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 .
In response to amendment filed 06/17/2026, claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 5 and 10-11 have been canceled. Claim 12 is new.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites claim status of “original” when it should be stated “previously presented”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Iwase et al. (US 20210100156 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Iwase teaches, A method for controlling a work vehicle to which a work machine is detachably attached, the method comprising: (See paragraph 83-84, The rear portion of the traveling body 7 is coupled to a rotary tiller, which is an example of a work device 12, in a liftable/lowerable and rotatable manner via a three-point link mechanism 11 so that the tractor 1 may be designed for rotary tilling. Instead of the rotary tiller, the rear portion of the tractor 1 may be coupled to the work device 12 such as a plow, a harrow, a vertical harrow, a stubble cultivator, a seed planter, or a spraying device…paragraph 203, the work device 12, the multiple types of the work devices 12…may be coupled to the three-point link mechanism 11. This indicates detachable capability)
causing the work vehicle to autonomously travel along a target route; and (See paragraphs 99-101, The vehicle-mounted electronic control unit 18 may cause the tractor 1 to automatically travel along the target travel path P while acquiring the current position of its own (the current position of the tractor 1) using the positioning unit 21 based on the acquired path data.)
changing a setting item related to autonomous travel of the work vehicle in accordance with a state of the work machine attached to the work vehicle. (See fig. 11, paragraph 152, The tractor 1 travels while performing predetermined work with the work device 12 lowered in the lowering position or simply travels without performing predetermined work with the work device 12 lifted in the lifting position. The state of the work machine includes whether the work device is in the lowering position or the lifting position. Also see paragraph 153, fig. 12, The obstacle control unit 107 performs the obstacle detection process by using the masking range L1 for the lowering position when the work device 12 is located in the lowering position and performs the obstacle detection process by using the masking range L2 for the lifting position when the work device 12 is located in the lifting position.)
wherein the state of the work machine includes whether a posture of the work machine is either a retracted posture or an extended posture in a direction corresponding to a direction of travel of the work vehicle (See paragraph 152, The tractor 1 travels while performing predetermined work with the work device 12 lowered in the lowering position or simply travels without performing predetermined work with the work device 12 lifted in the lifting position. The lowering position corresponds to claimed extended posture and lifting position corresponds to claimed retracted posture, where work device is raised and retracted from the ground.)
In regards to claim 2, Iwase teaches the method for controlling the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the setting item includes an obstacle determination range in which a process is performed to avoid an obstacle when the obstacle is present around the work vehicle. (See abstract, a masking range setting unit that sets a masking range in which the detection of obstacles is not executed and the execution of the collision avoidance control is restricted; Any range besides the masking range nearby the working machine is a range where obstacle can be detected and should be avoided. Adjustment in the masking range automatically adjusts other range. Also see paragraphs 152-153)
In regards to claim 4, Iwase teaches the method for controlling the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the state of the work machine includes a type of the work machine. (See fig. 20, paragraphs 203-206, With regard to the work device 12, the multiple types of the work devices 12, such as a harrow, a vertical harrow, a stubble cultivator, a fertilizer applicator, a plow, a compost sprayer, a rake, a baler, a harvester, an offset mower, a tractor, or a boom sprayer, as well as a rotary tiller may be coupled to the three-point link mechanism 11… type/range-of-movement information is the information including not only the information associating the type of the work device 12 with the range of movement but also the information associating the type of the work device 12 with the masking range for the lowering position and the masking range for the lifting position.)
In regards to claim 6, Iwase teaches the method for controlling the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a sensor that detects an obstacle is attachable to the work vehicle in accordance with a type of the work machine. (See paragraph 128 and 139, the front lidar sensor 101 is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the antenna unit 80… the rear lidar sensor 102 is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the rear pillar 37 via the sensor support stay 301. Also see paragraphs 189-192 and fig. 17, part of the front work device 120 (the front loader 121) falls within the measurement range C of the front lidar sensor 101, and the masking range is set accordingly. This discloses a configuration in which obstacle sensors are attached in accordance with the type of work machine. Also see paragraph 197)
In regards to claim 7, Iwase teaches the method for controlling the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the setting item includes validity or invalidity of obstacle detection around the work vehicle. (See paragraph 177, “the masking range L is a range for limiting the execution of the collision avoidance control by the obstacle control unit 107 without detecting an obstacle. In the masking range L, although the lidar sensors 101, 102 measure a certain measurement target, the obstacle control unit 107 refrains from detecting the measurement target as an obstacle during the obstacle detection process”. Obstacle detection is invalid within masking range)
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase et al. (US 20210100156 A1) in view of Iwase (WO 2022118773 A1), hereinafter “Iwase2”. Examiner herein relies on attached Iwase2 with this Office Action for citations.
In regards to claim 3, Iwase teaches the method for controlling the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the target route includes a work route along which the work vehicle performs work on a work object and a movement route that connects the work routes to each other, when the state of the work machine is a first state, the setting item common to the work route and the movement route is used, (See fig. 11, paragraph 152, The tractor 1 travels while performing predetermined work with the work device 12 lowered in the lowering position or simply travels without performing predetermined work with the work device 12 lifted in the lifting position. The state of the work machine includes whether the work device is in the lowering position or the lifting position. Also see paragraph 153, fig. 12, The obstacle control unit 107 performs the obstacle detection process by using the masking range L1 for the lowering position when the work device 12 is located in the lowering position and performs the obstacle detection process by using the masking range L2 for the lifting position when the work device 12 is located in the lifting position. Here, claimed “first state” can be interpreted as “lifting position” and claimed “Second state” can be interpreted as “lowering position”. See fig. 3, paragraph 97, a plurality of work paths P1 having the identical straight distance and arranged parallel to each other with a certain distance corresponding to the work width in the central region R1; a connection path P2 that connects the start and the end of the adjacent work paths P1)
Iwase does not specifically teach, and when the state of the work machine is a second state, the setting items different for the work route and the movement route are used.
Iwase2 further discloses, and when the state of the work machine is a second state, the setting items different for the work route and the movement route are used. (See page 15, the detection processing device 19 may set different detection areas for each of the straight path and the turning path on which the work vehicle 10 travels. For example, the detection processing device 19 sets a wide detection area on the front side in the straight path, and sets a wide detection area in the turning direction in the turning path. In such a case, it is assumed that the width of the working machine is different between working and non-working. The main state is still at “working” state, non-working state is just temporary during turning)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Iwase to further comprise method taught by Iwase2 because by temporarily placing work machine as non-working state during turning process, field can be preserved. Also, setting wide detection area in the turning direction during turning can greatly enhance object detection, which can improve safety.
In regards to claim 8, Iwase teaches the method for controlling the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the setting item includes a vehicle speed of the work vehicle during autonomous travel. (Iwase teaches at paragraph 98, The path data includes, for example, the azimuth angle of the target travel path P, the set engine rotating velocity and the target travel speed set in accordance with the traveling mode)
While Iwase discloses vehicle speed as a parameter of the travel path, it does not explicitly disclose vehicle speed as a setting item that is changed based on the state of the attached work vehicle
Iwase2 further discloses, wherein the setting item includes a vehicle speed of the work vehicle during autonomous travel. (See pages 10-11, the working vehicle speed and engine rotation speed of the work vehicle 10 while work vehicle is at work, and turning vehicle speed and engine rotation speed of the work vehicle 10 is set by the operator. During turning, the work machine is temporarily in non-working state (page 15))
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the lifting/lowering state of Iwase to further comprise method taught by Iwase2 because by temporarily placing work machine as non-working state during turning process, field can be preserved. Also, setting wide detection area in the turning direction during turning can greatly enhance object detection, which can improve safety.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase et al. (US 20210100156 A1) in view of KINOSHITA AKIRA et al. (JP 2020051168 A). Examiner herein relies on attached translated copy of Kinoshita for citations.
In regards to claim 12, Iwase teaches, A method for controlling a work vehicle to which a work machine is detachably attached, the method comprising: (See paragraph 83-84, The rear portion of the traveling body 7 is coupled to a rotary tiller, which is an example of a work device 12, in a liftable/lowerable and rotatable manner via a three-point link mechanism 11 so that the tractor 1 may be designed for rotary tilling. Instead of the rotary tiller, the rear portion of the tractor 1 may be coupled to the work device 12 such as a plow, a harrow, a vertical harrow, a stubble cultivator, a seed planter, or a spraying device…paragraph 203, the work device 12, the multiple types of the work devices 12…may be coupled to the three-point link mechanism 11. This indicates detachable capability)
causing the work vehicle to autonomously travel along a target route; (See paragraphs 99-101, The vehicle-mounted electronic control unit 18 may cause the tractor 1 to automatically travel along the target travel path P while acquiring the current position of its own (the current position of the tractor 1) using the positioning unit 21 based on the acquired path data.)
changing a setting item related to autonomous travel of the work vehicle in accordance with a state of the work machine attached to the work vehicle; and (See fig. 11, paragraph 152, The tractor 1 travels while performing predetermined work with the work device 12 lowered in the lowering position or simply travels without performing predetermined work with the work device 12 lifted in the lifting position. The state of the work machine includes whether the work device is in the lowering position or the lifting position. Also see paragraph 153, fig. 12, The obstacle control unit 107 performs the obstacle detection process by using the masking range L1 for the lowering position when the work device 12 is located in the lowering position and performs the obstacle detection process by using the masking range L2 for the lifting position when the work device 12 is located in the lifting position.)
Iwase does not specifically teach, notifying a mounting state of at least one sensor in accordance with the work machine.
Kinoshita further teaches, notifying a mounting state of at least one sensor in accordance with the work machine. (See page 3 and fig. 5, as shown in FIG. 5 showing a screen of the display device 3, the controller (display control means) 6 causes the display device 3 to display a determination screen. On this determination screen, the determination result for each image sensor 20 is displayed at a time. At the center of the determination screen, an image of work machine 10 as viewed from above is displayed, and the determination screen is divided into four parts. Is displayed. FIG. 5 illustrates a case where the determination result of the image sensor 20 attached to the position A is “NG” and the determination result of the three image sensors 20 attached to the positions B to D is “OK”…page 6, The mounting state display device according to claim 3, wherein the display control means causes the display device to display the mounting state and the normal state of the image sensor selected by the selection means, respectively.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Iwase to further comprise method taught by Kinoshita because the workability of checking the mounting state of the plurality of image sensors 20 and adjusting as necessary can be improved via displaying (see abstract and page 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner would like to first clarify applicant’s remark on “Examiner Interview” in page 1 of the applicant’s argument section. Applicant recited, “During the interview, the rejection of claim 1 and proposed amendments were discussed. Although the Examiner maintained that Iwase’s connection mechanism extends and retracts to permit movement of his work machine, the Examiner indicated that Iwase’s work machine itself is only raised or lowered, and not extended or retracted”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the Examiner has not agreed to Iwase’s work machine itself only being raised or lowered, and not extended or retracted during interview. Examiner clearly explained fig. 11 and 17 of Iwase and how the components attached provide extension/retraction even though Iwase uses the terms such as lifting and lowering during early stage of the interview. Examiner even indicated in interview summary mailed 06/11/2026 that “Examiner told applicant that first proposed amendment is merely previous dependent claim 5 into independent form and told that Iwase explicitly discloses the proposed amendment”. It appears that there has been a miscommunication during the interview. During the interview, Examiner and applicants discussed figure 24 of applicant’s disclosure versus fig. 11 and 17 of Iwase, and Examiner has merely pointed out what the difference appears to be, and not the difference of Iwase in view of the proposed/previous claim language itself. In detail, Examiner noted it appears that the ‘height’ of the weeder as a whole is being extended/retracted whereas in fig. 11 and 17 of Iwase, only the attachments (portion) of the work machine are being extended/retracted, and further clarification of “retraction/extension” in the claim would be needed to overcome Iwase. Examiner explicitly mentioned that no agreement cannot be made unless the Examiner sees the claim language in formal response. Lastly, at the time of the interview, Examiner did not have time to review detailed description of fig. 24, and was making such statement only based on what the figure appeared to depict at the time. Therefore, Examiner has not agreed during interview that Iwase do not disclose “extension/retraction” and only performs “lowering and lifting”.
Figures 11 and 17 of Iwase clearly discloses claimed “extension/retraction” even though it only uses term such as “lifting” and “lowering”. As shown below (fig. 11 of Iwase), Iwase shows dotted line of the work device 12 when it is in “lifted” position, illustrating its retraction process. Thus, Iwase’s work device 12 performs both lifting and retracting. Had it only performed “lifting”, the work device 12 should then only be raised relative to the vertical axis. Furthermore, claimed “a posture of the work machine” encompasses only the attachment part being retracted because once the attachment is attached to the work vehicle, then the attachment is also construed as part of the work machine/vehicle itself.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For these reasons, Examiner maintains 35 USC 102 rejection for claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights