DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This action is FINAL.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection, “In this regard, the Action refers to paragraph [0052] of Foster as teaching the "restraining..." limitation. However, as shown in para. [0052] below, Foster merely describes the ability of "a user to customize or alter equipment configuration code files 200" for inputting equipment settings for agricultural equipment…
Thus, Foster merely discloses that the user can change the machine setting files according to their preference. There is no mention of any autonomous travel options being provided to the user for the user to select (e.g., from a user interface), let alone a restraining of options (e.g., non- corresponding information) that do not correspond to a work machine attached to the work vehicle. At best, Foster mentions that the user may input "separate configuration code files 200 for tilling, seeding, and harvesting, each configured to work with a corresponding implement 24." Even assuming arguendo that the implement 24 were to read on the claimed work machine (to which the Applicant does not agree), there is no teaching or suggestion of any active step of restraining any options (e.g., from the user interface) based on a determination that the option does not correspond to a type of work machine detachably attached to the work vehicle.” (Remarks, pg. 7)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding point (a), Foster teaches autonomous control options being available for a user to select at an interface (Foster, para. [0033] “The user 100 may interact with the command and control software via the operator interface 204. The command and control software may be in communication with the command and control system 110, which may provide instructions (e.g., mission paths, minimum turning radius, action points, etc.) to the control system 206.”). Additionally, Foster further teaches only showing the options for the work implement selected and based on the users preferences (Foster, para. [0052] “For example, for a given tractor 22, the user may have separate equipment configuration code files 200 for tilling, seeding, and harvesting, each configured to work with a corresponding implement 24. In another example, two different equipment operators may create their own equipment configuration code file 200 for the same tractor because they prefer to use different settings when operating the tractor 22.”), so only the settings for the corresponding implement will be available for the user to select. In other words, depending on the equipment selected, the settings corresponding to that equipment are enabled and all the other settings are disabled. Since Foster teaches autonomous actions being available to a user at an interface based on the work implement that is being used, Foster teaches causing a user to select the autonomous travel information from a plurality of pieces of candidate information and restraining the selection of non-corresponding information that does not correspond to a type of the work machine attached to the work vehicle.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster et al. (US 20170318735 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Foster teaches:
A method for controlling a work vehicle to which a work machine is detachably attached, the method comprising:
causing the work vehicle to autonomously travel based on autonomous travel information set in association with the work machine;
(Foster – [0020] “Various pieces of agricultural equipment (e.g., tractors, harvesters, seeders, tillers, etc.) may be used individually, or in conjunction with one another (e.g., work vehicle and implement, or multiple work vehicles, each with or without an implement), to perform various agricultural tasks (tilling, planting, spraying, harvesting, etc.) at an agricultural application (e.g., a farm). In some embodiments, multiple vehicles, with or without implements, may perform the same or different agricultural tasks on a field. The various agricultural tasks may be coordinated by a command and control system in communication with the vehicles via a communication network (e.g., wireless radio, satellite communication, etc.) The command and control system may be used for planning vehicle paths, assigning segments of vehicle paths, setting action point locations (e.g., where to raise or lower implement), define the minimum turning radius for various equipment combinations, etc.”)
causing a user to select the autonomous travel information from a plurality of pieces of candidate information; and
(Foster – [0033] “The user 100 may interact with the command and control software via the operator interface 204. The command and control software may be in communication with the command and control system 110, which may provide instructions (e.g., mission paths, minimum turning radius, action points, etc.) to the control system 206. It should be understood, however, that the components and/or systems shown in FIG. 3 are merely exemplary and that a piece of equipment 22, 24 may have additional components and/or systems, fewer components and/or systems, or various other combinations of components and/or systems.”)
restraining selection of non-corresponding information that does not correspond to a type of the work machine attached to the work vehicle among the plurality of pieces of candidate information.
(Foster – [0052] “In block 506, the user 100 may customize or alter equipment configuration code files 200 for specific tasks, seasons, weather conditions, operators, etc. For example, the user 100 may download a basic equipment configuration code file 200 from a manufacturer's 20 library. If the user 100 wants to alter one or more equipment configuration code files 200 for various conditions, the user may. For example, for a given tractor 22, the user may have separate equipment configuration code files 200 for tilling, seeding, and harvesting, each configured to work with a corresponding implement 24. In another example, two different equipment operators may create their own equipment configuration code file 200 for the same tractor because they prefer to use different settings when operating the tractor 22.”)
Regarding claim 2,
Foster teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Foster further teaches:
wherein the autonomous travel information includes a target route.
(Foster – [0020] “The various agricultural tasks may be coordinated by a command and control system in communication with the vehicles via a communication network (e.g., wireless radio, satellite communication, etc.) The command and control system may be used for planning vehicle paths, assigning segments of vehicle paths, setting action point locations (e.g., where to raise or lower implement), define the minimum turning radius for various equipment combinations, etc.”)
Regarding claim 5,
Foster teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Foster further teaches:
further comprising presenting a type of the work machine corresponding to the selected autonomous travel information.
(Foster – [0055] “FIG. 9 is a screenshot 600 from the command and control software showing information (which may be part of the equipment configuration code file 200) for a towed implement 24. For example, the displayed information includes the attachment type, the attachment method, row overlap, maximum speed, maximum engaged speed, maximum turn speed, minimum turn radius, working width, width, tongue length, length, and foredeck length. It should be understood, however, that the screenshot 600 of FIG. 9 is merely an example and that the displayed information may vary.”)
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Additionally, Foster further teaches:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
(Foster – [0038] “The memory 212 may be any tangible, non-transitory, computer readable medium that is capable of storing instructions executable by the processor 210 and/or data that may be processed by the processor 210.”)
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 recites a system comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11,
Foster teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Foster further teaches:
A work vehicle comprising:
the work vehicle control system according to claim 10; and
a machine body to which the work machine is detachably attached.
(Foster – [0022] “The dealer may have an inventory of agricultural vehicles 22 (e.g., tractors), pieces of add-on equipment 24 (e.g., implements that may be towed by or carried by the vehicle) to be used with one or more agricultural vehicles 22, or agricultural systems 26 that include vehicles 22 and implements 24. In some embodiments, the vehicle 22 may be a tractor or a support vehicle that does not include an implement. In such cases, the vehicle 22 may be configured to attach to a piece of add-on equipment 24 to perform an agricultural task. In other embodiments, the vehicle 22 may include an implement or attachment for performing an agricultural task (e.g., a combine).”)
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 20170318735 A1) in view of Kean et al. (US 20220382274 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Foster teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Foster does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Kean teaches:
further comprising, when the selection of the non-corresponding information is restrained, notifying that the non-corresponding information does not correspond to the type of the work machine attached to the work vehicle.
(Kean – [0079] “In the alternative, as represented in FIG. 14, a box corresponding to the first automated task may be highlighted (e.g., color coded red) 380 to indicate that manual takeover of the associated operation is required as automation is not available or otherwise advisable in view of, e.g., problems identifying the image elements even with the contextual inputs as described above.”)
Foster and Kean are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a work vehicle based on operator input. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster with Kean to include displaying commands that do not correspond to the current situation and notifying the user about the non-corresponding information in order to provide site owners with increased confidence that even a new operator will not damage the work machine (Kean, para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 4,
Foster teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Foster further teaches:
wherein when the autonomous travel information is selected, the plurality of pieces of candidate information is displayed on a selection screen, and
(Foster – [0056] “FIG. 10 is a screenshot 650 from the command and control software showing a vehicle 22 towing an implement 24. The screenshot 650 may be similar to what is seen by the operator 100 (e.g., via the operator interface 204) as they perform an agricultural task. Alternatively, the screenshot 650 may be what the user 100 sees as they set up the vehicle 22 and implement 24 in the command and control circuitry.”)
Foster does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Kean teaches:
the selection screen includes the non-corresponding information.
(Kean – [0079] “In the alternative, as represented in FIG. 14, a box corresponding to the first automated task may be highlighted (e.g., color coded red) 380 to indicate that manual takeover of the associated operation is required as automation is not available or otherwise advisable in view of, e.g., problems identifying the image elements even with the contextual inputs as described above.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster with Kean to include displaying commands that do not correspond to the current situation and notifying the user about the non-corresponding information in order to provide site owners with increased confidence that even a new operator will not damage the work machine (Kean, para. [0010]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 20170318735 A1) in view of Hiekata (US 20190093321 A1).
Regarding claim 6,
Foster teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Foster does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Hiekata teaches:
further comprising, in a case where the work machine attached to the work vehicle is replaced between selection of the autonomous travel information and start of autonomous travel, restraining the start of the autonomous travel when the type of the work machine after replacement does not correspond to the selected autonomous travel information.
(Hiekata – [0079] “On the other hand, if the variable ind is not equal to the variable ind′ (NO in S716), the attachment recognition unit 123 determines that the attachment 17 has been changed, updates the variable ind′ with the variable ind, and causes the notification unit 140 to notify that the attachment 17 has been changed (S717). In this case, the notification unit 140 may output a message using a voice or image such as “Attachment has been changed.”. After this, as the updated variable ind′ indicates, the reference attachment is recognized as the attachment 17 attached to the work device 4, and interference prevention control and the like are performed.”)
Hiekata is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of recognizing attachments on work vehicles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster with Hiekata to include preventing control of the vehicle when an attachment has been changed in order to ensure that the operation control of a work device according to the attachment functions effectively (Hiekata, para. [0002]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 20170318735 A1) in view of Hiekata (US 20190093321 A1) and in further view of Kean et al. (US 20220382274 A1).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Foster and Hiekata teaches the limitations of claim 6.
The combination of Foster and Hiekata does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Kean teaches:
wherein when the start of the autonomous travel is restrained, a user is caused to select the autonomous travel information again from the plurality of pieces of candidate information.
(Kean – [0069] “In other cases, where for example the image processing may be adversely affected by environmental conditions, the system may pause the automation sequence in recognition that it could not correctly identify the top edge 304 of the truck bin… The system may accordingly prompt the user via the user interface 116 for manual assistance in the image processing and automation sequence (i.e., “yes” in response to the query in step 450). Again as shown in FIG. 7, the first portion of the loading sequence (“Approach & Boom”) is highlighted accordingly, for example with a flashing indicator or using a different color such as yellow to distinguish from the aforementioned green.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster and Hiekata with Kean to include displaying commands that do not correspond to the current situation and notifying the user about the non-corresponding information in order to provide site owners with increased confidence that even a new operator will not damage the work machine (Kean, para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Foster and Hiekata teaches the limitations of claim 6.
The combination of Foster and Hiekata does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Kean teaches:
further comprising, when the start of the autonomous travel is restrained, notifying that the autonomous travel information does not correspond to the type of the work machine attached to the work vehicle.
(Kean – [0079] “In the alternative, as represented in FIG. 14, a box corresponding to the first automated task may be highlighted (e.g., color coded red) 380 to indicate that manual takeover of the associated operation is required as automation is not available or otherwise advisable in view of, e.g., problems identifying the image elements even with the contextual inputs as described above.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster and Hiekata with Kean to include displaying commands that do not correspond to the current situation and notifying the user about the non-corresponding information in order to provide site owners with increased confidence that even a new operator will not damage the work machine (Kean, para. [0010]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Fujimoto (US 20210337715 A1) discloses an adjustment disabling unit for disabling manual adjustment of the set work height or set work depth with each of the adjustment switches after the judgement in a case where the it is judged by the communication state judgement unit 1that an abnormality has been occurring to the communication state.
Miyashita et al. (US 20210120729 A1) discloses outputting a signal that the setting mode is enabled when it is ON, and outputs a signal that the setting mode is disabled when it is OFF. The setter switch also outputs a signal to the display device that the setting mode is enabled when it is ON, and outputs a signal to the display device that the setting mode is disabled when it is OFF.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights