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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 01/16/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “the steering mechanism” and “the tire inflation system” have no previous recitation in the claims. While the scope of the claims are reasonably ascertainable, examiner recommends changing the terms to “a steering mechanism” and “a tire inflation system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 7 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1 and 7 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a method including at least one step and an apparatus.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1. A method for outputting steering state information to a driver of an agricultural tractor, comprising:
transmitting via a data interface information including a fitted tire model or type, a tire inflation pressure, an axle load on a front and rear axle of the agricultural tractor, and a current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor to a control unit;
checking via the control unit on the basis of the information whether
(i) as a first triggering condition, the current traveling speed exceeds a limit value provided for emergency steering operation, the limit value being given according to the fitted tire model or type, the tire inflation pressure and the axle load,
and (ii) as a second triggering condition, the tire inflation pressure is below a limit value provided for the emergency steering operation, the limit value being specified according to the fitted tire model or type, the current traveling speed and the axle load;
and activating a user interface via the control unit to output steering state information indicating a critical steering state when at least one of the first and second triggering conditions is met.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of evaluating on the basis of information whether first and second triggering conditions are met. This is equivalent to a person mentally evaluating whether certain threshold conditions are met.
Claim 7. A system for outputting steering state information to a driver of an agricultural tractor, comprising:
a control unit configured to receive information from a data interface, the information including a fitted tire model or type, a tire inflation pressure, an axle load on a front and rear axle of the agricultural tractor, and a current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor,
the control unit configured to check whether
(i) as a first triggering condition, the current traveling speed exceeds a limit value provided for emergency steering operation, the limit value being given according to the fitted tire model or type, the tire inflation pressure, and the axle load,
And (ii) as a second triggering condition, the tire inflation pressure is below a limit value provided for the emergency steering operation, the limit value being specified according to the fitted tire model or type, the current traveling speed, and the axle load,
and the control unit configured to activate a user interface outputting steering state information indicating a critical steering state when at least one of the first and second triggering conditions is met.
The method in claim 7, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of evaluating on the basis of information whether first and second triggering conditions are met. This is equivalent to a person mentally evaluating whether certain threshold conditions are met.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract “idea”).
Claim 1. A method for outputting steering state information to a driver of an agricultural tractor, comprising:
transmitting via a data interface information including a fitted tire model or type, a tire inflation pressure, an axle load on a front and rear axle of the agricultural tractor, and a current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor to a control unit;
checking via the control unit on the basis of the information whether
(i) as a first triggering condition, the current traveling speed exceeds a limit value provided for emergency steering operation, the limit value being given according to the fitted tire model or type, the tire inflation pressure and the axle load,
and (ii) as a second triggering condition, the tire inflation pressure is below a limit value provided for the emergency steering operation, the limit value being specified according to the fitted tire model or type, the current traveling speed and the axle load;
and activating a user interface via the control unit to output steering state information indicating a critical steering state when at least one of the first and second triggering conditions is met.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “transmitting via a data interface information…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The step of “activating a user interface via the control unit to output steering state information…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere displaying of data, which is a form of extra solution activity. The limitations “a control unit” “via a data interface”, “via the control unit”, and “a user interface” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The control unit, the data interface, and the user interface merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The control unit, the data interface, and the user interface are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the transmitting, checking, and activating steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7. A system for outputting steering state information to a driver of an agricultural tractor, comprising:
a control unit configured to receive information from a data interface, the information including a fitted tire model or type, a tire inflation pressure, an axle load on a front and rear axle of the agricultural tractor, and a current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor,
the control unit configured to check whether
(i) as a first triggering condition, the current traveling speed exceeds a limit value provided for emergency steering operation, the limit value being given according to the fitted tire model or type, the tire inflation pressure, and the axle load,
And (ii) as a second triggering condition, the tire inflation pressure is below a limit value provided for the emergency steering operation, the limit value being specified according to the fitted tire model or type, the current traveling speed, and the axle load,
and the control unit configured to activate a user interface outputting steering state information indicating a critical steering state when at least one of the first and second triggering conditions is met.
Claim 7 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “…receive information…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The step of “activate a user interface outputting steering state information…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere displaying of data, which is a form of extra solution activity. The limitations “a control unit” “a data interface”, “the control unit”, and “a user interface” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The control unit, the data interface, and the user interface merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The control unit, the data interface, and the user interface are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the transmitting, checking, and activating steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1 and 7 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “a control unit” “via a data interface”, “via the control unit”, “a user interface”, “a data interface”, and “the control unit”, is/are merely means to apply the exception and do not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “transmitting via a data interface information…”, “activating a user interface via the control unit to output steering state information…”, “…receive information…”, and “activate a user interface outputting steering state information…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the transmitting, checking, activating, and receiving steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, since claims 1 and 7 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 7 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2 and 8 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more.
As such, claims 1, 2, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURATA (US 20220192075 A1) in view of Ki (US 20190219489 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, KURATA teaches A method for outputting steering state information to a driver of an agricultural tractor, comprising (See at least paragraph [0042], “Either that agricultural machine (which may hereinafter be referred to as a “first agricultural machine”) or the additional agricultural machine (which may hereinafter be referred to as a “second agricultural machine”) is a work vehicle (e.g., a tractor) that is capable of self-driving” and paragraph [0158], “As a result, when the tire pressure changes from the standard pressure state during travel, or when the user has changed the tire pressure in accordance with the content of the task, it may not be possible to obtain expected running properties. In such a case, the user is able to adjust the steering gain by manipulating an operational terminal such as a virtual terminal (VT) provided in the work vehicle 100. However, the work vehicle 100 needs to do several trial runs for making adjustments. Introducing the control of automatically adjusting the steering gain in accordance with the tire pressure as described above saves the user the trouble of adjusting the steering gain.”): transmitting via a data interface information including (See at least paragraph [0042], “An agricultural machine according to an illustrative preferred embodiment of the present disclosure includes one or more tires, a detector to detect a low pressure state in which a tire pressure of the tires is lower than a reference range or a high pressure state in which the tire pressure is higher than the reference range, and a controller. The controller is configured or programmed to control an operation of at least one of the agricultural machine and an additional agricultural machine to be linked to that agricultural machine. Either that agricultural machine (which may hereinafter be referred to as a “first agricultural machine”) or the additional agricultural machine (which may hereinafter be referred to as a “second agricultural machine”) is a work vehicle (e.g., a tractor) that is capable of self-driving. The other one of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine is an implement to be linked to the work vehicle in use. Upon detecting that the tire pressure of the one or more tires is in a low pressure state in which the tire pressure is lower than a reference range or in a high pressure state in which the tire pressure is higher than the reference range, the controller causes the at least one of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine to perform a specific operation that is different from an operation to be performed when the tire pressure is in the reference range. The specific operation may be defined by a computer program recorded in a storage device that is included in the agricultural machine. By executing the computer program, the controller performs the pre-designated specific operation when the tire pressure is outside the reference range. The specific operation may include operations such as a stopping operation, decelerating, raising or lowering a linkage device that links the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine together, changing the control gain for determining a steering angle in automatic steering, changing the timing(s) of enabling 4WD and/or locking differential, transmitting a signal or data to an external device, for example” and paragraph [0161], “the pressure sensor 135 measures the pressure of each tire (step S191).” The pressure sensor measures tire pressure and the controller performs control operations based on the detected pressure state, indicating that pressure information is provided to the controller.); checking via the control unit on the basis of the information whether (i) as a first triggering condition, (See at least paragraph [0141], “FIG. 17 is a flowchart showing an example operation during automatic steering, which is performed by the ECU 180. During travel of the tractor 100A, the ECU 180 performs automatic steering by performing the operation from step S121 to S125 shown in FIG. 17. First, the ECU 180 acquires data representing the position of the tractor 100A as estimated by the ECU 160 (step S121). Next, the ECU 180 calculates a deviation between the estimated position of the tractor 100A and a previously-determined intended travel path (step S122). The deviation represents a distance between the estimated position of the tractor 100A and the intended travel path at that point in time. The ECU 180 determines whether the calculated deviation in position exceeds a pre-designated threshold value or not (step S123). If the deviation exceeds the threshold value, the ECU 180 changes a control parameter (e.g., steering angle) of the steering device included in the drive device 140 so as to reduce the deviation. Herein, not only the steering angle but also the velocity may be changed. At step S123, if the deviation does not exceed the threshold value, the operation of step S124 is omitted. At the next step S125, the ECU 180 determines whether a command to end operation has been received or not. The command to end operation may be given when the user uses the operational terminal 200 to instruct that the self-driving mode be stopped, or when the tractor 100A has arrived at a destination, for example. If the command to end operation has not been issued, control returns to step S121, and a similar operation is performed based on a newly-estimated position of the tractor 100A. Until the command to end operation is given, the ECU 180 repeats the operation from steps S121 to S125” and paragraph [0161], “the pressure sensor 135 measures the pressure of each tire (step S191). Next, the ECU 170 determines whether the measured value of pressure is lower than the lower limit value of a pre-designated reference range or not (step S192).” The system determines, via a control unit, whether a measured operating parameter, such as tire pressure, exceeds a limit value used in connection with steering control, and adjusts steering behavior when the threshold is exceeded. Thus, the system checks whether a steering-related limit value associated with an abnormal operating condition has been exceeded.), and (ii) as a second triggering condition, the tire inflation pressure is below a limit value provided for the emergency steering operation, the limit value being specified according to (See at least paragraph [0161], “the ECU 170 determines whether the measured value of pressure is lower than the lower limit value.” The system determines, via a control unit, whether the measured tire pressure is below a limit value used in connection with steering control, and adjusts steering behavior when the threshold is crossed. Thus, the system checks whether a steering-related limit value associated with an abnormal operating condition has been reached.); and activating a user interface via the control unit to output steering state information indicating a critical steering state when at least one of the first and second triggering conditions is met (See at least paragraph [0051], “If the detector detects an abnormal pressure (i.e., a low pressure state or a high pressure state) of a tire while the work vehicle is performing self-driving or autonomous driving, the controller causes one or both of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine to perform a predetermined specific operation(s). For example, when an abnormal pressure is detected, the controller may stop the operation of one or both of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine, or change the position and/or attitude of the implement. The position and/or attitude of the implement can be changed by driving a linkage device that links the work vehicle and the implement together, for example. When an abnormal pressure is detected during travel, the controller may transmit to an external device a signal (or an alert) indicating that a low pressure state has emerged. The external device may be a server computer in a system that manages the operating schedule of the work vehicle, or a computer used by the user, e.g., an information terminal” and paragraph [0132], “In the examples of FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, in addition to receiving the signal and recording the position of the tractor 100A, the processing device 560 of the server 500 may send an alert to an information terminal being used by the user. Such an alert may be sent by the ECU 180 in the tractor 100A. The user of the information terminal having received the alert can confirm the position of the tractor 100A at which the tire pressure of a tire 104 became lower, and take necessary measures, e.g., going to the site.” The system activates, via the control unit, transmission of an alert to a user information terminal when an abnormal tire pressure condition is detected, thereby outputting information indicating the steering condition of the vehicle.).
KURATA does not explicitly disclose, however, Ki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a fitted tire model or type, an axle load on a front and rear axle of the agricultural tractor, and a current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor (See at least paragraph [0018], “a speed sensor configured to identify a true ground speed of the work machine”, paragraph [0048], “The “W” of the above Brixius Model represents an axle vertical weight of the tractor 102. The axle vertical weight may be a sum of the axle vertical weights determined at each of the ground engaging mechanisms 108, 110 or the axle vertical weight at each ground engaging mechanism 108, 110. More specifically, the controller 202 may have stored therein dimension data for the specific tire coupled to the corresponding ground engaging mechanism 108, 110. The controller 202 may then utilize the tire pressure sensor 210 and the deflection sensor 212 to determine the tire pressure and deflection of the corresponding tire. The controller 202 may utilize the tire pressure, tire deflection, and tire dimension data to determine the axle vertical weight at each ground engaging mechanism 108, 110. The controller 202 may combine the individual axle vertical weight values from each of the ground engaging mechanisms 108, 110 to determine the total axle vertical weight “W” to be applied in the Brixius Model”, and paragraph [0050], “The variables “b”, “d”, and “h” are constants that relate to the tire dimensions. More specifically, “b” may represent the tire width, “d” may represent the tire diameter, and “h” may represent the tire section height. These values may be tire specific and preloaded into the controller 202 to correlate with the corresponding tire used on the ground engaging mechanism 108, 110. Similarly, the variable “δ” is another value preset in the controller 202 based on the particular tire used to determine the deflection ratio “δ/h” of the tire 109, 111.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of KURATA with the teachings of Ki such that the agricultural system of KURATA is further configured to utilize a fitted tire model or type, an axle load on the front and rear axles, and current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0018], [0048], [0050].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to provide optimal traction and efficient execution of the work function, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0004].).
With respect to claim 7, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1, which is commensurate in scope to claim 7, with claim 1 being drawn to a method for outputting steering state information and claim 7 being drawn to a corresponding system.
Regarding Claim 2, KURATA and Ki teach The method of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. KURATA teaches wherein the control unit activates the user interface when an imminent or already existing functional limitation of the steering mechanism is recognized by the control unit (See at least paragraph [0051], “If the detector detects an abnormal pressure (i.e., a low pressure state or a high pressure state) of a tire while the work vehicle is performing self-driving or autonomous driving, the controller causes one or both of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine to perform a predetermined specific operation(s). For example, when an abnormal pressure is detected, the controller may stop the operation of one or both of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine, or change the position and/or attitude of the implement. The position and/or attitude of the implement can be changed by driving a linkage device that links the work vehicle and the implement together, for example. When an abnormal pressure is detected during travel, the controller may transmit to an external device a signal (or an alert) indicating that a low pressure state has emerged. The external device may be a server computer in a system that manages the operating schedule of the work vehicle, or a computer used by the user, e.g., an information terminal” and paragraph [0058], “in a high pressure state, where the tire pressure is higher than the reference range, the grip of the tire 104 decreases relative to the case where the tire pressure is within the reference range, thus making it more difficult to turn. Therefore, if a high pressure state is detected during automatic steering or when beginning automatic steering, the controller 180 may increase the steering gain. The controller 180 may flexibly adjust the steering gain in accordance with the magnitude of the detected tire pressure when a low pressure state or a high pressure state is detected. With such control, even when the tire pressure deviates from the reference range, running properties can be obtained as expected.” The system recognizes, via the control unit, a condition in which steering becomes more difficult to perform and activates transmission of an alert to the user. Thus, the control unit activates the user interface when a functional limitation of the steering mechanism is recognized.).
With respect to claim 8, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 2, which is commensurate in scope to claim 8, with claim 2 being drawn to a method for outputting steering state information and claim 8 being drawn to a corresponding system.
Regarding Claim 4, KURATA and Ki teach The method of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. KURATA teaches wherein, when the second triggering condition is met, the control unit, in addition to outputting the steering state information (See at least paragraph [0051], “If the detector detects an abnormal pressure (i.e., a low pressure state or a high pressure state) of a tire while the work vehicle is performing self-driving or autonomous driving, the controller causes one or both of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine to perform a predetermined specific operation(s). For example, when an abnormal pressure is detected, the controller may stop the operation of one or both of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine, or change the position and/or attitude of the implement. The position and/or attitude of the implement can be changed by driving a linkage device that links the work vehicle and the implement together, for example. When an abnormal pressure is detected during travel, the controller may transmit to an external device a signal (or an alert) indicating that a low pressure state has emerged. The external device may be a server computer in a system that manages the operating schedule of the work vehicle, or a computer used by the user, e.g., an information terminal” and paragraph [0132], “In the examples of FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, in addition to receiving the signal and recording the position of the tractor 100A, the processing device 560 of the server 500 may send an alert to an information terminal being used by the user. Such an alert may be sent by the ECU 180 in the tractor 100A. The user of the information terminal having received the alert can confirm the position of the tractor 100A at which the tire pressure of a tire 104 became lower, and take necessary measures, e.g., going to the site.” The system activates, via the control unit, transmission of an alert to a user information terminal when an abnormal tire pressure condition is detected, thereby outputting information indicating the steering condition of the vehicle.).
KURATA does not explicitly disclose, however, Ki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches at the same time automatically increases the tire inflation pressure by activation of the tire inflation system (See at least paragraph [0020], “Another example includes providing a central tire inflation system to selectively alter a tire pressure of the at least one wheel assembly, wherein the controller selects and implements a first tire pressure that corresponds with the first cone index” and paragraph [0037], “Referring now to FIG. 2, a schematic representation 200 of the tractor 102 and trailer 104 is illustrated. In the schematic representation 200, a controller 202 is shown as part of the tractor 102. The controller 202 may have one or more memory unit and processor and be able to control and monitor many components of the tractor 102 and trailer 104. In one example, the controller 202 may communicate with a central tire inflation system 204 (hereinafter “CTIS”) to determine and control a tire pressure in any of the tires 109, 111 of the corresponding ground engaging mechanism 108, 110.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of KURATA with the teachings of Ki such that the agricultural system of KURATA is further configured to utilize a fitted tire model or type, an axle load on the front and rear axles, and current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor and at the same time automatically increases the tire inflation pressure by activation of the tire inflation system, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0018], [0020], [0037], [0048], [0050].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to provide optimal traction and efficient execution of the work function, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0004].).
With respect to claim 10, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 4, which is commensurate in scope to claim 10, with claim 4 being drawn to a method for outputting steering state information and claim 10 being drawn to a corresponding system.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURATA (US 20220192075 A1) in view of Ki (US 20190219489 A1) and Hrazdera (US 20050087378 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, KURATA and Ki teach The method of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. KURATA teaches wherein, when the first triggering condition is met, the control unit, in addition to outputting the steering state information (See at least paragraph [0051], “If the detector detects an abnormal pressure (i.e., a low pressure state or a high pressure state) of a tire while the work vehicle is performing self-driving or autonomous driving, the controller causes one or both of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine to perform a predetermined specific operation(s). For example, when an abnormal pressure is detected, the controller may stop the operation of one or both of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine, or change the position and/or attitude of the implement. The position and/or attitude of the implement can be changed by driving a linkage device that links the work vehicle and the implement together, for example. When an abnormal pressure is detected during travel, the controller may transmit to an external device a signal (or an alert) indicating that a low pressure state has emerged. The external device may be a server computer in a system that manages the operating schedule of the work vehicle, or a computer used by the user, e.g., an information terminal” and paragraph [0132], “In the examples of FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, in addition to receiving the signal and recording the position of the tractor 100A, the processing device 560 of the server 500 may send an alert to an information terminal being used by the user. Such an alert may be sent by the ECU 180 in the tractor 100A. The user of the information terminal having received the alert can confirm the position of the tractor 100A at which the tire pressure of a tire 104 became lower, and take necessary measures, e.g., going to the site.” The system activates, via the control unit, transmission of an alert to a user information terminal when an abnormal tire pressure condition is detected, thereby outputting information indicating the steering condition of the vehicle.).
KURATA and Ki do not explicitly disclose, however, Hrazdera, in the same field of endeavor, teaches automatically limits or reduces the current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor to a specified maximum value by intervention in a drive management system (See at least paragraph [0021], “The point of this driving mode is to vary the driving speed to the extent that a wheel slip preset, which is set, e.g., by means of a potentiometer, is not exceeded. Now if the wheel slip at the prescribed driving speed rises above the preset value, then the gear ratio and/or the engine speed of the drive are reduced smoothly (and with it also the driving speed) until wheel slip has fallen below the set value again. Then the gear ratio rises again. The control automatically adjusts the speed to the desired value for wheel slip, even if the set value for speed is above this value. In addition, a minimum permissible speed can be set. Dropping below this value is not possible, as on attaining the minimum speed the priority of wheel slip control is put out of action or further measures for reduction of wheel slip can be initiated. The change in engine speed is likewise a control parameter and influences wheel slip control, as in the event of very high wheel slip almost no load is measured from the vehicle (almost no advance occurs or at the engine only quite slight or no pressure is detected or no or only a small signal level runs from the traction power sensors) and thereby a great fall in engine speed comes about in vehicles equipped with engine-gearbox management systems. A change in wheel speed can be applied through all the axles, to pairs of axles or to each wheel individually. Through the controller the speed varies between the desired set value and the minimum set value in accordance with the preset value for wheel slip without intervention by the driver, through which the comfort for operation is further increased” and paragraph [0039], “If, during travelling, wheel slip gets into a range that exceeds the maximum permissible wheel slip, the all-wheel and differential locks are switched on automatically. Furthermore, the combined engine and gearbox control system attempts to find a setting at which lower wheel slip values occur. If reduction of wheel slip is possible only by reducing the wheel speed, then this is lowered down to the preset minimum permissible travelling speed.” Thus, when the preset slip threshold is exceeded, the controller automatically reduces engine speed and/or gear ratio, thereby reducing the traveling speed to a preset permissible speed, which corresponds to a specified maximum allowable speed under the detected condition, through control of the drivetrain.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of KURATA with the teachings of Ki and Hrazdera such that the agricultural system of KURATA is further configured to utilize a fitted tire model or type, an axle load on the front and rear axles, and current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor and at the same time automatically increases the tire inflation pressure by activation of the tire inflation system, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0018], [0020], [0037], [0048], [0050].), and automatically limits or reduces the current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor to a specified maximum value by intervention in a drive management system, as taught by Hrazdera (See paragraph [0021], [0039].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to provide optimal traction and efficient execution of the work function, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0004].). The motivation for doing so would be to reduce energy consumption and improve overall ground adhesion for all operating conditions to simplify operation and increase driver comfort, as taught by Hrazdera (See paragraph [0011].).
With respect to claim 9, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 3, which is commensurate in scope to claim 9, with claim 3 being drawn to a method for outputting steering state information and claim 9 being drawn to a corresponding system.
Regarding Claim 5, KURATA and Ki teach The method of claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. KURATA and Ki do not explicitly disclose, however, Hrazdera, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the limitation or reduction of the current traveling speed occurs after it has previously been approved by the driver (See at least paragraph [0016], “The driving mode switch in accordance with the invention permits selection of several driving modes according to the preset limiting values in relation to the preset wheel slip. At the same time the relevant devices for controlling the individual vehicle components are adjusted automatically in accordance with a minimized preset wheel slip. Activation of the wheel slip management system occurs by means of an additional push-button, the function of which must be activated afresh after each switching on/off of the ignition. At the same time the function of the push-button is displayed via suitable measures” and paragraph [0021], “The point of this driving mode is to vary the driving speed to the extent that a wheel slip preset, which is set, e.g., by means of a potentiometer, is not exceeded. Now if the wheel slip at the prescribed driving speed rises above the preset value, then the gear ratio and/or the engine speed of the drive are reduced smoothly (and with it also the driving speed) until wheel slip has fallen below the set value again. Then the gear ratio rises again. The control automatically adjusts the speed to the desired value for wheel slip, even if the set value for speed is above this value. In addition, a minimum permissible speed can be set. Dropping below this value is not possible, as on attaining the minimum speed the priority of wheel slip control is put out of action or further measures for reduction of wheel slip can be initiated. The change in engine speed is likewise a control parameter and influences wheel slip control, as in the event of very high wheel slip almost no load is measured from the vehicle (almost no advance occurs or at the engine only quite slight or no pressure is detected or no or only a small signal level runs from the traction power sensors) and thereby a great fall in engine speed comes about in vehicles equipped with engine-gearbox management systems. A change in wheel speed can be applied through all the axles, to pairs of axles or to each wheel individually. Through the controller the speed varies between the desired set value and the minimum set value in accordance with the preset value for wheel slip without intervention by the driver, through which the comfort for operation is further increased.” Accordingly, because the system must first be activated by the driver before automatic speed reduction occurs when the preset threshold is exceeded, the limitation or reduction of traveling speed occurs after it has been previously approved by the driver.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of KURATA with the teachings of Ki and Hrazdera such that the agricultural system of KURATA is further configured to utilize a fitted tire model or type, an axle load on the front and rear axles, and current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor and at the same time automatically increases the tire inflation pressure by activation of the tire inflation system, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0018], [0020], [0037], [0048], [0050].), and automatically limits or reduces the current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor to a specified maximum value by intervention in a drive management system, wherein the limitation or reduction of the current traveling speed occurs after it has previously been approved by the driver, as taught by Hrazdera (See paragraph [0016], [0021], [0039].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to provide optimal traction and efficient execution of the work function, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0004].). The motivation for doing so would be to reduce energy consumption and improve overall ground adhesion for all operating conditions to simplify operation and increase driver comfort, as taught by Hrazdera (See paragraph [0011].).
With respect to claim 11, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 5, which is commensurate in scope to claim 11, with claim 5 being drawn to a method for outputting steering state information and claim 11 being drawn to a corresponding system.
Regarding Claim 6, KURATA and Ki teach The method of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. KURATA and Ki do not explicitly disclose, however, Hrazdera, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the increase of the tire inflation pressure occurs after it has previously been approved by the driver (See at least paragraph [0016], “The driving mode switch in accordance with the invention permits selection of several driving modes according to the preset limiting values in relation to the preset wheel slip. At the same time the relevant devices for controlling the individual vehicle components are adjusted automatically in accordance with a minimized preset wheel slip. Activation of the wheel slip management system occurs by means of an additional push-button, the function of which must be activated afresh after each switching on/off of the ignition. At the same time the function of the push-button is displayed via suitable measures” and paragraph [0026], “In a further embodiment of the invention the area of tire in contact with the ground for the wheels arranged on the vehicle can be varied by altering the air pressure in the tires in accordance with the preset maximum wheel slip. Thus for example by reducing the air pressure in the tire the tire area in contact with the ground can be increased, which diminishes wheel slip.” Accordingly, because the wheel slip management system must first be activated by the driver via a push-button before the system automatically alters tire air pressure in accordance with a preset slip condition, the increase of tire inflation pressure occurs after it has been previously approved by the driver.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of KURATA with the teachings of Ki and Hrazdera such that the agricultural system of KURATA is further configured to utilize a fitted tire model or type, an axle load on the front and rear axles, and current traveling speed of the agricultural tractor and at the same time automatically increases the tire inflation pressure by activation of the tire inflation system, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0018], [0020], [0037], [0048], [0050].), wherein the increase of the tire inflation pressure occurs after it has previously been approved by the driver, as taught by Hrazdera (See paragraph [0016], [0026].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to provide optimal traction and efficient execution of the work function, as taught by Ki (See paragraph [0004].). The motivation for doing so would be to reduce energy consumption and improve overall ground adhesion for all operating conditions to simplify operation and increase driver comfort, as taught by Hrazdera (See paragraph [0011].).
With respect to claim 12, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 6, which is commensurate in scope to claim 12, with claim 6 being drawn to a method for outputting steering state information and claim 12 being drawn to a corresponding system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666