DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Amended Claims, Remarks, and Specification Amendment, filed on June 30, 2026. Claims 1-9 are pending in the case; Claim 1 is an independent claim. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
2. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, the Specification was objected to because the title was not descriptive (see Non-Final Rejection, pg. 3), but Specification Amendment filed on June 30, 2026, has rendered this objection moot.
3. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, it was noted that one or more claim limitations were being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 3-5). In the Remarks filed on June 30, 2026 (see pg. 5), Applicant does not appear to argue with the interpretation under § 112(f) and provides further support for the identified features in the instant Specification and the Drawings.
4. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, Claims 1-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as based on a disclosure which is not enabling (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 6-7). While Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite “determines whether or not there is work history information,” the claim still does not require an existence of the work history information before “estimates in advance” step is performed (it is not clear if or how the “estimating” step is performed when there is no work history information – the instant Specification appears to describe that the estimating step is not performed in that situation, but Claim 1 appears to contradict this and suggests that an estimation is performed nevertheless).
5. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, Claims 1-9 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 7-8). Applicant amended Claim 1 to recite “prior to route shift” and cited to Paragraphs 0069 and 0085-86 of the instant Specification for support (see Remarks, pg. 6), but this amendment appears to introduce additional ambiguities into the limitation at issue. It is not clear if the “route shift” is intended to be a predetermined event (note that instant Specification appears to suggest that a “route shift” illustrated in Fig. 4 “is performed in response to an instruction from the shift instruction unit 513,” thus the route shift could occur at any time) or if there is an estimated occurrence of the “route shift” that is used in determining “a work remaining area which will remain unworked during the work while traveling prior to route shift.” This rejection is maintained, as further discussed in the updated rejection below.
6. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, Claims 1-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 8-9). This rejection is maintained because the claim, as amended, still does not require an existence of the work history information before “estimates in advance” step is performed - it is not clear if or how the “estimating” step is performed when there is no work history information, and Claim 1 appears to contradict the instant Specification and suggest that an estimation is performed regardless.
7. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, Claims 1-9 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 9-10). This rejection is maintained because Claim 1, as amended, does not resolve previous ambiguities, and introduces additional ambiguities, with respect to “work remaining area.” As discussed above, it is not clear if the “route shift” is meant to be a predetermined event (i.e., not a shift that can occur at any time) or if the recited “prior to route shift” is intended to be interpreted differently from element 513 of the Specification.
8. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, Claims 8 and 9 were additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 10-12).
With respect to Claim 8, Applicant has merely provided the supporting paragraphs for the recited “shift instruction unit” (see Remarks, pg. 5), but the instant Specification (including these paragraphs) does not appear to explicitly limit the “shift instruction unit” to be implemented, at least in part, in hardware. Applicant has not “stat[ed] on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function,” as suggested in the corresponding rejection in the Non-Final Rejection (see pg. 11).
With respect to Claim 9, no arguments were presented by Applicant, other than “Applicant believes that the amendments described above to address any alleged enablement or written description issues also correct for any alleged indefiniteness” (see Remarks, pg. 6) but Claim 9 was not amended.
9. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, Claims 1-8 were rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 12-15). However, Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed on June 30, 2026, with respect to § 101 rejections (pgs. 6-9), particularly with respect to the argument that the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
10. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 7, 2026, Claims 1-9 were rejected under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103 (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 15-21). Applicant's arguments (see Remarks, pgs. 9-10), in view of Amended Claims filed therewith, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §§ 102 and § 103 rejections have been withdrawn (but note that the claims remain rejected under § 112).
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a shift instruction unit that shifts a traveling position of an own vehicle in a lateral direction…” in Claim 8.1
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see Instant Specification as published (US 2025/00280750 A1), Fig. 4 (element 513), ¶ 0063, describing “shift instruction unit”; see also ¶¶ 0027-28, generally describing “function units”; see also Remarks filed on June 30, 2026, pg. 5; but see discussion of § 112(b) rejection, below). For the purposes of examination, the shift instruction unit is being considered as a computing component (implemented in hardware or in a combination of hardware and software of the work vehicle).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
11. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a determination of an existence of a work history information of an adjacent route, which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Independent Claim 1, as amended, recites “determine[ing] whether or not there is work history information; estimat[ing] in advance, based on the work history information, occurrence of a work remaining area which will remain unworked during the work while traveling prior to route shift,” but while the estimating step references “based on the work history information,” it does not appear to require a positive determination of whether the work history information of the adjacent route actually exists (see Instant Specification as published (US 2025/00280750 A1), Fig. 5 (elements S2-S3), ¶¶ 0077-78). As currently presented, Claim 1 requires determining whether or not there is work history information, but it appears that the estimating step is still performed without limitation with respect to whether the work history information exists (note that the instant Specification only discloses that such estimation can be performed in a particular situation (i.e., when the work history information of adjacent route exists), which is not reflected in the claim)). Claim 1 does not appear to recite a predetermined travel route or an adjacent route, “based on the work history information” is broadly recited, and the claim broadly recites that an estimation of an occurrence of a work remaining area is estimated. Dependent claims do not appear to cure the deficiencies of independent Claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
12. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claim 1 recites “estimat[ing] in advance … occurrence of a work remaining area which will remain unworked during the work while traveling prior to route shift” but it is not what comprises “which will remain unworked during the work while traveling prior to route shift.” The instant Specification appears to suggest (see Fig. 5) that a work remaining area is determined based on the work history information of an adjacent route in comparison to a predetermined work route – stated differently, an occurrence of a work remaining area is determined when there is a deviation in the adjacent (already traveled) route and continuing or the predetermined work route would cause an area to be missed (unworked/uncultivated). However, dependent Claims 8 and 9 recite shifting/steering operations, respectively, that would appear to indicate the intent to “suppress the occurrence of the work remaining area” (see Specification as published, ¶ 0098), thus suggesting that at least a portion of the determined work remaining area would be worked on. In addition, dependent Claim 6 appears to further distinguish between “an unworked area where work by the work vehicle while traveling will be performed in the future” and “the work remaining area,” but it is not clear if the “unworked area where work by the work vehicle while traveling will be performed in the future” includes a portion of the “work remaining area” that will be worked on due to shifting/steering corrections, or if it simply refers to the predetermined route that is yet to be traveled. It is noted that Claim 1, as amended, recites “prior to route shift,” but it is not clear if the “route shift” is intended to be a predetermined event or an event performed in response to an instruction from the shift instruction unit (see element 514 of the instant Specification) which could occur at any time.
It follows that there appears to be an inadequate written description in the instant Specification regarding the recited “a work remaining area which will remain unworked during the work while traveling prior to route shift” of Claim 1. It appears that Applicant is arguing that the recited “work remaining area” refers to the entire area which would remain unworked before the shifting/steering corrections, but it is not clear how such determination is made (compare with instant Specification, Fig. 6, elements GL1 and GL2). Dependent claims do not appear to cure the deficiencies of independent Claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
13. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Independent Claim 1, as amended, recites “determine[ing] whether or not there is work history information; estimat[ing] in advance, based on the work history information, occurrence of a work remaining area which will remain unworked during the work while traveling prior to route shift,,” but the estimating step does not appear to require that the work history information of the adjacent route actually exists (see Instant Specification as published (US 2025/00280750 A1), Fig. 5 (elements S2-S3), ¶¶ 0077-78). As currently presented, Claim 1 requires determining whether or not there is work history information, but it appears that the estimating step is still performed without limitation with respect to whether the work history information exists (see also discussion of § 112(a), above). Dependent claims do not appear to cure the deficiencies of independent Claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
14. Claims 1-9 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “estimates in advance … occurrence of a work remaining area which will remain unworked during the work while traveling prior to route shift,” but it is not clear how this limitation is intended to be interpreted. It appears that the recited estimated “work remaining area” will remain unworked prior to route shift, but dependent Claims 8 and 9 appear to suggest that automatic steering is performed in order to work such areas (so that they do not remain unworked) – it is thus unclear if the “work remaining area” refers to an area that will remain unworked even after such corrections or if it refers to the area that but for the corrections would remain unworked2. With respect to “prior to route shift,” it is not clear if this event is predetermined or something that can occur at any time (see discussion of § 112(a) rejection, above). A further clarification is needed in the claim to ensure that it is interpreted in an intended manner – for example, if the intended interpretation is that the estimated “work remaining area” could potentially remain “unworked during the work while traveling” (unless corrected), then Applicant should consider introducing “a predetermined route” (see also omission of essential elements rejections, above) into the claim, such as “estimates in advance occurrence of a work remaining area which will remain unworked during the work while traveling on a/the predetermined route,” in order to clearly indicate how the claimed limitations are to be interpreted. Dependent claims do not appear to cure the deficiencies of independent Claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rationale (see also additional 112(b) rejections for individual dependent claims, below).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Claim 8 recites “a shift instruction unit that shifts a traveling position of an own vehicle in a lateral direction…” and this limitation appears to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose a particular structure that is required to perform this function. It is noted that the instant Specification mentions some examples functional units (see, for example, Specification (as published (US 2025/0280750 A1)), ¶ 0027-28 (“the above hardware and software cooperate to actuate the control device 10 as various function units”), but there does not appear to be any explicit disclosure or requirement that the shift instruction unit has to be implemented, at least in part, in hardware, thus a skilled artisan would not be able to readily understand which structure (or structures) are required to perform the claimed function. Therefore, Claim 8 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Claim 9 recites “wherein in a case where occurrence of the work remaining area is estimated, automatic steering is performed,” but it is not clear how this limitation is intended to be interpreted. In other words, it is not clear if this limitation requires activation of automatic steering in response to occurrence of the estimation step (otherwise, automatic steering would be inactive) or if it requires a particular automatic steering action in response to the estimation step. The instant Specification appears to suggest that automatic steering is utilized in the automatic travel mode (regardless of the estimation step) (see Specification as filed, ¶ 0042) but also suggests performing automatic steering to suppress the occurrence of the work remaining area (see Specification as filed, ¶ 0098). The claim should be further clarified to ensure that it is interpreted in the intended manner (i.e., that a particular automatic steering control is performed in a particular manner).
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 extension fee 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 DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 ”It is noted that the recited limitation uses a generic placeholder (i.e., unit) coupled with functional language (i.e., shift instruction), without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function (and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier).
2 It is noted that dependent Claim 6 further distinguishes between “an unworked area where work by the work vehicle while traveling will be performed in the future” and “the work remaining area,” but it is not clear if the “unworked area where work by the work vehicle while traveling will be performed in the future” includes a portion of the “work remaining area” that will be worked on due to shifting/steering corrections, or if it simply refers to the predetermined route that is yet to be traveled.
Prosecution Insights