DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/14/2026. This action is made Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered. Claim 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 7, 9 - 10, 14, 16 – 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peake et al. (Publication No. US 20120296529 A1; hereinafter Peake).
Regarding to claim 1, Peake teaches A method, comprising:
obtaining a current position of an implement attached to a first vehicle; ([Par. 0022], “The position of tractor 100, as represented by a reference point at the midpoint of the tractor's rear axle, is measured by a GNSS receiver connected to antenna 120. Similarly, the position of implement 110 is measured by a GNSS receiver connected to antenna 125 located at a reference point on the implement.”; [Par. 0023], “(The GNSS receivers used to measure the position of the tractor and the implement may take advantage of corrections such as those provided by satellite or ground based augmentation systems (SBAS or GBAS).”)
identifying a path plan for the implement; ([Par. 0024], “A farmer typically begins a field operation by towing an implement along an edge of the field. This first pass is done under manual control, but an autopilot records the implement path. In FIG. 2, for example, tractor 200 pulls implement 210 along path 220. The implement path has curves because the edge of the field may be curved or the farmer may have had to maneuver to avoid obstacles such as trees or rocks. After the first pass, the autopilot calculates a set of implement paths that will complete the job of covering the field with minimum overlap.”)
deriving, based on the path plan for the implement, a path plan for the first vehicle, wherein the path plan for the first vehicle and the path plan for the implement are such that operating the first vehicle according to the path plan for the first vehicle maintains the implement along the path plan for the implement; ([Par. 0034], “Given a desired implement path (from an equidistant swath layout, for example), the advanced method described above leads to a desired tractor path. The autopilot controlling the tractor therefore keeps track of two paths: the desired implement path and the corresponding calculated tractor path. In the context of this disclosure, the tractor path is said to be "adjusted from the desired implement path." The adjustment is predictive in that it is performed before the tractor and implement actually travel on their respective paths.”; [Par. 0036], “An autopilot can make predictive adjustments to a tractor's path whenever the implement's desired path is known in advance. Given a series of implement swaths covering a field, the autopilot may calculate a corresponding tractor path for the whole field quickly.”) and
navigating the first vehicle according to the path plan for the first vehicle. ([Par. 0034], “Given a desired implement path (from an equidistant swath layout, for example), the advanced method described above leads to a desired tractor path. The autopilot controlling the tractor therefore keeps track of two paths: the desired implement path and the corresponding calculated tractor path. In the context of this disclosure, the tractor path is said to be "adjusted from the desired implement path." The adjustment is predictive in that it is performed before the tractor and implement actually travel on their respective paths.”)
Regarding to claim 2, Peake teaches the method of claim 1.
Peaker further teaches wherein the path plan for the first vehicle is derived by the first vehicle. [Par. 0036], “An autopilot can make predictive adjustments to a tractor's path whenever the implement's desired path is known in advance. Given a series of implement swaths covering a field, the autopilot may calculate a corresponding tractor path for the whole field quickly.” Wherein the autopilot is onboard of the vehicle first vehicle.)
Regarding to claim 7, Peake teaches the method of claim 1.
Peaker further teaches wherein deriving the path plan for the first vehicle is based on the path plan for the implement and an inverse kinematic model. ([Par. 0031], “] FIG. 4B illustrates one technique for finding a tractor path from a hitch path. This technique relies on the assumption that the hitch path can be adequately approximated as circular for an along-track length equal to (or greater than) the hitch length. In FIG. 4B implement 440 is pulled along implement path 445 by hitch 460 that travels along hitch path 465. The hitch is fixed to tractor 450 which travels along tractor path 455. In FIG. 4B, hitch path 465 is circular for at least the length H that separates hitch point 460 from the control point of tractor 450. The radius of curvature of the hitch path is R.sub.H as indicated in the figure. The hitch extends from the rear of the tractor at right angles to the tractor's rear axle and the tractor's heading is tangent to the tractor path. Given these constraints, a point on the tractor path may be found from a corresponding point on the hitch path. As shown in the figure, a tractor path point is located a distance H away from the corresponding hitch path point at an angle
.theta. = sin - 1 ( H R H ) ##EQU00003##
away from the tangent to the hitch path.”
[Par. 32], “R.sub.H may change from point to point along the hitch path. If R.sub.H changes quickly, so the hitch path is not circular over the hitch length, then the tractor path may be found by iterative solution over segments shorter than H. Numerical techniques may be used calculate iterative solutions for the tractor path or even for an arbitrary chain of towed vehicles.”; [Par. 0034], “Given a desired implement path (from an equidistant swath layout, for example), the advanced method described above leads to a desired tractor path. The autopilot controlling the tractor therefore keeps track of two paths: the desired implement path and the corresponding calculated tractor path.”)
Claim 9 recites a system with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Peaker further teaches one or more memories; and one or more processors, the processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories. ([Par. 0051], “Autopilot 800 may include a microprocessor, user interface, tractor control system, terrain map, path memory and path adjustment capability as well as other components.”)
Claims 10, 14 recites the system with substantially similar scope as claims 2, 7 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 2, 7 respectively above.
Claim 16 recite one or more non-transitory computer readable media with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Peaker further teaches One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations ([Par. 0051], “Autopilot 800 may include a microprocessor, user interface, tractor control system, terrain map, path memory and path adjustment capability as well as other components.”)
Claims 17, 20 recite the one or more non-transitory computer readable media with substantially similar scope as claim 2, 7 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 2, 7 respectively above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 3 – 4, 8, 11, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peake in view of Pieper et al. (Publication No. US 20140012489 A1; hereinafter Pieper).
Regarding to claim 3, Peake teaches the method of claim 1.
Peake teaches to obtain the path plan of the implement based on the field job as described in par. [0024], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the path plan for the implement is at a constant offset from a path plan for a second vehicle.
However, Pieper further teaches wherein the path plan for the implement is at a constant offset from a path plan for a second vehicle. (([Par. 0044], “The harvester 14 can include a lever arm 70 (shown in FIG. 6) for offloading material to the grain cart 12. The system operator identifies a position relative to the harvester 14, called the "lever arm position" or "spout position" 72 (shown in FIG. 6), and a position relative to the grain cart 12, called the "load position" 74 (shown in FIG. 7). During the OFFLOAD operation, the system endeavors to keep the two positions co-located.”; [Par. 0046], “A standard control algorithm known as "pure pursuit" can be used to determine the path that the grain cart should traverse in order to keep the load position 74 co-located with the spout position 72.” This is interpreted as the grain cart load position is maintained at a constant offset from the harvester’s spout to receive the offloading material. This also effectively implies that the grain cart path is maintained at a constant offset from the path of the harvester. Wherein the “harvester” corresponds to the “second vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Peaker to incorporate the teaching of Pieper. The modification would have been obvious because obtaining the path plan of the implement based on a constant offset from a path plan of the second vehicle enables smooth cooperative operation among the first vehicle, the second vehicle, and the implement.
Regarding to claim 4, the combination of Peake and Pieper teaches the method of claim 3.
Pieper further teaches wherein the path plan for the second vehicle is based on historical path data. ([Par. 0029], “Legal travel areas can also include previously traveled areas. If the second vehicle 14 travels over an area, that area is by default deemed to be a legal travel area. For instance, a harvester 14 harvests the crop and leaves a cleared area behind it. The harvester 14 regularly transmits newly cleared path information to the tractor controller 22 so that the tractor 10 has an accurate representation of the harvested areas.”
Regarding to claim 8, Peake teaches the method of claim 1.
Peaker teaches to control the first vehicle as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose determining, before navigating the first vehicle according to the path plan for the first vehicle, that the first vehicle is within an operational zone, wherein the operational zone is a designated area proximate to a second vehicle.
Pieper further teaches determining, before navigating the first vehicle according to the path plan for the first vehicle, that the first vehicle is within an operational zone, wherein the operational zone is a designated area proximate to a second vehicle. ([Par. 0029], “Legal travel areas can also include previously traveled areas. If the second vehicle 14 travels over an area, that area is by default deemed to be a legal travel area. For instance, a harvester 14 harvests the crop and leaves a cleared area behind it. The harvester 14 regularly transmits newly cleared path information to the tractor controller 22 so that the tractor 10 has an accurate representation of the harvested areas.” [Par. 0033 – 0034], “When the second vehicle 14 is a sufficiently long distance away from the first vehicle (e.g., the tractor 10 is in a parking area 28 and the harvester 14 is operating in the field 24), a long-distance path finding procedure is used to determine a legal path for the first vehicle 10 to follow to be at a desired position relative to the second vehicle 14. A variety of algorithms and processes can be used for such long-distance path finding, including a standard A* or hybrid A* algorithm. The A* algorithms work from a discrete set of moves--that is, a discrete set of vehicle headings is considered at each step in the process. [0034] The area available for the path planning algorithms to use is determined from both the pre-surveyed paths in the field 24 (e.g., designated parking areas 28, travel corridors 30, field boundaries 26, and obstacle boundaries 32) and area 34 that has been previously travelled by the harvester 14.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Peaker to incorporate the teaching of Pieper. The modification would have been obvious because determining whether the first vehicle is within the operational zone enables accurate operation of the first vehicle to complete its predetermined tasks.
Claims 11, 15 recite the system with substantially similar scope as claims 3, 8 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 3, 8 respectively above.
Claims 18 recites the one or more non-transitory computer readable media with substantially similar scope as claim 3, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 3 respectively above.
Claim(s) 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peake and Pieper in further view of Kocer et al. (Publication No. US 20250295067 A1; hereinafter Kocer) and in further view of Calleja Alvarez et al. (Publication No. US 20190213889 A1; hereinafter Alvarez).
Regarding to claim 5, the combination of Peake and Pieper teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Peake and Pieper teaches that the implement and the tractor vehicle are moved in coordination with the harvester, as described with respect to claim 3 above, but does not explicitly disclose the path plan for the implement is identified by the second vehicle,
However, Kocer teaches the path plan for the implement is identified by the second vehicle, ([Par. 0062], “In Example 3, the subject matter of any one or more of Examples 1-2 optionally include wherein the position sensor is associated with the harvester, and the harvester establishes the first waypoint and the second waypoint.”; [Par. 0033], “ Accordingly, the first waypoint and the second waypoint are established at an offset from the harvester 104. For example, the cart offset facilitates the grain carts 102 travelling at the offloading position with respect to the harvester 104, or in the case of trailing second or third grain carts in a train or convoy that trails a preceding cart, such as the first grain cart 102A.”; [Par. 0034], “The control system 300 establishes the first waypoint, and establishes the first speed of the grain cart 102A with the first waypoint. The second grain cart 102B follows the harvester 104 using the waypoints, and travels at the first speed from the first waypoint to the second waypoint.” This is interpreted as the harvester establishes first and second way point to guide the grain cart to follow the harvester.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Peake and Pieper to incorporate the teaching of Kocer. The modification would have been obvious because, by establishing waypoints for the grain cart to follow, it ensures that the grain cart follows an appropriate path relative to the harvester, thereby enabling efficient receipt of grain from the harvester.
The combination of the Peake, Pieper, and Kocer teaches to identify the path for the implement as described above, but does not explicitly disclose the path plan for the first vehicle is derived by the second vehicle.
However, Alverez teaches the path plan for the first vehicle is derived by the second vehicle. ([Par. 0017], “The vehicle computing system 104a installed on a lead vehicle 102 may be configured to coordinate the caravan 106 by creating a navigation route and sending the route to each vehicle of the caravan via the server 130. The vehicle computing system 104b-n installed on the follower vehicles 110 may be configured to receive the navigation route from the lead vehicle 102.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Peake, Pieper, and Kocer to incorporate the teaching of Alverez. The modification would have been obvious because, by having the second vehicle derive the path for the first vehicle, it enables coordinated movement between the first and second vehicles such that the first vehicle moves in correlation with the movement of the second vehicle.
Claims 12 recites the system with substantially similar scope as claim 5, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peake in view of Wang et al. (Publication No. US 20130231823 A1; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding to claim 6, Peake teaches the method of claim 1.
Peaker teaches to determine the implement’s required path as described in par. [0046 – 0047], but does not explicitly disclose setting a homepoint for the implement with respect to a second vehicle, wherein identifying the path plan for the implement comprises: detecting a movement of the homepoint to a new location; modifying the path plan for the implement to the new location.
However, Wang teaches setting a homepoint for the implement with respect to a second vehicle, ([Par. 0027], “An exemplary embodiment of the reference points used for measuring the desired or target lateral distance and the desired or target longitudinal distance is shown in FIG. 1. However, any suitable reference points for measuring lateral distance and longitudinal distance can be used. The desired lateral distance and desired longitudinal distance can both be a preselected distance plus or minus a predetermined offset that ensures that crop material discharged from the harvester 10 is received and stored by the transport vehicle 20.” Wherein the “reference point” corresponds to the “homepoint”) wherein identifying the path plan for the implement comprises:
detecting a movement of the homepoint to a new location;
([Par. 0055], “The controller 22 for the transport vehicle 20 can use the information from the harvester 10 on the type of predicted path, the unload tube position for the harvester 10, the current position and velocity for the harvester 10 and the predicted future waypoints, in addition to the information from the transport vehicle 20 on the current position and velocity for the transport vehicle 20 to calculate a trajectory or path for the transport vehicle 20 that maintains the appropriate lateral, or parallel, distances between the transport vehicle 20 and the harvester 10. In one embodiment, the transport vehicle 20 can have a trajectory or path based on the predicted path and predicted future waypoints of the harvester 10 plus a desired lateral distance. The desired lateral distance can be based on mainly the lateral offset distance component of the unload tube position relative to the harvester GPS position. The transport vehicle trajectory can be calculated to be parallel to the harvester path by the desired lateral distance and to be the same type as the harvester path, which harvester path is provided by the information on the waypoints and type of the predicted path for the harvester 10. The trajectory waypoints for the transport vehicle 20 can then be calculated based on the calculated transport vehicle trajectory and corresponding interval distance and number of waypoints for the future waypoints of the harvester 10.” This is interpreted as the trajectory waypoints of the transport vehicle are determined based on the predicted future waypoints of the harvester in order to maintain a desired lateral distance between the transport vehicle and the harvester. As the harvester moves and its future waypoints are updated, the corresponding future waypoints of the transport vehicle are recalculated based on those updated harvester waypoints, such that the transport vehicle trajectory follows and adjusts in accordance with the harvester trajectory.) and
modifying the path plan for the implement to the new location.
([Par. 0055], “The controller 22 for the transport vehicle 20 can use the information from the harvester 10 on the type of predicted path, the unload tube position for the harvester 10, the current position and velocity for the harvester 10 and the predicted future waypoints, in addition to the information from the transport vehicle 20 on the current position and velocity for the transport vehicle 20 to calculate a trajectory or path for the transport vehicle 20 that maintains the appropriate lateral, or parallel, distances between the transport vehicle 20 and the harvester 10. In one embodiment, the transport vehicle 20 can have a trajectory or path based on the predicted path and predicted future waypoints of the harvester 10 plus a desired lateral distance. The desired lateral distance can be based on mainly the lateral offset distance component of the unload tube position relative to the harvester GPS position. The transport vehicle trajectory can be calculated to be parallel to the harvester path by the desired lateral distance and to be the same type as the harvester path, which harvester path is provided by the information on the waypoints and type of the predicted path for the harvester 10. The trajectory waypoints for the transport vehicle 20 can then be calculated based on the calculated transport vehicle trajectory and corresponding interval distance and number of waypoints for the future waypoints of the harvester 10.” This is interpreted as the trajectory waypoints of the transport vehicle are determined based on the predicted future waypoints of the harvester in order to maintain a desired lateral distance between the transport vehicle and the harvester. As the harvester moves and its future waypoints are updated, the corresponding future waypoints of the transport vehicle are recalculated based on those updated harvester waypoints, such that the transport vehicle trajectory follows and adjusts in accordance with the harvester trajectory.)
It would have been obvious to incorporate Wang’s teaching of generating and updating future waypoints of a transport vehicle based on predicted future waypoints of a harvester (¶[0055]) into Peake’s relative positioning system. Wang teaches recalculating the transport vehicle trajectory as the harvester’s future waypoints are updated to maintain a desired offset. Applying this predictive waypoint updating to Peaker would have predictably improved maintaining the desired relative position as the reference point moves during unloading on the go.
Claim 13 recites the system with substantially similar scope as claims 6, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 6 above.
Claim 19 recites the one or more non-transitory computer readable media with substantially similar scope as claim 6, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 6 above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou, Kun (Publication No. US 20210195827 A1) discloses a system for windrow path planning comprises a tractor with an automated guidance system, and one or more computing devices for receiving harvester travel information, determining the locations of a plurality of windrows of agricultural material in an agricultural area from the harvester travel information, wherein determining the locations of the windrows includes assigning windrow locations to the one or more travel paths followed by the harvester only where the harvester was harvesting a crop. The one or more computing devices use the locations of the plurality of windrows of agricultural material to define one or more guidance paths for an agricultural operation performed on the windrows of the agricultural material. The automated guidance system of the tractor uses the one or more guidance paths to steer the tractor to follow the one or more guidance paths for the agricultural operation.
Rands et al. (Publication No. US 20220206512 A1) discloses a method of maintaining vehicle formation includes receiving a desired along path distance; receiving a plurality of waypoints corresponding to a plurality of positions along a path of the lead vehicle; determining a dynamic path for the follower vehicle by spline fitting the plurality of positions of the plurality of waypoints; determining a commanded curvature of the follower vehicle based on a curvature of the dynamic path at a current position of the follower vehicle; determining a current along path distance between the lead vehicle and the follower vehicle; determining an along path error; determining a next speed of the follower vehicle based on the along path error and the respective waypoint speed of the respective waypoint that is adjacent to a current position of the follower vehicle; and outputting the commanded curvature and the next speed to a control system of the follower vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights