DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 3/5/2025.
Claims 1-12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/4/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 3/5/2025 have been entered by the examiner.
The drawings are objected to because elements 1-17 of Figure 1 require labels. Specifically, MPEP 1.84(o) reads “Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.” In this particular case, the Examiner has required legends for the blank numbered blocks in Figure 1, due to one of ordinary skill in the art not being able to interpret these figures without manually labeling these components with guidance from the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 3/5/2025 has been entered by the examiner.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 7-10 on page 16 of the substitute specification filed 3/5/2025 recite “In case more than one control signal is provided to an electronic control unit 10 of the implement 8…” (emphasis added). The emphasized text should instead recite “electronic control unit 7,” since the label of 10 is used throughout the specification in reference to a functional element.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 detection unit in claims 1 and 11,
a selection unit in claims 1 and 11, and
a generation unit in claims 1 and 11.
The units described supra are being interpreted consistent with the Applicant’s specification filed 3/4/2025 on page 12, lines 8-28, with respect to Figure 1, which recites:
“The detection unit 15 implemented by hardware and/or software is connected to the data bus 3 and configured to detect, for the work vehicle 6, one or more operation events in the course of operating the agricultural machine, for example, while the agricultural machine is moving on a field for agricultural work and/or the agricultural machine is travelling on a road.
The selection unit 16 implemented by hardware and/or software is configured to select one or more auxiliary functions mapped according to mapping data provided in the electronic control system 1 in response to the detecting the one or more operation events for the work vehicle 6. In the embodiment shown, the selection unit 16, for example, is provided in the user terminal 4. Alternatively, the selection unit 16 may be provided separately from the user terminal 4 (standalone), but still connected to the data bus 3.
The generation unit 17 implemented by hardware and/or software is configured to generate one or more control signals assigned to one or more auxiliary functions selected by the selection unit. In the embodiment shown, the generation unit 17, for example, is provided in the task controller 5. Thus, in this example the control signals are generated in the task controller 5.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation of electronic control system (1) in the sixth line of claim 1. Because the reference to (1) has been removed from all other limitations, its inclusion in this limitation appears to be an error.
Claim 2 recites the limitations of generating, by the generation unit, a second control signal assigned to the second auxiliary function in the electronic control system and by at least one of the first and second electronic control unit, controlling operation of at least one of the first and second functional component according to the second control signal (emphasis added). The “second control signal” has been defined as being assigned to the “second auxiliary function;” however, the “first functional component” is controlled according to the “second control signal.” Based on the description provided in the Applicant’s disclosure, this may be an unintentional use of the second control signal.
Claim 3 recites the limitations of:
starting application of the second control signal while operation control according to the first control signal is still running; and
starting application of the second control signal after operation control according to the first control signal was finished (emphasis added).
The phrasing used in these limitations fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim and is grammatically unclear. It is recommended to amend these limitations to instead recite “initiating application of the second control signal during execution of the operation control according to the first control signal; and initiating application of the second control signal upon termination of the operation control according to the first control signal,” for example.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of in a user-initiated process in the eleventh line of claim 5. There is no action following this limitation, and this seems to be a drafting error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the fourth and eleventh lines of claim 1, the ninth, tenth, and thirteenth lines of claim 10, and the third and fourteenth lines of claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitations of the first control signal and the second control signal are applied in a sequential order for controlling operation of at least one of the first and second functional component, while claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, recites controlling operation of at least one of the first and second functional component according to the second control signal, and claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites controlling operation of the first functional component of the implement according to the first control signal. Claim 1 requires that the “first control signal” be applied to the “first functional component,” and claim 2 requires that the “second control signal” be applied to either the “first functional component” or the “second functional component.” However, claim 3 requires both the “first control signal” and the “second control signal” to be applied to one of the “first functional component” or the “second functional component.” Given that claim 1 requires the first control signal to be applied to the first functional component, it is unclear if the second control signal of claim 3 is being limited to the first functional component, such that both the first and second control signals are applied to the same functional component or that the language of “at least one of the first and second functional component” is intended to only apply to the second control signal. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret the scope of claim 3, in light of the limitations of the preceding claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitations of the second control signal and the first user-initiated control signal. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, claim 9 depends from claim 1, which does not include these limitations. A “second control signal” and a “first user-initiated control signal” cannot be considered inherent features of the claimed method.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of the first / second electronic control unit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a “first/second electronic control unit” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the claimed method. The intention with respect to the “/” symbol is unclear, and it cannot be reasonably determined if this element is intended to be separate and distinct from each of the “first control unit” and “second control unit,” or some combination of both.
Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency, and claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 11 by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 4 recites the limitations of detecting a second operation event for the work vehicle by the detection unit and selecting the first auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions by the selection unit if both the first operation event and the second operation event are detected, but not, if only one of the first operation event and the second operation event is detected, while claim 1, from which claim 4 depends recites detecting a first operation event for the work vehicle by the detection unit (emphasis added). Claim 4 provides a condition in which a selection is not performed when only one of the “first operation event” or “second operation event” is detected; however, claim 1 requires the “first operation event” to be detected, and claim 4 requires the “second operation event” to be detected. Therefore, the limitations of claim 4 fail to limit the claimed subject matter.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pirotais (US 2013/0289832 A1), hereinafter Pirotais.
Claim 1
Pirotais discloses the claimed method for automatically controlling an auxiliary function in an electronic control system of an agricultural machine (see Figure 7, where ECU 16 runs the user-defined macros by executing the selected command in response to a trigger value being sensed, as described in ¶0099, with respect to step 105; ¶0032-0033, with respect to Figures 1 and 2, regarding agricultural tractor 10 is provided with controllable operating components connected to the ECU), the method comprising:
providing an agricultural machine having a work vehicle and an implement provided with a plurality of functional components, such as working tools or a lighting unit, which are controllable in operation by a plurality of auxiliary functions provided in an electronic control system of the agricultural machine (see ¶0033, with respect to Figure 2, regarding control system 100 comprises ECU 16 for controlling various operation functions and components of the tractor, where operation of the components is described in ¶0034-0049, with respect to engine management, transmission, hitches and drawbar, power take off, and steering), wherein each auxiliary function is configured to control one or more operation steps for at least one of the functional components (see ¶0071-0088, regarding the sixteen commands that each correspond to an operating variable with can be controlled by ECU 16);
providing mapping data in the electronic control system, the mapping data being indicative of mapping the plurality of auxiliary functions to a plurality of operation events detectable for the work vehicle, in operation of the agricultural machine, by a detection unit, such as a sensor device, of the electronic control system and assigned to the work vehicle (see ¶0095-0098, with respect to steps 101-104 of Figure 7, regarding that macros are stored in ECU 16, which associate a command for an operating function of the tractor with a trigger value corresponding to an operating parameter defined as an input variable sensed by ECU 16, where particular sensors for detecting various “operation events” are described in ¶0035, ¶0037, ¶0041, ¶0045-0046, and ¶0047; ¶0093-0094, with respect to the example in Figures 5 and 6, regarding a macro in which a rear hitch is raised to 4 in response to a detected PTO speed being less than 510 rpm);
operating the agricultural machine and detecting a first operation event for the work vehicle by the detection unit (see ¶0099, with respect to step 105 of Figure 7, regarding ECU 16 senses the trigger value being met, e.g., conditions when the steering angle is greater than 5 degrees in ¶0066-0068, with respect to Figure 3, or when PTO speed is less than 510 rpm in ¶0093, with respect to Figure 5);
in response to detecting the first operation event, selecting a first auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions by a selection unit of the electronic control system, the first auxiliary function being mapped to the first operation event, and configured to control operation of a first functional component from the plurality of functional components of the implement (see ¶0099, with respect to step 105 of Figure 7, regarding ECU 16 runs the user-defined macro by executing the selected command in response to the trigger value being sensed, where macros are stored in ECU 16, which associate a command for an operating function of the tractor with a trigger value corresponding to an operating parameter defined as an input variable sensed by ECU 16, as described in ¶0095-0098; ¶0093-0094, with respect to the example of Figure 5 and 6, regarding the macro for raising a rear hitch height to 4 when a detected PTO speed is less than 510 rpm);
generating, by a generation unit of the electronic control system, a first control signal for controlling operation of the first functional component assigned to the first auxiliary function in the electronic control system (see ¶0099, with respect to step 105 of Figure 7, regarding ECU 16 runs the user-defined macro by executing a selected command in response to the trigger value being sensed, where ECU 16 controls various operating functions and components of the tractor, as described in ¶0033-0049, with respect to Figure 2; ¶0093-0094, with respect to the example of Figure 5 and 6, regarding the macro for raising a rear hitch height to 4 when a detected PTO speed is less than 510 rpm);
receiving, through a data bus of the electronic control system, the first control signal in a first electronic control unit of the implement assigned to the first functional component of the implement (see ¶0033-0049, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that ECU 16 communicates commands to control units associated with respective “functional components,” e.g., hydraulic control units 44, 46 are connected to associated lift cylinders 34, 36 for the purpose of controlling lifting and lowering of hitch 26, 28 based on control signals transmitted from ECU 16, as described in ¶0042); and
by the first electronic control unit, controlling operation of the first functional component of the implement according to the first control signal (see ¶0033-0049, with respect to Figure 2, regarding the various “functional components” that are controlled by their respect control units based on control signals from ECU 16, e.g., hydraulic control units 44, 46 are connected to associated lift cylinders 34, 36 for the purpose of controlling lifting and lowering of hitch 26, 28 based on control signals transmitted from ECU 16, as described in ¶0042, where the rear hitch is raised to 4 when the detected PTO speed is less than 510 rpm, as described in ¶0093-0094, with respect to the example in Figures 5 and 6).
The limitation of “implement” is not defined as performing any particular operations, and therefore, any of the components depicted in Figure 2 of Pirotais may be reasonably applied to the “first functional component.”
Claim 2
Pirotais further discloses that the claimed method comprises:
in response to detecting the first operation event, selecting a second auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions by the selection unit, the second auxiliary function being mapped to the first operation event, and configured to control operation of at least one of the first functional component and a second functional component from the plurality of functional components of the implement (see ¶0099, with respect to step 105 of Figure 7, regarding ECU 16 runs the user-defined macro by executing the selected command in response to the trigger value being sensed, where macros are stored in ECU 16, which associate a command for an operating function of the tractor with a trigger value corresponding to an operating parameter defined as an input variable sensed by ECU 16, as described in ¶0095-0098; ¶0071-0087, regarding the variety of “auxiliary functions” capable of being selected, e.g., raise rear hitch, raise front hitch, float rear hitch, float front hitch, etc.);
generating, by the generation unit, a second control signal assigned to the second auxiliary function in the electronic control system (see ¶0099, with respect to step 105 of Figure 7, regarding ECU 16 runs the user-defined macro by executing a selected command in response to the trigger value being sensed, where ECU 16 controls various operating functions and components of the tractor, as described in ¶0033-0049, with respect to Figure 2);
receiving, through the data bus, the second control signal in at least one of the first electronic control unit and a second electronic control unit on the implement assigned to the second functional component of the implement (see ¶0033-0049, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that ECU 16 communicates commands to control units associated with respective “functional components,” e.g., hydraulic control units 44, 46 are connected to associated lift cylinders 34, 36 for the purpose of controlling lifting and lowering of hitch 26, 28 based on control signals transmitted from ECU 16, as described in ¶0042); and
by at least one of the first and second electronic control unit, controlling operation of at least one of the first and second functional component according to the second control signal (see ¶0033-0049, with respect to Figure 2, regarding the various “functional components” that are controlled by their respect control units based on control signals from ECU 16, e.g., hydraulic control units 44, 46 are connected to associated lift cylinders 34, 36 for the purpose of controlling lifting and lowering of hitch 26, 28 based on control signals transmitted from ECU 16, as described in ¶0042).
Pirotais further discloses that a macro includes at least one condition and at least one command (see ¶0009); therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret more than one command being associated with a condition. Additionally, Pirotais discloses that a plurality of macros are inputted to the ECU by a user, where each macro comprises a condition and command (see ¶0107); therefore, it would be reasonable for separately generated macros in Pirotais to include the same condition for different commands.
Claim 4
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Pirotais is applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Pirotais further discloses detecting a second operation event for the work vehicle by the detection unit (see ¶0099, with respect to step 105 of Figure 7, regarding ECU 16 senses the trigger value being met, e.g., conditions when the steering angle is greater than 5 degrees in ¶0066-0068, with respect to Figure 3, or when PTO speed is less than 510 rpm in ¶0093, with respect to Figure 5), and selecting the first auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions by the selection unit if both the first operation event and the second operation event are detected, but not, if only one of the first operation event and the second operation event is detected (see ¶0069-0070, regarding that a plurality of conditions may be chained together in a single macro; Figures 3 and 4, depicting the user interface for setting conditions that provide AND logic operators).
Claim 7
Pirotais further discloses that the claimed method comprises providing the agricultural machine with an autonomous work vehicle having a driving control device configured for autonomous driving the work vehicle (see ¶0049, regarding that wheels 14 may be steered automatically by a vehicle guidance system such as AUTOGUIDE that may be engaged or disengaged, as described in ¶0086-0087; ¶0039, regarding an tractor cruise control mode in which engine and transmission are controlled so that ground speed is maintained at a steady value, which can be engaged or disengaged, as described in ¶0077, ¶0083). Operation of the agricultural vehicle of Pirotais in an autonomous driving mode reasonably teaches an “autonomous work vehicle having a driving control device configured for autonomous driving the work vehicle.”
Claim 8
Pirotais further discloses that the claimed method comprises providing the agricultural machine according to one of the following implementations: the implement hooked to the work vehicle, and the implement carried by the work vehicle (see ¶0040, regarding front hitch 26 and rear hitch 28 allow for attachment of respective implements via a known three-point linkage system, such that automated control of various functions can be tailored to the requirements of the specific implement attached at a given time, as described in ¶0013).
Claim 9
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Pirotais is applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Pirotais further discloses that the claimed method comprises providing the generation unit of the electronic control system on the work vehicle (see Figures 1 and 2, depicting ECU 16 as communicating with components of the tractor, as described in ¶0032-0033, where terminal 70 is in wired communication with ECU 16 and is mounted to the right-hand side of a driver in the cab, as described in ¶0051; ¶0034-0048, regarding ECU 16 as receiving real-time signals and sending control signals to tractor components, where the engine control unit 20 may be integrated into ECU 16, as described in ¶0034), and providing at least one of the first control signal, the second control signal, and the first user-initiated control signal from the work vehicle through the data bus to the first / second electronic control unit on the implement (see ¶0033-0049, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that ECU 16 communicates commands to control units associated with respective “functional components,” e.g., hydraulic control units 44, 46 are connected to associated lift cylinders 34, 36 for the purpose of controlling lifting and lowering of hitch 26, 28 based on control signals transmitted from ECU 16, as described in ¶0042).
Claim 10
Pirotais further discloses that the claimed method comprises that the detecting of the first operation event further comprises detecting an operation event parameter selected from the following group:
a location parameter indicative a present geographic location of the working vehicle;
a drive system parameter of a drive system characteristic of a drive system of the working vehicle;
a travel parameter of a travel route characteristic of the working vehicle travelling such as travelling on a field or travelling on a road;
a sensor parameter of a sensor signal detected by a sensor device such as a sensor device provided on the agricultural machine;
an obstruction parameter of an obstruction detected in a surrounding of the agricultural machine such as an obstruction along a travel route of the working vehicle;
a safety parameter of a safety control measure; and
an implement status parameter indicative of an implement status (see ¶0053-0066, regarding the sensed operating parameters include ground speed, acceleration, engine speed, PTO speed, wheel slip, engine load, engine temperature, rear hitch position, tractor direction, wheel angle, front hitch position, and hitch draft).
Only one of the above limitations is required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Pirotais may be reasonably applied to any of the limitations of a drive system parameter, travel parameter, sensor parameter, or implement status parameter. The limitations that include the phrase “such as” are discussed in the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11
Pirotais discloses the claimed electronic control system for automatically controlling an auxiliary function of an agricultural machine having a work vehicle and an implement (see Figure 2, depicting control system 100), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12
Pirotais further discloses an agricultural machine (see Figure 1, depicting tractor 10), comprising a work vehicle, an implement, and an electronic control system (see Figures 1 and 2, depicting ECU 16 as communicating with components of the tractor, as described in ¶0032-0033, where terminal 70 is in wired communication with ECU 16 and is mounted to the right-hand side of a driver in the cab, as described in ¶0051; ¶0034-0048, regarding ECU 16 as receiving real-time signals and sending control signals to tractor components, where the engine control unit 20 may be integrated into ECU 16, as described in ¶0034; ¶0040, regarding front hitch 26 and rear hitch 28 allow for attachment of respective implements via a known three-point linkage system, such that automated control of various functions can be tailored to the requirements of the specific implement attached at a given time, as described in ¶0013) according to claim 11, as discussed in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirotais.
Claim 3
Pirotais does not explicitly disclose that the first control signal and the second control signal are applied in a sequential order for controlling operation of at least one of the first and second functional component, wherein the second control signal is applied according to one of the following control modes:
starting application of the second control signal while operation control according to the first control signal is still running, and
starting application of the second control signal after operation control according to the first control signal was finished.
However, Pirotais further discloses conditions based on sensed operating parameters including ground speed, ground acceleration, direction of travel, etc. (see ¶0016) that inherently require the agricultural machine to travel; therefore, a sequence of conditions may reasonably occur during travel of the agricultural machine of Pirotais. Pirotais also discloses that a plurality of macros are inputted to the ECU by a user, where each macro comprises a condition and command (i.e. “control signal”) (see ¶0107), such that it would be reasonable to respond to the sequence of conditions using a respective sequence of commands (i.e. “first control signal” and “second control signal”) acquired from the plurality of stored macros.
Thus, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable to repeat step 105 of Figure 7 of Pirotais for continued use of the plurality of stored macros in a variety of conditions that the agricultural machine may encounter during travel, e.g., steering angle greater than 5 degrees and PTO speed less than 510 rpm (see ¶0096), such that the first control signal and the second control signal are applied in a sequential order for controlling operation of at least one of the first and second functional component. Detection of a condition associated with the “second control signal” may reasonably occur while the “first control signal” is being generated or after the “first control signal” has been generated, so as to generate the “second control signal” in either of the “control modes.” Pirotais is applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pirotais to continuously execute step 105 of Figure 7, such that the first control signal and the second control signal are applied in a sequential order for controlling operation of at least one of the first and second functional component, wherein the second control signal is applied according to one of the following control modes: starting application of the second control signal while operation control according to the first control signal is still running, and starting application of the second control signal after operation control according to the first control signal was finished, in light of ¶0016 and ¶0107 of Pirotais, with the predictable result of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143. Specifically, providing for continuous operation of step 105 of Figure 7 of Pirotais would allow for continued use of the plurality of stored macros in a variety of conditions that the agricultural machine may encounter during travel and thus significantly reduces the burden upon the driver (¶0006, ¶0008 of Pirotais).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirotais in view of Navon et al. (EP 2821864 A1), hereinafter Navon.
Claim 5
While Pirotais discloses a user terminal 70 that communicates with ECU 16 (see ¶0050-0052), Pirotais does not particularly disclose that the claimed method comprises:
providing further mapping data in the electronic control system of the agricultural machine, the further mapping data being indicative of mapping the plurality of auxiliary functions to a plurality of user inputs receivable by an input device separately provided from a user terminal of the work vehicle, wherein both the input device and the user terminal are functionally connected to the data bus;
receiving a user input by the input device, wherein the user input is indicative of a selection of the first auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions; and
in a user-initiated process,
in response to receiving the user input, selecting the first auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions by the selection unit;
generating, by the generation unit, a first user-initiated control signal assigned to the first auxiliary function in the electronic control system;
receiving, through the data bus of the electronic control system, the first user-initiated control signal in the first electronic control unit assigned to the first functional component of the implement; and
by the first electronic control unit, controlling operation of the first functional component according to the first user-initiated control signal.
However, Navon teaches the known method of providing further mapping data in a processing unit of an electronic control system of tractor 20, as depicted in Figure 1 (similar to the electronic control system of the agricultural machine of Pirotais), the further mapping data being indicative of mapping a plurality of auxiliary sub-functions 8 (similar to the plurality of auxiliary functions of Pirotais) to a plurality of user inputs receivable by an input device (see ¶0030, regarding user terminal 2 is provided with a processor unit comprising a processor and memory element connected to the processor, where a plurality of auxiliary sub-functions 8 are mapped to the plurality of virtual control elements 9 through user input on terminal display 6 of user terminal 2, e.g., user may first touch one of the auxiliary sub-functions 8 followed by touching one of the plurality of virtual control elements 9, and the two elements are mapped and stored together in the memory, as described in ¶0032) separately provided from a user terminal of the tractor 20, wherein both the input device and the user terminal are functionally connected to data bus 1 (similar to the data bus of Pirotais) (see ¶0034, regarding that the process of mapping the plurality of auxiliary sub-functions 8 to the plurality of virtual control elements 9 may be received through the additional user terminal, defined as a mobile device that connects to user terminal 2 through data bus 1), receiving a user input by the input device, wherein the user input is indicative of a selection of one of the auxiliary sub functions 8 (similar to the first auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions of Pirotais) (see ¶0032, regarding that user input is provided to select one of the auxiliary sub-functions 8, where the functional element is provided on an implement for controlling a function of an agricultural machine, as described in ¶0024-0025), and in a user-initiated process (see ¶0033, regarding that after finalizing the virtual control element configuration, the user is able to control the plurality of auxiliary functions 8 by using virtual control elements 9 displayed on the terminal 6 during operation, as depicted in Figure 3), in response to receiving the user input, selecting one of the auxiliary sub functions 8 by terminal 6 (similar to the selection unit of Pirotais) (see ¶0033, regarding that the user is able to control the plurality of auxiliary functions 8 by using virtual control elements 9 displayed on the terminal 6 during operation, as depicted in Figure 3, where one of the auxiliary sub-functions 8 is mapped to one of the virtual control elements 9 in the memory of terminal 2, as described in ¶0032, with respect to Figure 2).
Navon further teaches generating, by terminal 2 (similar to the generation unit of Pirotais), a first user-initiated control signal assigned to one of the auxiliary sub-functions 8 stored in memory of the processing unit of user terminal 2, receiving, through data bus 1, the first user-initiated control signal in electronic control unit 4 assigned to functional element 5 of implement 21, and by electronic control unit 4, controlling operation of functional element 5 according to the first user-initiated control signal (see ¶0033, regarding that the user is able to control the plurality of auxiliary functions 8 by using virtual control elements 9 displayed on the terminal 6 during operation, as depicted in Figure 3, where one of the auxiliary sub-functions 8 is mapped to one of the virtual control elements 9 in the memory of terminal 2, as described in ¶0032, with respect to Figure 2; ¶0015, regarding generating a control signal to the electronic control unit through the data bus for having the electronic control unit control the functional element according to the control signal, where electronic control units 4 associated with respective functional elements 5 are depicted in Figure 1).
Since the systems of Pirotais and Navon are directed to the same purpose, i.e. mapping a plurality of functions of an agricultural machine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pirotais to further include the steps of providing further mapping data in the electronic control system of the agricultural machine, the further mapping data being indicative of mapping the plurality of auxiliary functions to a plurality of user inputs receivable by an input device separately provided from a user terminal of the work vehicle, wherein both the input device and the user terminal are functionally connected to the data bus, receiving a user input by the input device, wherein the user input is indicative of a selection of the first auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions, and in a user-initiated process, in response to receiving the user input, selecting the first auxiliary function from the plurality of auxiliary functions by the selection unit, generating, by the generation unit, a first user-initiated control signal assigned to the first auxiliary function in the electronic control system, receiving, through the data bus of the electronic control system, the first user-initiated control signal in the first electronic control unit assigned to the first functional component of the implement, and by the first electronic control unit, controlling operation of the first functional component according to the first user-initiated control signal, in the same manner that a plurality of auxiliary sub-functions of a tractor of Navon are mapped to a plurality of virtual control elements in memory, such that the user is able to control the plurality of auxiliary functions by touching the virtual control elements displayed on the terminal, with the predictable result of providing technology for improved controlling of an auxiliary function in an electronic control system of an agricultural machine (¶0006 of Navon), such that the auxiliary function is made available to a user according to a user definition without the need for an additional control device, e.g., joystick (¶0014 of Navon).
Claim 6
Navon further teaches that the further mapping data is provided in response to receiving, through the user terminal, user mapping input indicative of the mapping of the plurality of auxiliary sub-functions 8 (similar to the plurality of auxiliary functions of Pirotais) to the plurality of user inputs (see ¶0032, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that user input on terminal display 6 is able to map the plurality of auxiliary sub-functions 8 to the plurality of virtual control elements 9, where selection of the virtual control elements 9 displayed on terminal 6 in Figure 3 allows the user to control the auxiliary functions 8, as described in ¶0033).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Mueller, Jr. (US 4,715,012) teaches comparing monitored conditions against desired operating characteristics in order to provide activating signals for various subsystems (see col. 5, lines 54-66), with the monitored conditions and controlled subsystems defined with respect to an agricultural vehicle (see tables I and II in col. 4, lines 32-48), Van Der Bijl et al. (US 2019/0053418 A1) teaches a system in which control signals are transmitted over a data bus between a tractor control network and implement control network (see ¶0036, with respect to Figure 1), where the control signals are selected for driving one or more working elements 10b (see ¶0037), and Senneff et al. (US 7,739,015 B2) teaches executing a sequence of operator defined vehicle events (see abstract) on an agricultural vehicle (see col. 1, lines 5-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights