limitations was not found in the prior art at the time of examination: “when the position and the orientation of the work vehicle are stored in the non-volatile memory, calculate a difference between the position stored in the non- volatile memory and a position measured by the positioning system in response to a key-on operation of the work vehicle”; “when the difference is less than a threshold value, enable an operation by a user to initiate the automatic steering control while the work vehicle is stopped”; and “after the operation by the user is performed, initiate the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as an initial orientation of the work vehicle when a traveling speed of the work vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed.”
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application (US 20190227561 A1) to Hiramatsu which teaches a work vehicle which utilizes a global positioning system and a memory to store the location-based movement of the vehicle/vehicle parts along with a controller to control the movement of the vehicle; and
Published US Patent Application (US 20220159898 A1) to Ueda et al. which teaches a work vehicle with a positioning unit (e.g., informed by a satellite system) where the work vehicle calculates the position accuracy and provides a notification regarding the position accuracy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights