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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 8/26/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 15 and 16 should depend from claim 9. (The claims as written repeat claims 7 and 8).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Comparing claims 1-8 and 15-16 of the instant application with claims 17-18 of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208:
“An agricultural system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to:” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “An agricultural system, comprising: at least one processor; a data store storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform steps comprising:” (claim 17) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“identify a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary between a headland area of a field and a primary planted area of a field” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “identifying a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary between a headland area of a field and a primary planted area of a field” (claim 17) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“project the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “projecting the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field” (claim 17) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“generate a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “generating a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the projected boundary contour” (claim 17) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208; and
“control an agricultural machine based on the turn path” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “controlling an agricultural machine to automatically perform the headland turn based on the turn path” (claim 17) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208.
Comparing claims 9-14 of the instant application with claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208:
“A computer implemented method of controlling an agricultural machine comprising:” (claim 9) of the instant application would have been obvious over “A computer implemented method of controlling an agricultural machine, the method comprising:” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“identifying a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary between a headland area of a field and a primary planted area of a field” (claim 9) of the instant application is the same as “identifying a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary between a headland area of a field and a primary planted area of a field” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“projecting the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field” (claim 9) of the instant application is the same as “projecting the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“generating a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field” (claim 9) of the instant application would have been obvious over “generating a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the projected boundary contour” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208; and
“controlling the agricultural machine based on the turn path” (claim 9) of the instant application would have been obvious over “controlling the agricultural machine to automatically perform the headland turn based on the turn path” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208.
Comparing claims 17-20 of the instant application with claims 11-16 of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208:
“An agricultural machine comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to:” (claim 17) of the instant application would have been obvious over “An agricultural machine, comprising: a steering subsystem; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, configured the agricultural machine to:” (claim 11) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“identify a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary between a headland area of a field and a primary planted area of a field” (claim 17) of the instant application would have been obvious over “identify a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary of a headland area of a field” (claim 11) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“project the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field” (claim 17) of the instant application is the same as “project the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field” (claim 11) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208;
“generate a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field” (claim 17) of the instant application would have been obvious over “generate a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the projected boundary contour” (claim 11) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208; and
“control the agricultural machine based on the turn path” (claim 17) of the instant application would have been obvious over “control the steering subsystem to automatically perform the headland turn based on the turn path” (claim 11) of U.S. Patent Number 12,419,208.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf Plessen (US-2019/0208695-A1, hereinafter Graf Plessen).
Regarding claim 1, Graf Plessen discloses:
An agricultural system comprising: one or more processors (paragraph [0093]; and FIG. 2, offline computed path including reference velocities-10, feedback controller including state estimator-11, and vehicle-12);
memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: (paragraph [0093]);
identify a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary between a headland area of a field and a primary planted area of a field (paragraphs [0074-0076]; FIG. 1, obtain coordinates of: a. field contour, and b. contours of all islands (if any) within field contour-1; and FIG. 3, field contour-F1, geometrically translated lane in the same shape of the field contour-F3, straight lanes-F5, and cross-points-F6);
project the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field (paragraphs [0077-0079]; and FIG. 1, select distance between field contour and perimetric closed vehicle path within field contour-2, and translate copy of field contour in parallel by distance towards the interior of the field, and translate copies of contours of all islands in parallel by distance away from the island-interiors-5);
generate a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field (paragraphs [0080-0091] and [0253-0254]; FIG. 1, fit a lane-grid to the field as a function of the orientation of lanes-6, select one orientation and consequently one particular lane-grid based on a specific user-chosen criterion-7, and determine a concatenation of cross-points based on the selected module, and generate a complete field covering path-8; and FIG. 11, headland application bound-18, field contour-20, traversing from an interior lane towards a headland lane-26, and traversing from a headland lane towards an interior lane-27); and
control an agricultural machine based on the turn path (paragraph [0092]; and FIG. 1, track complete field-covering path online (autonomously, semi-autonomously or manually) - 9).
Regarding claim 2, Graf Plessen further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: project the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field by spacing the boundary contour from the boundary between the headland area of the field and the primary planted area of the field by a buffer value (paragraphs [0074], [0079], [0087] and [0090]; and FIG. 3, field contour-F1, geometrically translated lane in the same shape of the field contour-F3, straight lanes-F5, and cross-points-F6).
Regarding claim 6, Graf Plessen further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: obtain an end point location of the current pass (paragraph [0090]; and FIG. 3, cross-points-F6);
obtain a start point location of the next subsequent pass (paragraph [0090]); and
generate the turn path corresponding to the headland turn between the current pass and the next subsequent pass based on the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field, the end point location, and the start point location (paragraphs [0080-0091] and [0253-0254]; FIG. 1, fit a lane-grid to the field as a function of the orientation of lanes-6, select one orientation and consequently one particular lane-grid based on a specific user-chosen criterion-7, and determine a concatenation of cross-points based on the selected module, and generate a complete field covering path-8; and FIG. 11, headland application bound-18, field contour-20, traversing from an interior lane towards a headland lane-26, and traversing from a headland lane towards an interior lane-27).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Graf Plessen further discloses:
wherein the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field forms a portion of the turn path (paragraphs [0253-0262]; and FIG. 11, headland application bound-18, field contour-20, traversing from an interior lane towards a headland lane-26, and traversing from a headland lane towards an interior lane-27).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Graf Plessen further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to control the agricultural machine based on the turn path by controlling one or more of: a propulsion subsystem of the agricultural machine; and a steering subsystem of the agricultural machine (paragraphs [0092-0093]; and FIG. 2, offline computed path including reference velocities-10, feedback controller including state estimator-11, and vehicle-12).
Regarding claim 9, Graf Plessen further discloses:
A computer implemented method of controlling an agricultural machine comprising: (paragraph [0093]; and FIG. 2, offline computed path including reference velocities-10, feedback controller including state estimator-11, and vehicle-12);
identifying a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary between a headland area of a field and a primary planted area of a field (paragraphs [0074-0076]; FIG. 1, obtain coordinates of: a. field contour, and b. contours of all islands (if any) within field contour-1; and FIG. 3, field contour-F1, geometrically translated lane in the same shape of the field contour-F3, straight lanes-F5, and cross-points-F6);
projecting the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field (paragraphs [0077-0079]; and FIG. 1, select distance between field contour and perimetric closed vehicle path within field contour-2, and translate copy of field contour in parallel by distance towards the interior of the field, and translate copies of contours of all islands in parallel by distance away from the island-interiors-5);
generating a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field (paragraphs [0080-0091] and [0253-0254]; FIG. 1, fit a lane-grid to the field as a function of the orientation of lanes-6, select one orientation and consequently one particular lane-grid based on a specific user-chosen criterion-7, and determine a concatenation of cross-points based on the selected module, and generate a complete field covering path-8; and FIG. 11, headland application bound-18, field contour-20, traversing from an interior lane towards a headland lane-26, and traversing from a headland lane towards an interior lane-27); and
controlling the agricultural machine based on the turn path (paragraph [0092]; and FIG. 1, track complete field-covering path online (autonomously, semi-autonomously or manually) - 9).
Regarding claim 10, Graf Plessen further discloses:
wherein projecting the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field comprises: projecting the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field by spacing the boundary contour from the boundary between the headland area of the field and the primary planted area of the field by a buffer value (paragraphs [0074], [0079], [0087] and [0090]; and FIG. 3, field contour-F1, geometrically translated lane in the same shape of the field contour-F3, straight lanes-F5, and cross-points-F6).
Regarding claim 14, Graf Plessen further discloses:
obtaining an end point location of the current pass (paragraph [0090]; and FIG. 3, cross-points-F6);
obtaining a start point location of the next subsequent pass (paragraph [0090]); and
generating the turn path corresponding to the headland turn between the current pass and the next subsequent pass based on the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field, the end point location, and the start point location (paragraphs [0080-0091] and [0253-0254]; FIG. 1, fit a lane-grid to the field as a function of the orientation of lanes-6, select one orientation and consequently one particular lane-grid based on a specific user-chosen criterion-7, and determine a concatenation of cross-points based on the selected module, and generate a complete field covering path-8; and FIG. 11, headland application bound-18, field contour-20, traversing from an interior lane towards a headland lane-26, and traversing from a headland lane towards an interior lane-27).
Regarding claim 16, Graf Plessen further discloses:
wherein controlling the agricultural machine based on the turn path comprises one or more of: controlling a propulsion subsystem of the agricultural machine; and controlling a steering subsystem of the agricultural machine (paragraphs [0092-0093]; and FIG. 2, offline computed path including reference velocities-10, feedback controller including state estimator-11, and vehicle-12).
Regarding claim 17, Graf Plessen further discloses:
An agricultural machine comprising: one or more processors (paragraph [0093]; and FIG. 2, offline computed path including reference velocities-10, feedback controller including state estimator-11, and vehicle-12);
memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: (paragraph [0093]);
identify a boundary contour indicative of a contour of a portion of a boundary between a headland area of a field and a primary planted area of a field (paragraphs [0074-0076]; FIG. 1, obtain coordinates of: a. field contour, and b. contours of all islands (if any) within field contour-1; and FIG. 3, field contour-F1, geometrically translated lane in the same shape of the field contour-F3, straight lanes-F5, and cross-points-F6);
project the boundary contour onto the headland area of the field (paragraphs [0077-0079]; and FIG. 1, select distance between field contour and perimetric closed vehicle path within field contour-2, and translate copy of field contour in parallel by distance towards the interior of the field, and translate copies of contours of all islands in parallel by distance away from the island-interiors-5);
generate a turn path corresponding to a headland turn between a current pass and a next subsequent pass based on the boundary contour as projected onto the headland area of the field (paragraphs [0080-0091] and [0253-0254]; FIG. 1, fit a lane-grid to the field as a function of the orientation of lanes-6, select one orientation and consequently one particular lane-grid based on a specific user-chosen criterion-7, and determine a concatenation of cross-points based on the selected module, and generate a complete field covering path-8; and FIG. 11, headland application bound-18, field contour-20, traversing from an interior lane towards a headland lane-26, and traversing from a headland lane towards an interior lane-27); and
control the agricultural machine based on the turn path (paragraph [0092]; and FIG. 1, track complete field-covering path online (autonomously, semi-autonomously or manually) - 9).
Regarding claim 18, Graf Plessen further discloses:
wherein the agricultural machine comprises a harvester (paragraphs [0002] and [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights