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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/087,075 filed on 03/21/2025.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/712,596, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.63/712,583 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.63/712,576 filed October 28, 2024, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/741,606 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/741,538 filed January 03, 2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2026 and 05/18/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter (US20240343156A1) in view of Schroeder (US 20240090362 A1), further in view of Christie (WO2014151398A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17:
Reiter teaches:
A vehicle system for controlling at least one vehicle, the vehicle system comprising: one or more processing circuits configured to: (Reiter, para [08], “dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle… a control unit (e.g., a controller including a processor and memory)
and control operation of the at least one vehicle to navigate along a route between a starting position and the operating position;( Reiter, claim 1, “a control unit a covered route between a start position of the work vehicle at the site of the charging station and a current operating position, which differs from the start position”, and para [22], “the associated course of the route … may be stored by the control unit. As a result of the data which is added each time the same route is traveled”)
wherein the at least one vehicle is configured to be charged at the starting position such that the at least one vehicle is charged prior to an operator arriving at the at least one vehicle (Reiter, para [08], “a start position of the work vehicle at the site of the charging station”, and para [04], “If the charge status falls below a certain specified minimum charge status, the driver receives corresponding information via the vehicle display, which prompts the driver to visit the nearest charging station”) Examiner note: Reiter teaches an electrically operated work vehicle is configured to be charged at the starting position where the charging station is located. It is straightforward and obvious application of design choice to charge the working vehicle before the operator’s arrival.
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Schroeder teaches:
monitor an operating position of the at least one vehicle, the operating position associated with a location of the at least one vehicle relative to an area and an orientation of the at least one vehicle relative to the area; (Schroeder, Fig.1 depicts a work vehicle equipped with a field characteristics sensor(s) (102A) is used to monitor the vehicle’s the position or orientation relative to the field , and para [17], “the disclosed system and method allow for the position or orientation of the field characteristics sensor(s) to be automatically monitored … relative to the surface of the field”)
and wherein controlling operation of the at least one vehicle includes controlling at least one of the prime mover and the steering system. (Schroeder, Fig.1 depicts an operator's cab 22 may be supported by a portion of the chassis 20 and may house various input devices (e.g., one or more user interfaces 120) for permitting an operator to control the operation of one or more components of the work vehicle including the engine and steering system.)
PNG
media_image1.png
471
996
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Schroeder in order to monitor an operating position of the at least one vehicle, the operating position associated with a location of the at least one vehicle relative to an area and an orientation of the at least one vehicle relative to the area. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Schroeder’s field monitor system as “improved agricultural system and method for monitoring field characteristics within a field” (Schroeder, Description).
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Christie teaches:
and is positioned at the same operating position as when the operator left the at least one vehicle. (Christie, para [90], “Trail 1510 indicates that after time T4, vehicle one ("VI") left location 1500 … and then returned back to the same location 1500 around time T7.”) Examiner note: Christie teaches operator drove a work vehicle left the location 1500 at time T4 and then returned back to the same location at time T7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Christie in order to include and is positioned at the same operating position as when the operator left the at least one vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Christie’s working vehicle management system in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 13:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reiter teaches:
and wherein the second vehicle is charged prior to the operator arriving at the at least one vehicle (Reiter, para [08], “a start position of the work vehicle at the site of the charging station”, and para [04], “If the charge status falls below a certain specified minimum charge status, the driver receives corresponding information via the vehicle display, which prompts the driver to visit the nearest charging station”) Examiner note: Reiter teaches an electrically operated work vehicle is configured to be charged at the starting position where the charging station is located. It would be straightforward and obvious application of design choice to charge the working vehicle before the operator’s arrival.
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Schroeder teaches:
monitor the operating position of the first vehicle; (Schroeder, Fig.1 depicts a work vehicle equipped with a field characteristics sensor(s) (102A) which capable to monitor the vehicle’s the position or orientation relative to the field , and para [17], “the disclosed system and method allow for the position or orientation of the field characteristics sensor(s) to be automatically monitored … relative to the surface of the field”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Schroeder in order to monitor the operating position of the first vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Schroeder’s field monitor system as “improved agricultural system and method for monitoring field characteristics within a field” (Schroeder, Description).
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Christie teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the at least one vehicle includes a first vehicle and a second vehicle of the same type as the first vehicle, wherein the one or more processing circuits configured to: (Christie, para [88], “The server 1370 analyzes data trails 1400 from multiple vehicles to identify time periods when two of the vehicles may be interacting with each other”, claim 12, “a processor that executes software instructions, accessed from the storage;”)
control operation of the first vehicle to navigate along the route from the operating position to the starting position; and control operation of the second vehicle to navigate along the route from the starting position to the operating position; (Christie, para [89], “Figure 15 shows a first trail 1510 for a first vehicle and a second trail 1520 for a second vehicle approaching each other at location 1500.”)
and is positioned at the same operating position as the first vehicle when the operator left the first vehicle. (Christie, para [90], “Trail 1510 indicates that after time T4, vehicle one ("VI") left location 1500 … and then returned back to the same location 1500 around time T7.”) Examiner note: Christie teaches operator drove a work vehicle left the location 1500 at time T4 and then returned back to the same location at time T7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Christie in order to include wherein the at least one vehicle includes a first vehicle and a second vehicle of the same type as the first vehicle, wherein the one or more processing circuits configured to control operation of the first vehicle to navigate along the route from the operating position to the starting position; and control operation of the second vehicle to navigate along the route from the starting position to the operating position; and is positioned at the same operating position as the first vehicle when the operator left the first vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Christie’s working vehicle management system in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 15:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits include at least one of (i) a first processing circuit configured to be located on the at least one vehicle or (ii) a second processing circuit configured to be located remote from the at least one vehicle. (Reiter, para [08], “dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle… a control unit (e.g., a controller including a processor and memory)
Regarding claim 20:
Reiter teaches:
control operation of the work vehicles to navigate at least partially along a route between chargers and the operation positions, ( Reiter, claim 1, “a control unit a covered route between a start position of the work vehicle at the site of the charging station and a current operating position, which differs from the start position”, para [05], “agricultural work vehicles often do not have the option of recharging “en route”. It is instead necessary to return to the yard for this, and specifically to a charging station which is permanently installed”)
wherein the chargers are configured to charge the first vehicle and the second vehicle such that the first vehicle and the second vehicle are charged prior to an operator arriving at the first vehicle or the second vehicle ( Reiter, para [05], “agricultural work vehicles often do not have the option of recharging “en route”. It is instead necessary to return to the yard for this, and specifically to a charging station which is permanently installed”) Examiner note: Reiter teaches the electrically operated agricultural work vehicles are configured to be charged at the starting position where the charging station. It would be straightforward and obvious application of design choice to charge the working vehicles before the operators’ arrival.
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Schroeder teaches:
monitor a first operating position of the first vehicle, the first operating position associated with a location of the first vehicle relative to a first operation zone within an area and an orientation of the first vehicle relative to the first operation zone; (Schroeder, Fig.1 depicts a work vehicle equipped with a field characteristics sensor(s) (102A) which capable to monitor the vehicle’s the position or orientation relative to the field , and para [17], “the disclosed system and method allow for the position or orientation of the field characteristics sensor(s) to be automatically monitored … relative to the surface of the field”)
monitor a second operating position of the second vehicle, the second operating position associated with a location of the second vehicle relative to a second operation zone within the area and an orientation of the second vehicle relative to the second operation zone; (Schroeder teaches a method of monitoring vehicle operating position and orientation could be implemented with multiple work vehicles in para [48], “it should be appreciated that the disclosed method 300 may be implemented with work vehicles”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Schroeder in order to monitor a first operating position of the first vehicle, the first operating position associated with a location of the first vehicle relative to a first operation zone within an area and an orientation of the first vehicle relative to the first operation zone and monitor a second operating position of the second vehicle, the second operating position associated with a location of the second vehicle relative to a second operation zone within the area and an orientation of the second vehicle relative to the second operation zone. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Schroeder’s field monitor system as “improved agricultural system and method for monitoring field characteristics within a field” (Schroeder, Description).
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Christie teaches:
A vehicle system comprising: a first vehicle; a second vehicle; one or more processing circuits configured to: (Christie, para [88], “The server 1370 analyzes data trails 1400 from multiple vehicles to identify time periods when two of the vehicles may be interacting with each other”, claim 12, “a processor that executes software instructions, accessed from the storage;”)
and control operation of the first vehicle and the second vehicle to navigate at least partially along a route …and the first operating position and the second operating position, respectively; (Christie, para [89], “Figure 15 shows a first trail 1510 for a first vehicle and a second trail 1520 for a second vehicle approaching each other at location 1500.”)
and are positioned at the same operating positions as when the operator left the first vehicle or the second vehicle. (Christie, para [90], “Trail 1510 indicates that after time T4, vehicle one ("VI") left location 1500 … and then returned back to the same location 1500 around time T7.”) Examiner note: Christie teaches operator drove a first work vehicle left the location 1500 at time T4 and then returned back to the same location at time T7. It would be straightforward and obvious application of design choice to apply same method to a second work vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Christie in order to include a vehicle system comprising: a first vehicle; a second vehicle; one or more processing circuits configured to control operation of the first vehicle and the second vehicle to navigate at least partially along a route and the first operating position and the second operating position, respectively; and are positioned at the same operating positions as when the operator left the first vehicle or the second vehicle.. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Christie’s working vehicle management system in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-12, 14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter (US20240343156A1) in view of Schroeder (US 20240090362 A1), further in view of Christie (WO2014151398A1) and Matsuzaki (US 20160174453 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the at least one vehicle is a follower vehicle, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to control operation of the follower vehicle to follow a leader along the route to navigate to the operating position.( Matsuzaki, para [99], “the following work vehicle traveling along a same traveling path as the leading work vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein the at least one vehicle is a follower vehicle, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to control operation of the follower vehicle to follow a leader along the route to navigate to the operating position. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 3:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie, Matsuzaki as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 2, wherein the leader is a leader vehicle configured to navigate along the route. ( Matsuzaki, para [99], “the following work vehicle traveling along a same traveling path as the leading work vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein the leader is a leader vehicle configured to navigate along the route. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 4:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie, Matsuzaki as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 2, wherein the leader is a user with an external device navigating along the route. ( Matsuzaki, para [99], “the following work vehicle traveling along a same traveling path as the leading work vehicle”, para [46], “the sub work vehicle implement remote control module 65 includes a remote controller which is operated by the driver of the main work vehicle 1P, and a control signal generated by a remote control operation will be wirelessly forwarded by an implement control unit 31 c to the sub work vehicle 1C, whereby the cultivator implement 5 of the sub work vehicle 1C is controlled”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein the leader is a user with an external device navigating along the route. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 5:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie, Matsuzaki as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Reiter teaches:
the operating position is a first operating position, and the route is a first route, ( Reiter, claim 1, “a control unit a covered route between a start position of the work vehicle at the site of the charging station and a current operating position, which differs from the start position”, and para [22], “the associated course of the route … may be stored by the control unit. As a result of the data which is added each time the same route is traveled”)
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Schroeder teaches:
and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to monitor a second operating position of a second follower vehicle, (Schroeder teaches the disclosed method of monitoring vehicle operating position and orientation could be implemented with multiple work vehicles in para [48], “it should be appreciated that the disclosed method 300 may be implemented with work vehicles”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Schroeder in order to include wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to monitor a second operating position of a second follower vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Schroeder’s field monitor system as “improved agricultural system and method for monitoring field characteristics within a field” (Schroeder, Description).
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Christie teaches:
and control operation of the second follower vehicle to navigate along a second route between a starting position and the second operating position. (Christie, para [89], “Figure 15 shows … a second trail 1520 for a second vehicle approaching each other at location 1500.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Christie in order to include control operation of the second follower vehicle to navigate along a second route between a starting position and the second operating position. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Christie’s working vehicle management system in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 2, wherein the follower vehicle is a first follower vehicle, ( Matsuzaki, para [99], “the following work vehicle traveling along a same traveling path as the leading work vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein the follower vehicle is a first follower vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 6:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie, Matsuzaki as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Christie teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 5, wherein the first route and the second route extend, at least partially, along a common route. (Christie depicts in Fig. 16 that vehicle 2 and vehicle 3 travel route extended along a common route of location 1500.)
PNG
media_image2.png
579
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Christie in order to include wherein the first route and the second route extend, at least partially, along a common route. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Christie’s working vehicle management system in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 7:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie, Matsuzaki as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Christie teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 6, wherein the common route extends past a first operation zone and a second operation zone within the area, the first operation zone and the second operation zone including the first operating position and the second operating position, respectively. (Christie depicts in Fig. 16 that vehicle 2 and vehicle 3 travel route extended along a common route of location 1500 which past a first operation zone and a second operation zone within the area, the first operation zone and the second operation zone including the first operating position and the second operating position, respectively.)
PNG
media_image2.png
579
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Christie in order to include wherein the common route extends past a first operation zone and a second operation zone within the area, the first operation zone and the second operation zone including the first operating position and the second operating position, respectively. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Christie’s working vehicle management system in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 8:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie, Matsuzaki as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 6, wherein the leader is a leader vehicle, ( Matsuzaki, para [99], “the leading work vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein the leader is a leader vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Christie teaches:
wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to monitor a third operating position of the leader vehicle, and control operation of the leader vehicle to navigate along a third route between a starting position and the third operating position, wherein the third route extends, at least partially, along the common route, and wherein the third operating position is the last operating position of a group of operating positions including the first operating position, the second operating position, and the third operating position along the common route. (Christie depicts in Fig. 16 that three operation positions of 1510, 1530 and 1600 along common route location of 1500.)
PNG
media_image2.png
579
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Christie in order to include wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to monitor a third operating position of the leader vehicle, and control operation of the leader vehicle to navigate along a third route between a starting position and the third operating position, wherein the third route extends, at least partially, along the common route, and wherein the third operating position is the last operating position of a group of operating positions including the first operating position, the second operating position, and the third operating position along the common route. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Christie’s working vehicle management system in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claims 9, 18:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 17. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to autonomously control operation of the at least one vehicle based on sensor data to navigate along the route between the starting position and the operating position.( Matsuzaki, para [48], “The path calculation module 74 calculates a target traveling path for use in the unmanned traveling of the sub tractor”, and para [69], “The sub tractor 1C is caused to travel to the vicinity of the cultivation start point based on the calculated traveling path”, para [56], “In order to activate the RTK-GPS, it is necessary to set an RTK base station adjacent the field as the work target”, and para [46], “detects a position of its own, that is, a position of the main tractor 1P, with utilizing RTK-GPS (Real Time Kinematic GPS (Global Positioning System)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to autonomously control operation of the at least one vehicle based on sensor data to navigate along the route between the starting position and the operating position. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 11:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein, responsive to receiving a signal associated with an operation zone, ( Matsuzaki, para [46], “The main vehicle position detection module 61 detects a position of its own, that is, a position of the main tractor 1P, with utilizing RTK-GPS (Real Time Kinematic GPS (Global Positioning System)). The main traveling track calculation section 62 calculates a traveling track of the main tractor 1P from the position detected by the main vehicle position detection module 61. The calculated traveling track of the main tractor 1P will be made into data, which is then transmitted to the sub work vehicle 1C. The sub work vehicle implement remote control module 65 has a function of wirelessly adjusting, from the main work vehicle 1P, various states of the cultivator implement 5 mounted on the sub work vehicle 1C”)
the one or more processing circuits are configured to control operation of the at least one vehicle to navigate along the route to the operating position associated with the location.(, para [48], “This sub tractor 1C effects unmanned traveling in the central work land CL along a pre-calculated central work land traveling path and effects unmanned follow-up traveling to follow the main tractor 1P”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein, responsive to receiving a signal associated with an operation zone, the one or more processing circuits are configured to control operation of the at least one vehicle to navigate along the route to the operating position associated with the location. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claims 12 and 19:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie, Matsuzaki as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11 and 18. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 11, wherein the signal associated with the operation zone received by the one or more processing circuits is transmitted by an external device in response to a user input to the external device.( Matsuzaki, para [46], “the sub work vehicle implement remote control module 65 includes a remote controller which is operated by the driver of the main work vehicle 1P, and a control signal generated by a remote control operation will be wirelessly forwarded by an implement control unit 31 c to the sub work vehicle 1C”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein the signal associated with the operation zone received by the one or more processing circuits is transmitted by an external device in response to a user input to the external device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Regarding claim 14:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Matsuzaki teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits configured to: receive a request indicative of a characteristic associated with a vehicle; and control operation of a respective vehicle of the at least one vehicle that matches the characteristic to navigate along the route to the operating position; and wherein the characteristic includes at least one of a type of the vehicle or a capability of the vehicle. ( Matsuzaki, para [46], “the sub work vehicle implement remote control module 65 includes a remote controller which is operated by the driver of the main work vehicle 1P, and a control signal generated by a remote control operation will be wirelessly forwarded by an implement control unit 31 c to the sub work vehicle 1C, , whereby the cultivator implement 5 of the sub work vehicle 1C is controlled”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Matsuzaki in order to include wherein the one or more processing circuits configured to: receive a request indicative of a characteristic associated with a vehicle; and control operation of a respective vehicle of the at least one vehicle that matches the characteristic to navigate along the route to the operating position; and wherein the characteristic includes at least one of a type of the vehicle or a capability of the vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Matsuzaki’s Work Vehicle Coordinating System in order to improve the efficiency of the working vehicle operation in the field.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter (US20240343156A1) in view of Schroeder (US 20240090362 A1), further in view of Christie (WO2014151398A1) and Christman (US20240181645A1).
Regarding claim 10:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Christman teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to detect a hazard along the route, and autonomously control operation of the at least one vehicle to avoid the hazard. (, para [62], “The robotic vehicle 100 may include a plurality of sensors 150 that provide various forms of sensor data that enable the robotic vehicle to safely navigate throughout an environment, engage with objects to be transported, and avoid obstructions. In various embodiments, the sensor data from one or more of the sensors 150 can be used for path adaptation, including avoidance of detected objects, obstructions, hazards, humans, other robotic vehicles, and/or congestion during navigation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Christman in order to include wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to detect a hazard along the route, and autonomously control operation of the at least one vehicle to avoid the hazard. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Christman’s robotic vehicle path planning system in order to detect a hazard along the route, and autonomously control operation of the at least one vehicle to avoid the hazard.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter (US20240343156A1) in view of Schroeder (US 20240090362 A1), further in view of Christie (WO2014151398A1) and Brulo (US20220198905A1).
Regarding claim 16:
Reiter in view of Schroeder, Christie as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reiter does not explicitly teach, but Brulo teaches:
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the at least one vehicle is configured as a boom lift, a telehandler, an aerial work platform, a scissor lift, a vertical lift, a compact crawler boom, a forklift, a crane, a bucket truck, a military vehicle, a cement truck, a refuse vehicle, a fire apparatus, or a tow truck. (Brulo, Para [52], “ the lift device is mounted to a vehicle (e.g., a front end loader of a refuse vehicle, a lift drum of a concrete vehicle, a ladder boom of a fire or safety vehicle, a work platform of a boom lift, an implement of a telehandler, a work platform of a scissor lift, etc.). ”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with these above teachings from Brulo in order to include wherein the at least one vehicle is configured as a boom lift, a telehandler, an aerial work platform, a scissor lift, a vertical lift, a compact crawler boom, a forklift, a crane, a bucket truck, a military vehicle, a cement truck, a refuse vehicle, a fire apparatus, or a tow truck.. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reiter’s method for dynamic charge status monitoring for an electrically operated work vehicle with Brulo’s lift work platform in order to improve the capability of the work vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buehs (US10551502B2) teaches a positioning system for determining the position of a vehicle when driving into a charging station for charging an energy accumulator of the vehicle includes a vehicle-side marking having at least one marking property changing in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
Hognaland (US11262765B2) teaches a method for tracking the position of a remotely operated vehicle following a set route relative to tracks laid out on a frame structure forming a storage grid, the vehicle having first and second sets of wheels connected to drives for moving the vehicle in corresponding x- and y-directions on the grid.
Kobel (US11572262B2) teaches a machine tracking a position of an implement supported by a lift device. Lift devices can be configured to support implements for performing various functions. For example, a lift device can include a platform that supports a user and/or a fork assembly for engaging and lifting materials. Such implements are often supported by a boom assembly that facilitates vertical and/or horizontal movement of the implements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights