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 statements (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2025 and 1/29/2026 have been considered and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 is: “communication module” in claim 1. Support for the claim limitation can be found in the specification in Para. [0149], where the structure of the communication module is disclosed as a component connected by a bus, and disclosed within the same grouping as a camera, LiDAR sensors, controller, and GPS positioning device.
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 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)(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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitsuhata et al. (US 2024/0168495; hereinafter Mitsuhata).
Regarding Claim 1:
Mitsuhata discloses a management apparatus for communicating with an agricultural machine to be operated in a driving mode including self-driving and non-self-driving, the management apparatus comprising: a processor configured or programmed to create a self-driving plan for the agricultural machine (Mitsuhata, Para. [0035], Mitsuhata discloses a mobile terminal, with a processor, configured to create the travel pattern for the autonomous combine harvester);
a communication module configured or programmed to transmit the self-driving plan to the agricultural machine and receive actual performance data of the agricultural machine collected by the agricultural machine (Mitsuhata, Para. [0033], Mitsuhata discloses a mobile terminal configured to communicate the travel pattern with the autonomous combine harvester and receives performance information of the combine harvester, such as positioning information as the harvester progresses along the travel route); and
a storage configured to store the received actual performance data (Mitsuhata, Para. [0039-0040], Mitsuhata discloses storing of the collected farm information as well as storing of the autonomous driving route as performed by the autonomous combine harvester); wherein
the actual performance data includes data collected by the agricultural machine during the non-self-driving performed by an intervention occurring in the self-driving performed in accordance with the self-driving plan (Mitsuhata, Para. [0045], Mitsuhata discloses the created navigational route is stored along with the state of the cancelling or not cancelling of the autonomous travel allowance switch).
Regarding Claim 2:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 1.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the actual performance data further includes data collected by the agricultural machine during self-driving after a change made in response to a change request issued in the self-driving performed in accordance with the self-driving plan (Mitsuhata, Para. [0030], Mitsuhata discloses the mobile terminal or base station continuously receives the positioning data of the autonomous harvester, updates the travel pattern, and corrects the harvester based on the received position data).
Regarding Claim 3:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 1.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the non-self-driving includes at least one of manual driving during which a human directly operates the agricultural machine or remote driving during which the human operates the agricultural machine using an operating terminal from a remote location (Mitsuhata, Para. [0033], Mitsuhata discloses the agricultural machine may be operated remotely from a base station or mobile terminal).
Regarding Claim 4:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 3.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the storage includes a database in which the actual performance data is accumulated in such a way that the actual performance data is identifiable whether the actual performance data is collected during a period of the self-driving performed in accordance with the self-driving plan, during a period of the manual driving, during a period of the remote driving, or during a period of the self-driving after the change (Mitsuhata, Para. [0030], [0033], Mitsuhata discloses the mobile terminal or base station continuously receives the positioning data of the autonomous harvester including the work settings for the agricultural machine, which include the current mode of the agricultural machine, such as autonomous travel mode or manual travel mode, Para. [0040-0043]).
Regarding Claim 5:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 3.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the intervention for the manual driving occurs based on a condition involving detection of direct operation by the human (Mitsuhata, Para. [0043], Mitsuhata discloses direct movement of the steering wheel by the human operator which switch the mode from autonomous to manual travel mode).
Regarding Claim 6:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 5.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the intervention for the manual driving is released based on a condition involving non-detection of the direct operation for a predetermined time, a state capable of the self-driving, and a stop of operation of the agricultural machine (Mitsuhata, Para. [0049], Mitsuhata further discloses an autonomous travel allowance switch in which the operator may press or cancel, given the duration of the pressing of the switch in order to change between autonomous and manual travel mode, including an immediate stop operation, see also Para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 7:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 3.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein an intervention for the remote driving occurs based on a condition involving reception of a remote driving start request, stabilization of a communication state, and a stop of operation of the agricultural machine (Mitsuhata, Para. [0049], Mitsuhata further discloses an autonomous travel allowance switch in which the operator may press or cancel, given the duration of the pressing of the switch in order to change between autonomous and manual travel mode).
Regarding Claim 8:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 7.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the intervention for the remote driving is released based on a condition involving reception of a remote driving end request, a state capable of the self-driving, and the stop of the operation of the agricultural machine (Mitsuhata, Para. [0049], Mitsuhata further discloses an autonomous travel allowance switch in which the operator may press or cancel, given the duration of the pressing of the switch in order to change between autonomous and manual travel mode, including an immediate stop operation, see also Para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 9:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 1.
Mitsuhata further discloses the storage further stores planning data to create the self-driving plan (Mitsuhata, Para. [0031], Mitsuhata discloses the mobile terminal having storage to store the created travel pattern); and
the processor, when updating the planning data after the intervention occurs or the change request is issued, is configured or programmed to use the updated planning data in creating the self-driving plan subsequently (Mitsuhata, Para. [0030], Mitsuhata discloses the mobile terminal or base station, configured with a processor, continuously receives the positioning data of the autonomous harvester, updates the travel pattern, and corrects the harvester based on the received position data).
Regarding Claim 10:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 9.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the planning data includes: static data that does not change even when the driving mode changes (Mitsuhata, Para. [0031], Mitsuhata discloses the stored information for travel pattern creation includes farm field information, such as field size, shape, position, and the like); and
dynamic data that is changeable when the driving mode changes (Mitsuhata, Para. [0030], Mitsuhata discloses the mobile terminal or base station continuously receives the positioning data of the autonomous harvester); wherein
the processor is configured or programmed to designate the dynamic data as a target of update when the intervention occurs or when the change request is issued (Mitsuhata, Para. [0030], Mitsuhata updates the travel pattern and corrects the harvester based on the received position data).
Regarding Claim 11:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 10.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the static data includes at least one of facility data of a farm, a utilization plan of the farm, or agricultural machine information of the farm (Mitsuhata, Para. [0031], Mitsuhata discloses the stored information for travel pattern creation includes farm field information, such as field size, shape, position).
Regarding Claim 12:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 10.
Mitsuhata further discloses wherein the dynamic data includes at least one of data indicating a current status of the agricultural machine or data indicating a progress status of a task included in the self-driving plan (Mitsuhata, Para. [0030], Mitsuhata discloses the mobile terminal or base station continuously receives the positioning data of the autonomous harvester (i.e. progress along the travel pattern)).
Regarding Claim 13:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 14:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 15:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 14.
Mitsuhata further discloses the driving mode further includes remote driving (Mitsuhata, Para. [0033], Mitsuhata discloses the agricultural machine may be operated remotely); and the management system further comprises: a remote terminal configured or programmed to communicate with the agricultural machine and cause the agricultural machine to perform the remote driving (Mitsuhata, Para. [0033], Mitsuhata discloses the agricultural machine may be operated remotely from a base station or mobile terminal);
the agricultural machine is configured or programmed to transmit, when an intervention for the remote driving occurs in the self-driving performed in accordance with the self-driving plan, actual performance data of the agricultural machine collected during the remote driving, to the management apparatus (Mitsuhata, Para. [0030], Mitsuhata discloses the mobile terminal or base station continuously receives the positioning data of the autonomous harvester, updates the travel pattern, and corrects the harvester based on the received position data); and
the management apparatus is configured or programmed to cause the storage of the management apparatus to store the received actual performance data during the remote driving (Mitsuhata, Para. [0039-0045], Mitsuhata discloses the created navigational route is stored along with the transmitted position information of the agricultural machine).
Regarding Claim 16:
Mitsuhata discloses the management apparatus according to claim 14.
Mitsuhata further discloses the remote terminal is configured or programmed to transmit, to the agricultural machine, a change request to change the self-driving (Mitsuhata, Para. [0033], Mitsuhata discloses the agricultural machine may be operated remotely from a base station or mobile terminal, including a request for manual travel mode);
the agricultural machine is configured or programmed to transmit, to the management apparatus, actual performance data of the agricultural machine collected during self-driving after a change made in response to the change request received in the self-driving performed in accordance with the self-driving plan (Mitsuhata, Para. [0030], Mitsuhata discloses the mobile terminal or base station continuously receives the positioning data of the autonomous harvester, updates the travel pattern, and corrects the harvester based on the received position data); and
the management apparatus is configured or programmed to cause the storage of the management apparatus to store the received actual performance data during the self-driving after the change (Mitsuhata, Para. [0039-0045], Mitsuhata discloses the created navigational route is stored along with the transmitted position information of the agricultural machine).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights