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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05-07-2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Incoming IDS received 11-15-2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
There are no new claims.
Claims 2, 15, and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16, and 18-21 are currently pending.
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) 1, 5-6, 8, 11-14, 16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupu (US 20210153418 A1) in view of Bucher (US 20240069545 A1) in further view of Kocer (US 20210357664 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Lupu discloses, determining, by the farming machine (Lupu: [0003] In this respect, systems have been developed to automatically adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural implement based on a change in a field condition; [0052] the controller 108 may be configured to determine a second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) based on data newly received from the field characteristic sensor(s)), a second farming operation (Lupu: [ABS] first and second ground-engaging tools configured to perform first and second operations) comprising a second spray treatment (Lupu: [ABS] second ground-engaging tools) to treat individual plants in a field (Lupu: [0022] As such, the disk blades 50 may chop up residue, weeds, and other plant matter and incorporate such plant matter into the soil) after a first farming operation (Lupu: [0040] after adjusting the first ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined second value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the second ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12; [0046] after adjusting the second ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined third value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the third ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12; [0047] the after adjusting the third ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to determine a fourth value(s) of the field characteristic(s) and adjust a fourth ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12 based on the determined fourth value(s) and so on) comprising a first spray treatment to treat individual plants (Lupu: [0044] a different type than the first and second ground-engaging tools), wherein the second farming operation is a different spray treatment than the first farming operation (Lupu: [0041] the first ground-engaging tool(s) may correspond to any other suitable tool(s) of the implement 12 configured to perform a first operation on the field, such as the shanks 46, the disk blades 50, the basket assemblies 54, any closing disks (not shown), or any harrows (not shown). Similarly, the second ground-engaging tool(s) may correspond to any other suitable tool(s) of the implement 12 configured to perform a second operation on the field that is different from the first operation; [0044] a different type than the first and second ground-engaging tools ... the third ground-engaging tool(s) may correspond to any suitable tool(s) of the implement 12 configured to perform a third operation on the field that is different from the first and second operations, such as the shanks 46, the disk blades 50, leveling blades 52, or the baskets 54. As such, the third ground-engaging tool(s) may be of a different type than the first and second ground-engaging tools); determining, by the farming machine (Lupu: [0052] the controller 108 may be configured to determine a second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) based on data newly received from the field characteristic sensor(s)), a current configuration of the farming machine is not capable of performing the second farming operation in the field (Lupu: [0017] The controller may then be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the first ground-engaging tool(s) based on the determined first value(s) of the field characteristic(s). Such an adjustment(s) may impact the field characteristic(s) in a manner that requires further adjustment of the operation of the implement. In this respect, after adjusting the operating parameter(s) of the first ground-engaging tool(s), the controller may be configured to determine a second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) based on the received sensor data. Thereafter, the controller may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the second ground-engaging tool(s) based on the determined second value(s) of the field characteristic(s); [0041] the first ground-engaging tool(s) may correspond to any other suitable tool(s) of the implement 12 configured to perform a first operation on the field, such as the shanks 46, the disk blades 50, the basket assemblies 54, any closing disks (not shown), or any harrows (not shown). Similarly, the second ground-engaging tool(s) may correspond to any other suitable tool(s) of the implement 12 configured to perform a second operation on the field that is different from the first operation, such as the disk blades 50, leveling blades 52, the baskets 54, the closing disks, or the harrows. As such, the second ground-engaging tool(s) may be of a different type than the first ground-engaging tool(s)); responsive to the farming machine determining that the farming machine cannot perform the second farming operation (Lupu: [0046] in certain instances, the adjustment(s) to the first and second ground-engaging tools may not cause the value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to return to the corresponding range. In this respect, after adjusting the second ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined third value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the third ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12. For example, in one embodiment, the controller 108 may be configured to transmit instructions to the actuator(s) associated with the third ground-engaging tool(s) instructing such actuator(s) to adjust the penetration depth of and/or the force being applied to the such tools), identifying, by the farming machine, a third farming operation comprising a third spray treatment to treat multiple plants in the field as the compensatory farming action (Lupu: [0040] after adjusting the first ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined second value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the second ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12; [0046] after adjusting the second ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined third value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the third ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12; [0047] the after adjusting the third ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to determine a fourth value(s) of the field characteristic(s) and adjust a fourth ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12 based on the determined fourth value(s) and so on), wherein: the third farming operation is a different type of farming operation from the first farming operation and the second farming operation (Lupu: [0040] after adjusting the first ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined second value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the second ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12; [0046] after adjusting the second ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined third value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the third ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12; [0047] the after adjusting the third ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to determine a fourth value(s) of the field characteristic(s) and adjust a fourth ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12 based on the determined fourth value(s) and so on), and the farming machine is capable of performing the third farming operation using the current configuration (Lupu: [0040] after adjusting the first ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined second value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the second value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the second ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12; [0046] after adjusting the second ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined third value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the third ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12; [0047] the after adjusting the third ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to determine a fourth value(s) of the field characteristic(s) and adjust a fourth ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12 based on the determined fourth value(s) and so on); and responsive to identifying a compensatory farming operation to perform in place of the second farming operation, performing the compensatory farming operation (Lupu: [0046] in certain instances, the adjustment(s) to the first and second ground-engaging tools may not cause the value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to return to the corresponding range. In this respect, after adjusting the second ground-engaging tool(s), the controller 108 may be configured to compare the determined third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) to the corresponding field characteristic value range. Thereafter, when the determined third value(s) fall outside of the corresponding range (thereby indicating the third value(s) of the field characteristic(s) may be too high or too low), the controller 108 may be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the third ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement 12. For example, in one embodiment, the controller 108 may be configured to transmit instructions to the actuator(s) associated with the third ground-engaging tool(s) instructing such actuator(s) to adjust the penetration depth of and/or the force being applied to the such tools).
Lupu does not explicitly recite the terminology “spray treatment”. However, Lupu discloses a first, second, third, and forth differing tasks for soil treatment (see at least [0041] and [0044]). Which, the examiner respectfully submits, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a parallel teaching.
Lupu discloses a response to determining second operation is a no-go based upon sensor readings. Lupu does not explicitly disclose, sending, by the farming machine, a notification to a remote system that the farming machine in the current configuration cannot perform the second farming operation; and responsive to a passage of at least a threshold amount of time after sending the notification to the remote system without receiving corresponding instructions from the remote system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bucher discloses, sending, by the farming machine, a notification to a remote system (Bucher: [0022] the GUI 115 may display one or more communications that may be received from the autonomous tractor system 120 and/or the remote system 130. For example, a notification received from the autonomous tractor system 120 may include a description of an unexpected event and/or one or more proposed responses directed to handling the event ... [0023] in response to a notification being received from the autonomous tractor; [0027] The operational instructions may include navigation instructions such as one or more waypoints or routes which may direct movement through the operational environment, one or more tasks to be performed within the operational environment, instructions indicating when to request remote operation; [0051] the autonomous tractor system 120 may be configured to generate and/or transmit a notification to another system, such as the operator system 110 and/or the remote system 130. In some embodiments, the notification may include one or more of the responsive actions generated by the autonomous tractor system 120. For example, the notification may include the event description, the current autonomous tractor system status, and/or at least one proposed response. In these or other embodiments, the notification may include a request for operator input directed to handling the detected event; [0055] The autonomous tractor system 120 may stop and provide an alert ) that the farming machine in the current configuration cannot perform the second farming operation (Bucher: [0015] an autonomous tractor may be configurable to perform multiple tasks over an environment; [0024] the autonomous tractor system 120 may be configured to perform one or more operations; [0044] configured to perform runtime decisions associated with the area and/or task; [0052] in instances in which the autonomous tractor system 120 is in an idle state and fails to receive an operator response within a threshold amount of time, the autonomous tractor system 120 may perform event handling in view of the event. For example, in instances in which no operator response is received, the autonomous tractor system 120 may attempt to continue a current task at a different waypoint, perform a new task, return to a charging station, and/or other event handling responses; [0050, 0061-0062, 0064]); and responsive to a passage of at least a threshold amount of time after sending the notification to the remote system without receiving corresponding instructions from the remote system (Bucher: [0051] the notification may include a request for operator input directed to handling the detected event ... [0052] the autonomous tractor system 120 may remain in the idle state until an operator response is received from another system, such as the operator system 110 and/or the remote system 130 ... in instances in which the autonomous tractor system 120 is in an idle state and fails to receive an operator response within a threshold amount of time, the autonomous tractor system 120 may perform event handling in view of the event. For example, in instances in which no operator response is received, the autonomous tractor system 120 may attempt to continue a current task at a different waypoint, perform a new task, return to a charging station, and/or other event handling responses. The threshold amount of time may include a particular amount of time (e.g., one minute, five minutes, ten minutes, one hour, etc.), may be input into the operator system 110, such as by the operator input 125, may include a variable amount of time based on conditions of the autonomous tractor system 120, an amount of and/or environmental conditions, such as a time of the day, weather conditions, among other environmental conditions, and may include any length of time; [0063] in response to a notification being transmitted to the operator system 110 and an amount of time elapsing that is greater than a threshold, the notification may be transmitted to the remote system 130 to obtain an operator response. The amount of time that may elapse before the remote system 130 provides a response may vary based on the environment conditions, the notification, the time of day, a day of the week, and/or based on some schedule determined based historical data or from input from an operator or some other individual ... [0064] in instances in which a notification transmitted to the operator system 110 is not responded to within a threshold amount of time, the notification may be transmitted to the remote system 130 ... [0066] the autonomous tractor system 120 may obtain a selected response in response to sending the notification and implement the selected response), for the benefit of reducing often time consuming agricultural undertakings.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by Lupu to include prompting human intervention taught by Bucher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prompt human intervention.
The examiner respectfully submits, Lupu discloses the method (process or series of steps) of claim 1. Lupu discloses a first-forth farm operations, determining, via sensor readings, if a current configuration can accomplish a 1-4 task, adjusting configuration to perform a 1-4 task, and the tasks differing from one another, but still ground engaging. Which, is parallel in spirit as the amended claim 1.
However, should it be found Lupu, as modified, fails to cover spraying limitations, in the same field of endeavor, Kocer discloses, inter alia, spraying, adjusting concentration, droplet size, application rate, chemical based upon pest or weed detection, detected density of pests or weeds, location of nearby crops, and plugged nozzles (see at least [0054], [0172-0178]), for the benefit of reducing often time consuming agricultural undertakings.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by a modified Lupu to include a variety of spraying taught by Kocer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prompt human intervention.
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Lupu also discloses, receiving, by the farming machine, from the remote system, additional instructions to initiate a third farming operation that is a different type of farming operation from the first farming operation and the second farming operation in the field; verifying, by the farming machine, that the farming machine is capable of performing the third farming operation in the field; and identifying, by the farming machine, the third farming operation as the compensatory farming operation (Lupu: [0044]).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Lupu also discloses, performing, by the farming machine, the compensatory farming operation in the field comprises: adjusting, by the farming machine, one or more components of the farming machine to enable performing the third farming operation as the compensatory farming operation (Lupu: [0044]).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Lupu also discloses, determining, by the farming machine, the second farming operation to perform in the field after the first farming operation comprises determining a treatment for the field (Lupu: [0044]), and wherein determining the treatment for the field comprises analyzing measurements obtained from one or more sensors coupled to the farming machine (Lupu: [0017]).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Kocer also discloses, the notification that the farming machine cannot perform the second farming operation in the field comprises an indication of the current configuration of the farming machine (Lupu: [0124]; [0127]).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Lupu also discloses, determining, by the farming machine, the second farming operation to perform in the field after the first farming operation comprises receiving the second farming operation from the remote system (Lupu: [0041]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Kocer also discloses, the farming machine ceases operation until it receives additional instructions to perform the compensatory farming operation from the remote system (Kocer: [0124]; [0127]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Lupu discloses, a computer processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions executable by the computer processor to perform steps of a farming machine in a field to verify a change in farming operation (Lupu: [0032]), the steps comprising: determining, by the farming machine (Lupu: [0003]; [0052]), a second farming operation (Lupu: [ABS]) comprising a second spray treatment (Lupu: [ABS]) to treat individual plants in a field (Lupu: [0022]) after a first farming operation (Lupu: [0040]; [0046-0047]) comprising a first spray treatment to treat individual plants (Lupu: [0044]), wherein the second farming operation is a different spray treatment than the first farming operation (Lupu: [0041]; [0044]); determining, by the farming machine (Lupu: [0052]), a current configuration of the farming machine is not capable of performing the second farming operation in the field (Lupu: [0017]; [0041]); responsive to the farming machine determining that the farming machine cannot perform the second farming operation (Lupu: [0046]), identifying, by the farming machine, a third farming operation comprising a third spray treatment to treat multiple plants in the field as the compensatory farming action (Lupu: [0040]; [0046-0047]), wherein: the third farming operation is a different type of farming operation from the first farming operation and the second farming operation (Lupu: [0040]; [0046-0047]), and the farming machine is capable of performing the third farming operation using the current configuration (Lupu: [0040]; [0046-0047]); and responsive to identifying a compensatory farming operation to perform in place of the second farming operation, performing the compensatory farming operation (Lupu: [0046]).
Lupu does not explicitly recite the terminology “spray treatment”. However, Lupu discloses a first, second, third, and forth differing tasks for soil treatment (see at least [0041] and [0044]). Which, the examiner respectfully submits, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a parallel teaching.
Lupu discloses a response to determining second operation is a no-go based upon sensor readings. Lupu does not explicitly disclose, sending, by the farming machine, a notification to a remote system that the farming machine in the current configuration cannot perform the second farming operation; and responsive to a passage of at least a threshold amount of time after sending the notification to the remote system without receiving corresponding instructions from the remote system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bucher discloses, sending, by the farming machine, a notification to a remote system (Bucher: [0022-0023]; [0027]; [0051]; [0055]) that the farming machine in the current configuration cannot perform the second farming operation (Bucher: [0015]; [0024]; [0044]; [0052]; [0050, 0061-0062, 0064]); and responsive to a passage of at least a threshold amount of time after sending the notification to the remote system without receiving corresponding instructions from the remote system (Bucher: [0051-0052]; [0063-0066]), for the benefit of reducing often time consuming agricultural undertakings.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by Lupu to include prompting human intervention taught by Bucher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prompt human intervention.
The examiner respectfully submits, Lupu discloses the method (process or series of steps) of claim 1. Lupu discloses a first-forth farm operations, determining, via sensor readings, if a current configuration can accomplish a 1-4 task, adjusting configuration to perform a 1-4 task, and the tasks differing from one another, but still ground engaging. Which, is parallel in spirit as the amended claim 1.
However, should it be found Lupu, as modified, fails to cover spraying limitations, in the same field of endeavor, Kocer discloses, inter alia, spraying, adjusting concentration, droplet size, application rate, chemical based upon pest or weed detection, detected density of pests or weeds, location of nearby crops, and plugged nozzles (see at least [0054], [0172-0178]), for the benefit of reducing often time consuming agricultural undertakings.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by a modified Lupu to include a variety of spraying taught by Kocer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prompt human intervention.
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 14, and further, Lupu also discloses, receiving, by the farming machine, from the remote system, additional instructions to initiate a third farming operation that is a different type of farming operation from the first farming operation and the second farming operation in the field; verifying, by the farming machine, that the farming machine is capable of performing the third farming operation in the field; and identifying, by the farming machine, the third farming operation as the compensatory farming operation (Lupu: [0044]).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 14, and further, Lupu also discloses, identifying the compensatory farming operation further comprises: identifying, by the farming machine, a scheduled third farming operation that the farming machine is capable of performing using the current configuration as the compensatory farming operation, and wherein the scheduled third farming operation is performed as the compensatory farming operation (Lupu: [0044]).
REGARDING CLAIM 21, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Lupu also discloses, identifying the compensatory farming operation further comprises: identifying, by the farming machine, a scheduled third farming operation that the farming machine is capable of performing using the current configuration as the compensatory farming operation, and wherein the scheduled third farming operation is performed as the compensatory farming operation (Lupu: [0044]).
Claim(s) 3-4, 7, 9-10, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupu (US 20210153418 A1) in view of Bucher (US 20240069545 A1) and Kocer (US 20210357664 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Foster (US 20170354080 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Lupu, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, determining whether a current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field further comprises: determining, by the farming machine, that performance of the second farming operation in the field uses a component not present on the farming machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Foster discloses, determining whether a current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field further comprises: determining, by the farming machine, that performance of the second farming operation in the field uses a component not present on the farming machine (Foster: [0052-0053]), for the benefit of minimizing component compatibility error.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Lupu to include a compatibility list taught by Foster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimizing component compatibility error.
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 3, and further, Kocer also discloses, performing the compensatory farming operation comprises: returning, by the farming machine, to a designated location; modifying the farming machine to include the component necessary for the farming machine to perform the second farming operation; and performing, with the farming machine including the necessary component, the second farming operation as the compensatory farming operation (Kocer: [0188]).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Lupu, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, determining, by the farming machine, the second farming operation to perform in the field after the first farming operation comprises accessing a treatment plan comprising a plurality of farming operations for the farming machine to perform.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Foster discloses, determining, by the farming machine, the second farming operation to perform in the field after the first farming operation comprises accessing a treatment plan comprising a plurality of farming operations for the farming machine to perform (Foster: [0021]; [0033]; [0052]), minimizing component compatibility error.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Lupu to include a code file may including a mission plan or mission data for the next task taught by Foster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimizing component compatibility error.
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Lupu, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, by the farming machine, whether a current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field comprises: accessing a component list of the farming machine; and comparing the component list of the farming machine to a list of components necessary for performing the second farming operation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Foster discloses, by the farming machine, whether a current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field comprises: accessing a component list of the farming machine; and comparing the component list of the farming machine to a list of components necessary for performing the second farming operation (Foster: [ABS]; [0052]), for the benefit of minimizing component compatibility error.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Lupu to include a compatibility list taught by Foster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimizing component compatibility error.
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Lupu, as modified, remains does not explicitly disclose, determining, by the farming machine, whether the current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field comprises: accessing a list of components for performing the farming operation; and determining, using sensor measurements from components of the list of components that represent an operational status of the components, whether components of the farming machine that are in the list of components for performing the farming operation have operational failures that prevent normal operation..
However, in the same field of endeavor, Foster discloses, determining, by the farming machine, whether the current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field comprises: accessing a list of components for performing the farming operation; and determining, using sensor measurements from components of the list of components that represent an operational status of the components, whether components of the farming machine that are in the list of components for performing the farming operation have operational failures that prevent normal operation (Foster: [0018-0019]; [0021]; [0032]), for the benefit of determining possible tasks, compatible equipment, and to better manage the fleet of equipment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Lupu to include a inventory status taught by Foster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine possible tasks, compatible equipment, and to better manage the fleet of equipment.
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 14, and further, Lupu, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, determining, by the farming machine, whether the current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field comprises: accessing a component list of the farming machine; and comparing the component list of the farming machine to a list of components necessary for performing the second farming operation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Foster discloses, determining, by the farming machine, whether a current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field comprises: accessing a component list of the farming machine; and comparing the component list of the farming machine to a list of components necessary for performing the second farming operation (Foster: [ABS]; [0052]), for the benefit of minimizing component compatibility error.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Lupu to include a compatibility list taught by Foster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimizing component compatibility error.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Lupu, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 14, and further, Lupu, as modified, do not explicitly disclose, determining, by the farming machine, whether the current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field comprises: accessing a list of components for performing the farming operation; and determining, using sensor measurements from components of the list of components that represent an operational status of the components, whether components of the farming machine that are in the list of components for performing the farming operation have operational failures that prevent normal operation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Foster discloses, determining, by the farming machine, whether the current configuration of the farming machine is capable of performing the second farming operation in the field comprises: accessing a list of components for performing the farming operation; and determining, using sensor measurements from components of the list of components that represent an operational status of the components, whether components of the farming machine that are in the list of components for performing the farming operation have operational failures that prevent normal operation (Foster: [0018-0019]; [0021]; [0032]), for the benefit of determining possible tasks, compatible equipment, and to better manage the fleet of equipment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Lupu to include a inventory status taught by Foster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine possible tasks, compatible equipment, and to better manage the fleet of equipment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that Lupu (US 20210153418 A1) fails to disclose the limitations of claim 1 because Lupu (US 20210153418 A1) fails to explicitly recite a variety of spraying tasks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited above, Lupu discloses a method, wherein Lupu discloses a first-forth farm tasks, determining, via sensor readings, if a current configuration can accomplish a 1-4 task, adjusting configuration to perform a 1-4 task, and the tasks differing from one another, but still ground engaging. Which, is parallel in spirit as the amended claim 1. In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In this case, the examiner respectfully submits, obviousness, for one of ordinary skill, includes routine customization/optimization accomplished through routine experimentation. Which, includes swapping the ground engaging tools of Lupu (US 20210153418 A1) for the sprayers while maintaining the same method steps. Lastly, the examiner respectfully submits, Kocer (US 20210357664 A1) discloses, inter alia, adjusting chemical concentration, adjusting droplet size, adjusting application rate, changing chemical based upon pest or weed detection, detected density of pests or weeds, location of nearby crops, and plugged spray nozzles (see at least [0054], [0172-0178]). Because Lupu (US 20210153418 A1), alone or as modified, discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rupp (US 20160071410 A1)
Sarzen (US 20210289755 A1)
Matsuzaki (US 20180025560 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663