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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recites “… activate a coordination mode that at least partially synchronizes movement of …” in lines 6-7. Nowhere in the originally filed specification discloses activating the coordination mode that can at least partially synchronizes movement of the machines. The Applicant is requested to clearly and specifically point out where in the originally filed specification disclose this specific feature.
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 21-25 and 34-40 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.
The limitation recites “… activate a coordination mode that at least partially synchronizes movement of …” in lines 6-7 of claims 21 and 34 render the claims indefinite because it is not clear how “at least partially synchronizes movements” define. It is understood that movements can either be synchronized or not synchronized and it is not defined and clear how movements can only be partially synchronized when they are synchronized. There is not disclosure in the originally filed specification that provide the definition of the feature.
Claims 22-25 and 35-40 depend on claims 21 and 34 respectively including all the limitations in the base claim and therefore are also indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 26, 27, 29 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rekow (US 2011/0112730 A1).
For claim 26, Rekow discloses a computing system comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing system to:
identify a geographic location of an agricultural harvesting machine during a crop processing operation in a field (Fig. 4-6, para. 0027, where location of the machines are determined);
based on the geographic location of the agricultural harvesting machine during the crop processing operation in the field, determine a harvesting machine turn path for the agricultural harvesting machine to perform a turn on the field (Para. 0040, where the paths and turns for the machines are determined based on the locations);
generate a support machine turn path based on the harvesting machine turn path (Para. 0043, 0053, 0057, 0065, where the turn path of the support machines is generated based on the lead vehicle); and
communicate an indication of the support machine turn path to a communication device associated with a support machine (Fig. 7-14, para. 0054, where the paths of the machines are communicated between the vehicles).
For claim 27, Rekow discloses the computing system of claim 26, and further comprising one or more communication systems configured to communicate with the agricultural harvesting machine and the support machine (Para. 0092, 0093, 0100, 0117, 0120, where the vehicles communicate to one another).
For claim 29, Rekow discloses the computing system of claim 26, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing system to:
identify a curvature of a portion of harvesting machine turn path;
identify a path offset; and
generate the support machine turn path that corresponds to the curvature and has a distance from the harvesting machine turn path based on the path offset (Para. 0118, 0120-0123, where the turn path and corresponding offset of the follower vehicles based on the leader vehicle are identified and generated to maintain the synchronization of the movements).
For claim 32, Rekow discloses the computing system of claim 26, wherein the computing system comprises a cloud computing environment (Para. 0032, where the system may be a cloud computing environment).
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.
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(s) 30, 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rekow (US 2011/0112730 A1) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Desai et al. (11,372,402).
For claim 30, Rekow discloses the computing system of claim 26, but does not specifically disclose receive characteristic data indicative of a characteristic associated with operation of the agricultural harvesting machine; and determine a target unloading operation based on the characteristic, wherein the indication of the support machine turn path comprises an indication of the target unloading operation. Desai in the same field of the art discloses receive characteristic data indicative of a characteristic associated with operation of the agricultural harvesting machine; and determine a target unloading operation based on the characteristic, wherein the indication of the support machine turn path comprises an indication of the target unloading operation (Col. 8, ln 5-64, where the unloading operations to the grain carts are coordinated between the machines based on various received characteristic data such as positions and operations of the carts and side pipe and capacity of the carts). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the inventio of Rekow to receive characteristic data indicative of a characteristic associated with operation of the agricultural harvesting machine; and determine a target unloading operation based on the characteristic, wherein the indication of the support machine turn path comprises an indication of the target unloading operation, as taught by Desai to provide an effective way to unload the grain into the grain carts.
For claim 31, Rekow, as modified, discloses the computing system of claim 30, wherein the characteristic comprises at least one of: a status of a communication connection between the agricultural harvesting machine and the support machine; an unloading status; or a predicted crop yield (Desai – at least in col. 8, ln 5-64, where the unloading operations to the grain carts are coordinated between the machines based on various received characteristic data such as positions and operations of the carts and side pipe and capacity of the carts, the unloading status of the system).
For claim 33, Rekow, as modified, disclose the computing system of claim 26, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing system to select an unloading mode corresponding to the turn based on a selection criterion, the selection criterion comprising one or more of:
a connection status of a communication channel between the agricultural harvesting machine and the support machine (Desai – at least in col. 10, ln 6-29, where the conditions and connection status of the communication between the combine and carts affects the unloading mode of the machines based on the conditions and statuses).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26, 28 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12/317,776. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claim 1 of the Patent read on the same features of the Application of claim 26. Claims 2 and 8 of the Patent is almost identical if not claimed the same limitations as claims 28 and 29 of the Application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 28, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically generate the support machine turn path based on a determination that the turn has a turning rate above a threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2010/0094481 A1) Anderson discloses a high integrity coordination system for lead vehicle and following vehicles in a field including during turns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights