DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 19/243,835 filed on August 5, 2026 in which claims 1 and 5-9 were amended and claims 2-4 were cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 5-8 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European Patent Office on July 22, 2024. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the European application as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
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 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).
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: the “measurement system,” the “sensor unit,” the “filter parameter selection unit,” the “filter unit,” and the “geopositioning system” in claims 1-8.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rupp et al., US Publication 2016/0071410 (hereinafter Rupp).
Regarding claim 1, Rupp discloses a tilt measurement system or an angular velocity measurement system for outputting output sensor data wherein the output sensor data indicate, with respect to a gravitational force vector, an inclination or an angular velocity of a device to which the measurement system is fixedly attached to" (Rupp ¶ 35) where positions sensors (i.e., output sensors) measure the gang angle (i.e., an inclination) of the tiller, which is a device to which the measurement system is fixedly attached. This is “with respect to a gravitational force vector” because everything done on the earth is subject to gravity and, therefore, “with respect to a gravitation force vector.” The claim does define how this is measured “with respect to a gravitational force vector,” so any gravitational force vector meets this limitation within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Additionally, Rupp discloses “a sensor unit comprising an inertia measurement unit or a gyroscope, including one or more sensor elements for detecting at least one of force or angular velocity and being configured to continuously provide raw sensor data samples for each of the sensor elements” (Rupp ¶ 300, Fig. 6) by including a gyroscope, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize measures angular velocity. Fig. 6 shows that this happens “continuously.”
Further, Rupp discloses “a filter parameter selection unit configured to select one or multiple filter parameter sets each including one or more filter parameters for filtering” (Rupp ¶ 151) where the data may be filtered based on one or more parameters.
Moreover, Rupp discloses “wherein the one or more filter parameter sets are selected by at least one predetermined rule applied on the raw sensor data samples” (Rupp ¶ 152) where the “selecting the one or more parameters” are based on “an instruction to collect a particular type of data” (i.e., a predetermined rule).
Likewise, Rupp discloses “a filter unit comprising a processor configured to filter data to provide the output sensor data depending on the selected one of a plurality of filter parameter sets, wherein the data depends on or corresponds to the raw sensor data samples obtained by the sensor elements” (Rupp ¶ 153) by producing the filtered data based on the constraints.
Rupp also discloses “a geopositioning system configured to provide a geographical position of the measurement system as geoposition data, the geopositioning system comprising a satellite-based positioning receiver or a communication unit configured to receive the geographical position from an external device” (Rupp ¶ 141) where the GPS provides location coordinates. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have understood that a GPS system receives the location information from satellites.
In addition, Rupp discloses “a communication device configured to retrieve from an external database, depending on the geoposition data, environmental or ground condition data for the geographical position, the environmental or ground condition data indicating at least one of roughness, unevenness, stoniness, softness, dryness, or flexibility of the ground” (Rupp ¶¶ 93-95, Fig. 5) by using the geographic region 1-1 (i.e., depending on the geoposition data) to obtain data records 74. (Rupp ¶ 95). Data records 74 are stored in storage unit 36 (i.e., a database). (Rupp ¶ 94). Fig. 5 shows that storage unit 36 is “external.” The data records include soil moisture level, which is a “dryness” property. (Rupp ¶ 93).
Finally, Rupp discloses “wherein the filter parameter selection unit is further configured to select the one or multiple filter parameter sets depending on the geoposition data and depending on the retrieved environmental or ground condition data” (Rupp ¶¶ 131, 165-166) where the data is first filtered by a filter (i.e., a filter parameter) selected based on the geographic region (i.e., the geoposition data, Rupp ¶ 131) to generate prescription data and then later modifying an existing prescription by filtering it based on the sensor data (Rupp ¶¶ 165-166), which is the claimed environmental condition data for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Rupp discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Rupp discloses “wherein the filter parameter selection unit is further configured to select the one or multiple filter parameter sets also depending on a velocity of the device” (interpreted ¶ 151) by considering a speed (i.e., velocity) plan.
Regarding claim 6, it merely recites a method performed by the system of claim 1. The method comprises executing computer software modules for performing the various functions. Rupp comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 6 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, it merely recites a working machine for embodying the system of claim 1. The working machine comprises hardware and computer software modules for performing the various functions. Rupp comprises hardware and computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 7 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, it merely recites a method performed by the system of claim 1. The method comprises executing computer software modules for performing the various functions. Rupp comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Rupp additionally, discloses “operating the working machine depending on the output sensor data indicating an inclination of the working machine on the ground the working machine is travelling or moving on” (Rupp ¶ 85) by operating the tractor based on tractor inclination. Thus, claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 12, 2026, with respect to the objection to the title and abstract, the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), the interpretation of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and the objections to claims 1 and 6 (Remarks 9-13) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the title and abstract, the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), the interpretation of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and the objections to claims 1 and 6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments remaining arguments filed September 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the lack of certified copies of the priority documents, Applicant “respectfully requests that the Office retrieve the certified copy through the electronic priority document exchange program.” (Remarks 9).
Examiners are unable to retrieve priority documents. Applicant is encouraged to contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at 571-272-4100 in order to resolve this issue.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), Applicant argues Rupp does not disclose the limitations “a communication device configured to retrieve from an external database, depending on the geoposition data, environmental or ground condition data for the geographical position, the environmental or ground condition data indicating at least one of roughness, unevenness, stoniness, softness, dryness, or flexibility of the ground” or “wherein the filter parameter selection unit is further configured to select the one or multiple filter parameter sets depending on the geoposition data and depending on the retrieved environmental or ground condition data.” (Remarks 14).
First, Applicant that Rupp does not disclose “output sensor data indicating, with respect to a gravitational force vector, an inclination or an angular velocity of a device to which the measurement system is fixedly attached” because “Rupp lists tractor tilt among roughly thirty outputs of arbitrary sensors.” (Remarks 14-15). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s argument fails for two reasons.
First, while the Applicant traverses this rejection, “[i]n order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination,” the Applicant is required to “distinctly and specifically point[] out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b). The Applicant’s reply fails to comply with this requirement, because it merely summarily concludes that “tilt” is not the claimed limitation without an explanation as to why the two are different. Accordingly, since the Applicant fails to provide the Examiner with any distinct or specific reason as to why the rejection is erroneous, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Second, as discussed in the updated rejection above, Rupp does disclose this limitation. Rupp explicitly uses the geographic region 1-1 (i.e., depending on the geoposition data) to obtain data records 74. (Rupp ¶ 95). These data records 74 are stored in storage unit 36 (i.e., a database). (Rupp ¶ 94). Fig. 5 shows that storage unit 36 is “external.” The data records include soil moisture level, which is a “dryness” property. (Rupp ¶ 93).
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that Rupp does not disclose “one or multiple filter parameter sets each including one or more filter parameters for filtering” because the disclosure of Rupp ¶¶ 151-153 “is not ‘one or multiple filter parameter sets each including one or more filter parameters for filtering’ applied to filter data corresponding to raw sensor data samples” while Rupp ¶ 152 “states that the parameters are selected on receipt of ‘an instruction to collect a particular type of data,’ so the selection is not by a predetermined rule applied on the raw sensor data samples, and not on the basis of geoposition data.” (Remarks 15). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant’ argument fails for two reasons.
Once again, while the Applicant traverses this rejection, “[i]n order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination,” the Applicant is required to “distinctly and specifically point[] out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b). The Applicant’s reply fails to comply with this requirement, because it merely summarily concludes that the disclosure of Rupp is not” the claimed limitation without an explanation as to why the two are different. Accordingly, since the Applicant fails to provide the Examiner with any distinct or specific reason as to why the rejection is erroneous, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Second, as discussed in the updated rejection above, Rupp does disclose this limitation. Rupp explicitly discloses that the data is first filtered by a filter (i.e., a filter parameter) selected based on the geographic region (i.e., the geoposition data, Rupp ¶ 131) to generate prescription data.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues Rupp fails to “disclose a communication device configured to retrieve from an external database depending on the geoposition data, nor selection of the filter parameters sets depending on the retrieved ground condition data as now recited by claim 1.” (Remarks 15). The examiner disagrees.
Once again, while the Applicant traverses this rejection, “[i]n order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination,” the Applicant is required to “distinctly and specifically point[] out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b). The Applicant’s reply fails to comply with this requirement, because it merely summarily concludes that “Rupp does not disclose” the claimed limitation without an explanation as to why the two are different. Accordingly, since the Applicant fails to provide the Examiner with any distinct or specific reason as to why the rejection is erroneous, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Second, as discussed in the updated rejection above, Rupp does disclose this limitation. Rupp explicitly discloses that modifies an existing prescription by filtering it based on the sensor data (Rupp ¶¶ 165-166), which is the claimed environmental condition data.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for either the same reasons as claim 1 or for depending on such a claim. (Remarks 15-16). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
