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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 and 9-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 4, it appears Applicant intended “the controller is configured or programmed to” to read --the controller is further configured or programmed to--. Similar issues exist in claim 3, line 5; claim 4, line 6; claim 5, line 4; claim 6, line 1; claim 7, line 2; claim 9, line 4; claim 10, line 4; claim 11, line 4; and claim 12, line 3.
In claim 6, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “to output the notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required and content of the manual operation” to read --to output a notification indicating…--, as the additional detail of this notification implies that it is different than the notification recited in claim 1. Similar issues exist in claim 7, lines 6 and 10; and claim 9, line 8.
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 4-5 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the travel lines" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 5 depend(s) from claim(s) 4, (respectively,) fail(s) to cure said indefiniteness issues, and is/are thereby similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster et al. (US PGPub. No. 2020/0383260).
Regarding claim 1, Foster discloses an agricultural work assistance system [50] comprising:
a controller [160] including a processor configured or programmed to, when agricultural work is to be performed or being performed by a working device [54] coupled to an agricultural machine [52] while the agricultural machine is traveling in an agricultural field, determine whether or not a manual operation of the working device is required (Figure 1; ¶0034-0035, ¶0052); and
an output interface [¶0035: “display a notification on the user interface of the cab”] to output a notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required, when the controller determines that the manual operation of the working device is required (¶0035, ¶0052).
Regarding claim 13, Foster discloses an agricultural machine [52] comprising:
a vehicle body [58] to travel;
a controller [160] configured or programmed to, when agricultural work is to be performed or being performed by a working device [54] coupled to the vehicle body while the vehicle body is traveling in an agricultural field, determine whether or not a manual operation of the working device is required (Figure 1; ¶0034-0035, ¶0052); and
an output interface [¶0035: “display a notification on the user interface of the cab”] to output a notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required, when the controller determines that the manual operation of the working device is required (¶0035, ¶0052).
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) 2-6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakabayashi et al. (US PGPub. No. 2020/0367434).
Regarding claim 2, Foster discloses the agricultural work assistance system according to claim 1 (Foster Figure 1; ¶0034-0035, ¶0052), wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether or not the manual operation of the working device is required when, while the agricultural work is performed by the working device while the agricultural machine is traveling along a travel line [Foster 204, 206, 208] created on an agricultural field map indicating the agricultural field [Foster 202], the agricultural machine reaches a position corresponding to at least one of a start point or an end point [Foster 224, 226] of the travel line, and cause the output interface to output the notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required (Foster Figure 4; ¶0034-0035, ¶0037-0040, ¶0052), but appears to be silent on the system further comprising a position detector to detect a position of the agricultural machine based on data from a satellite positioning system; and, in a case that the manual operation of the working device is required when the machine reaches a start or end point of the line, temporarily stop the agricultural machine when outputting the notification.
Nakabayashi, however, teaches a harvester capable of autonomous travel in a field including a detection sensor that detects a drive speed and a clog determining unit that determines a clog of a harvested crop in a conveyance device on the basis of the drive speed. The clog determining unit outputs a vehicle stop command that stops the harvester body when the drive speed becomes lower than a pre-set first threshold during the autonomous travel (Nakabayashi Figure 1; Abstract). Nakabayashi further teaches a position detector [Nakabayashi 180] to detect a position of the agricultural machine [Nakabayashi 1] based on data from a satellite positioning system (Nakabayashi ¶0126); and, in a case that the manual operation of the working device is required (i.e. unclogging), temporarily stop the agricultural machine when outputting the notification (Nakabayashi ¶0021, ¶0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Foster in view of Nakabayashi. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Foster, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include the system further comprising a position detector to detect a position of the agricultural machine based on data from a satellite positioning system; and, in a case that the manual operation of the working device is required when the machine reaches a start or end point of the line, temporarily stop the agricultural machine when outputting the notification, as doing so was a known way of tracking machine position and stopping the machine allows the operator to safely make manual adjustments to the working device, as recognized by Nakabayashi (Nakabayashi ¶0021, ¶0037, ¶0126). Furthermore, Foster teaches that transition points [Foster 224, 226] between crop rows represent times when the working device may require manual operation to adjust the working device, and applying Nakabayashi’s temporary stopping approach specifically at these transition points is intuitive because these points are recognized by Foster as points where operation parameters may require updating.
Regarding claim 3, Foster in view of Nakabayashi teaches the agricultural work assistance system according to claim 2, further comprising an input interface to receive input of agricultural field information representing the agricultural field (Foster Figure 4), device information relating to the working device (Nakabayashi ¶0078), and work information relating to the agricultural work (Foster Figure 4; ¶0019, ¶0047); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether or not the manual operation of the working device is required based on the agricultural field information, the device information, the work information, and the position of the agricultural machine (Foster Figures 1 and 4; ¶0034-0035, ¶0052; Nakabayashi ¶0021, ¶0037, ¶0126).
Regarding claim 4, Foster in view of Nakabayashi teaches the agricultural work assistance system according to claim 2, wherein the agricultural machine includes:
a vehicle body [Foster 58] to travel and to couple the working device thereto;
the position detector; and
the controller; wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
operate in an automatic work mode to cause the working device to perform the agricultural work on the agricultural field while performing automatic travel or automatic steering of the vehicle body based on a plurality of the travel lines created on the agricultural field map indicating the agricultural field and based on a position of the vehicle body of the agricultural machine detected by the position detector (Foster ¶0037, ¶0047); and
determine whether or not the manual operation of the working device is required when the vehicle body reaches each of positions corresponding to a start point and an end point of one of the plurality of travel lines during the automatic work mode, and, in a case that the manual operation of the working device is required, temporarily stop the automatic work mode to temporarily stop the vehicle body and cause the output interface to output a notification indicating that the agricultural work is temporarily stopped and that the manual operation of the working device is required (Foster Figure 4; ¶0034-0035, ¶0037-0040, ¶0052; Nakabayashi ¶0021, ¶0037), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 2, above.
Regarding claim 5, Foster in view of Nakabayashi teaches the agricultural work assistance system according to claim 4, further comprising an automatic switch [Nakabayashi 65] to receive a start operation to issue an instruction to start the automatic work mode (Nakabayashi ¶0018, ¶0020, ¶0082); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
start the automatic work mode in response to the start operation of the automatic switch (Nakabayashi ¶0018, ¶0020, ¶0082);
when the automatic work mode is temporarily stopped, cause the output interface to output a notification indicating that the agricultural work in the automatic work mode is resumed by the start operation of the automatic switch (Nakabayashi ¶0021, ¶0037, ¶0095); and
resume the automatic work mode when the start operation of the automatic switch is performed while the automatic work mode is temporarily stopped (Nakabayashi ¶0018, ¶0020, ¶0082).
Regarding claim 6, Foster discloses the agricultural work assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to cause the output interface to output the notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required and content of the manual operation (Nakabayashi ¶0021, ¶0037).
Regarding claim 12, Foster in view of Nakabayashi teaches the agricultural work assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the output interface includes a display (Foster ¶0035); and
the controller is configured or programmed to cause the display to display the agricultural field map, the position of the agricultural machine, and the notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required (Foster Figure 4; ¶0035, ¶0037).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Nakabayashi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Silver (US PGPub. No. 2019/0168768).
Regarding claim 9, Foster in view of Nakabayashi teaches the agricultural work assistance system according to claim 2 (Foster Figure 1; ¶0034-0035, ¶0037-0040, ¶0052; Nakabayashi Figure 1; ¶0021, ¶0037, ¶0126), but appears to be silent on the system further wherein
the working device is configured to be manually operated to adjust a working width thereof that is a width of an area of the agricultural field worked by the working device; and
the controller is configured or programmed to, when the agricultural machine reaches a position corresponding to at least one of the start point or the end point of the travel line, in a case that the manual operation to adjust the working width of the working device is required, temporarily stop the agricultural machine and determine a target working width to be achieved by the adjustment, and cause the output interface to output the notification indicating the target working width and indicating that the manual operation to adjust the working width is required.
Silver, however, teaches a system for automatic detection of implement working width of an implement on a vehicle. The method includes tracking location of the vehicle; determining if the vehicle is making substantially parallel passes; if the vehicle is making substantially parallel passes the method also includes determining distances between consecutive passes; and calculating a calculated implement working width based on the distances between consecutive passes. A location sensor attached to the vehicle can be used for tracking the vehicle. Determining if the vehicle is making parallel passes can include grouping the location sensor readings into pass lines that each include sensor readings defining a single pass line; and determining if a current pass line is parallel to a prior pass line. Vehicle heading can be used for determining if pass lines are substantially parallel. Known implement working widths can be used to verify calculated implement working widths (Silver Abstract). Silver further teaches displaying a message for the operator to update the implement working width (Silver ¶0023, ¶0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Foster in view of Nakabayashi in view of Silver. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Foster in view of Nakabayashi, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein the working device is configured to be manually operated to adjust a working width thereof that is a width of an area of the agricultural field worked by the working device; and the controller is configured or programmed to, when the agricultural machine reaches a position corresponding to at least one of the start point or the end point of the travel line, in a case that the manual operation to adjust the working width of the working device is required, temporarily stop the agricultural machine and determine a target working width to be achieved by the adjustment, and cause the output interface to output the notification indicating the target working width and indicating that the manual operation to adjust the working width is required, as doing so was a known way of alerting an operator of a need for adjusting a working width of an implement, as recognized by Silver (Silver ¶0023, ¶0037), and incorporates the convenient transition points of Foster previously discussed.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 7, Examiner deems an agricultural work assistance system comprising: a controller including a processor configured or programmed to, when agricultural work is to be performed or being performed by a working device coupled to an agricultural machine while the agricultural machine is traveling in an agricultural field, determine whether or not a manual operation of the working device is required; and an output interface to output a notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required, when the controller determines that the manual operation of the working device is required; further comprising a position detector to detect a position of the agricultural machine based on data from a satellite positioning system; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether or not the manual operation of the working device is required when, while the agricultural work is performed by the working device while the agricultural machine is traveling along a travel line created on an agricultural field map indicating the agricultural field, the agricultural machine reaches a position corresponding to at least one of a start point or an end point of the travel line, and, in a case that the manual operation of the working device is required, temporarily stop the agricultural machine and cause the output interface to output the notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in a case that the working device is a working device to be manually selectively operated into a working state in which the working device performs the agricultural work or into a non-working state in which the working device does not perform the agricultural work: cause the output interface to output the notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required to bring the working device into the working state when the agricultural machine reaches a position corresponding to the start point of the travel line; and cause the output interface to output the notification indicating the manual operation of the working device is required to bring the working device into the non-working state when the agricultural machine reaches a position corresponding to the end point of the travel line to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a controller specifically including prompting a user to manually adjust a working state of the working device at a start point and end point of a travel line, as claimed.
Claim(s) 8 depend(s) from claim(s) 7, (respectively,) and is/are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Regarding claim(s) 10, Examiner deems a controller including a processor configured or programmed to, when agricultural work is to be performed or being performed by a working device coupled to an agricultural machine while the agricultural machine is traveling in an agricultural field, determine whether or not a manual operation of the working device is required; and an output interface to output a notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required, when the controller determines that the manual operation of the working device is required; further comprising a position detector to detect a position of the agricultural machine based on data from a satellite positioning system; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether or not the manual operation of the working device is required when, while the agricultural work is performed by the working device while the agricultural machine is traveling along a travel line created on an agricultural field map indicating the agricultural field, the agricultural machine reaches a position corresponding to at least one of a start point or an end point of the travel line, and, in a case that the manual operation of the working device is required, temporarily stop the agricultural machine and cause the output interface to output the notification indicating that the manual operation of the working device is required; further comprising an input interface to receive input of whether-to-stop information indicating whether or not to temporarily stop the agricultural machine; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the agricultural machine reaches a position corresponding to at least one of the start point or the end point of the travel line: temporarily stop the agricultural machine in a case that the manual operation of the working device is required and the whether-to-stop information indicates to temporarily stop the agricultural machine; and not temporarily stop the agricultural machine in a case that the whether-to-stop information indicates not to temporarily stop the agricultural machine even in a case that the manual operation of the working device is required to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a controller specifically including an input interface to receive input of whether-to-stop information indicating whether or not to temporarily stop the agricultural machine, and preforming subsequent control accordingly.
Claim(s) 11 depend(s) from claim(s) 10, (respectively,) and is/are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights