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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on April 10, 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 2, 5-6, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, and 25 have been amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent No. 10369872) in view of Cavender-Bares (U.S. Patent No. 9582002) and further in view of Lansberry (U.S. Patent No. 6425450) and further in view of Allard, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7979175).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson teaches: A method comprising: analyzing, by a computing system corresponding to a multi-operational land drone (Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines 59-67, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 44-47: Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines 59-67: "…computing device, laptop, tablet, or the like, to download data from or upload data to the controller [analysis by computing system]." ; Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 44-47: "…planting operations, seeding operations, application operations, tillage operations, harvesting operations, and the like [operations – multi-operational land drone].")
Jackson does not teach sensor data that is obtained using one or more sensors corresponding to the multi-operational land drone; determining, by the computing system based on the analyzing of the sensor data, one or more operating upcoming environment conditions corresponding to an operating environment of the multi-operational land drone; the one or more upcoming operating environment conditions including one or more of: an amount of slope of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data or a driving surface condition of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data; and adjusting a load balancing system of the multi-operational land drone.
In a similar field of endeavor (autonomous platforms and systems for the purpose of managing an agricultural field while self-navigating between rows of crops), Cavender-Bares teaches: sensor data that is obtained using one or more sensors corresponding to the multi-operational land drone; (Fig. 15, Col. 10, lines 53-59: “…sensor (175). Such as one or more cameras, infrared sensors, ultrasonic sensors, or a combination thereof. In one embodiment, sensor (175) is mounted to the top of a telescoping tower or mast (127).”)
determining, by the computing system based on the analyzing of the sensor data, one or more operating upcoming environment conditions corresponding to an operating environment of the multi-operational land drone; (Fig. 21, Col. 15, lines 60-65: “…sensor (150) configured to monitor the conditions of a planted crop (106). For example, sensor (150) can use optical or other measurements to determine the abundance of plant pigments, such as chlorophyll [analyzing sensor data based on operating environment].”; Col. 10, lines 19-22: "Navigation module (124) can be configured to receive field orientation information and detect obstacles using a variety of inputs, including existing data about a particular agricultural field (102) [can determining upcoming environment conditions]")
the one or more upcoming operating environment conditions including one or more of: an amount of slope of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data or a driving surface condition of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data; (Col. 8, lines 46-53: “…autonomous vehicle platform (100) will soon encounter a side slope [analyzing sensor data based on amount of slope of operating environment]”)
and adjusting a load balancing system of the multi-operational land drone (Col. 8, lines 46-53: "In one embodiment, automated valves or pumps can be used to permit passage of the contents of tank (116) from one tank compartment to another. For example, where a baffle (120) exist to separate a right and left portion of tank (116), if it is known that autonomous vehicle platform (100) will soon encounter a side slope [approaching environment condition of increasing slope], the contents of tank (116) can be transferred from one side to the other to improve stability [adjusting load balance of land drone].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson to include the teachings of Cavender-Bares based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of an autonomous vehicle platform which conducts various seasonal management tasks between the planted rows of an agricultural field (Cavender-Bares Col 4, lines 27-62).
The combination of Jackson and Cavender-Bares does not teach or adjusting one or more adjustable spring mechanisms of the multioperational drone.
In a similar field of endeavor (load shifting agriculture vehicle), Lansberry teaches: or adjusting one or more adjustable spring mechanisms of the multioperational drone (Col. 37, lines 17-20: "…single-sided suspension assembly includes a pressure transducer on its piston side and is computer controllable to maintain suspension assembly baseline pressure foreground-following wheel movement [computer adjusted system]." ; Col. 30, lines 47-52: "The suspension control flowchart begins with starting block (396). The controller (250) determines the position of a baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) at blocks (400) and (404). As described above, the baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) is preferably a 3-position spring-returned-to-center toggle switch [adjustable spring mechanism].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson and Cavender-Bares to include the teaching of Lansberry based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of the navigation of agricultural vehicles with respect to uneven or steep terrain conditions (Lansberry Col. 1, lines 10-15).
The combination of Jackson and Cavender-Bares does not teach in response to the one or more upcoming operating environment conditions indicating one or more of: the multi-operational land drone approaching a tipping point, prior to encountering the tipping point.
In a similar field of endeavor (control systems and methods for unmanned ground vehicles), Allard, et al. teaches: in response to the one or more upcoming operating environment conditions indicating one or more of: the multi-operational land drone approaching a tipping point (Col. 14, lines 30-34: "…localization sensor suite (602) fuses the data from each sensor in the suite together in a weighted fashion to achieve a more robust estimations of state [in response to one or more upcoming operating environment conditions] […] In some embodiments, the localization sensor suite (602) determines the orientation of the vehicle, such as its pitch, roll, or yaw in part to ensure that the vehicle is not in danger of tipping over on its side, for example [multi-operational land drone approaching tipping point].")
prior to encountering the tipping point (Col. 14, lines 10-13: "The selected preferred response may be to adjust the vehicle trajectory by moving one degree to the right causing the vehicle to continue close to the terrain feature while avoiding a collision [adjustment is made in order to prevent collision].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, and Lansberry to include the teaching of Allard, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling unmanned ground vehicles in response to environmental changes or operator intervention (Allard, et al. Col. 3, lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 4, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 2, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more upcoming operating environment conditions indicate the multi-operational land drone approaching the tipping point (Allard, et al. Col. 14, lines 30-34: Col. 14, lines 30-34: "The localization sensor suite (602) fuses the data from each sensor in the suite together in a weighted fashion to achieve a more robust estimations of state [in response to one or more upcoming operating environment conditions] than is available with any individual sensor by itself. In some embodiments, the localization sensor suite (602) determines the orientation of the vehicle, such as its pitch, roll, or yaw in part to ensure that the vehicle is not in danger of tipping over on its side, for example [multi-operational land drone approaching tipping point].").
Regarding claim 6, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 2, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more operating environment conditions include the driving surface condition, and the driving surface condition includes one or more of: an amount of compaction of soil of the terrain or an amount of moisture in the soil or the terrain (Cavender-Bares Col. 13, lines 26-30: "Among other logistics solutions required for optimal operation, autonomous vehicle platform (100) can carry a pre-calculated payload needed to complete an in-season management task from the perspective of the refilling station (130) [driving environment conditions]." ; Cavender-Bares Col. 14, lines 29-33: "…soil moisture [moisture in the soil]").
Regarding claim 8, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 2, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 2, further comprising selecting, by the computing system, for the multi-operational land drone to transition from a manual mode to one of a plurality of remote operation modes in response to a determination, based on the determined one or more operating environment conditions, that the operating environment poses a potential harm to an operator were the operator to be disposed on or in the multi-operational land drone (Allard, et al. Fig. 9, Steps (702-704), Col. 17, lines 31-37: "…manned operation mode (STEP 704) [manual mode], a remote unmanned tele-operation mode (STEP 706) [remote mode #1], an assisted remote tele-operation mode (STEP 708) [remote mode #2]" ; Allard, et al. Col. 21, line 65 to Col. 22, lines 1-6: "…receiving the mode select command (STEP 902) includes receiving a remote command (STEP 914) [selection of remote mode by computing system]. […] remote-controlled operation of the vehicle, i.e., the case where an operator maintains control over the vehicle when not physically present in the vehicle [definition of remote operation mode]."; Allard, et al. Col. 24, lines 15-21: "…removing an operator from harm's way during a dangerous application [operating environment poses a potential harm to an operator]").
Regarding claim 10, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 2, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 2, wherein adjusting the load balancing system includes adjusting the one or more adjustable spring mechanisms, and adjusting the one or more adjusting spring mechanisms includes at least one of: loosening the one or more adjustable spring mechanisms that correspond to an uphill side of the multi-operational land drone; or stiffening the one or more adjustable spring mechanisms that correspond to a downhill side of the multi-operational land drone (Lansberry Col. 37, lines 17-20: "…single-sided suspension assembly includes a pressure transducer on its piston side and is computer controllable to maintain suspension assembly baseline pressure foreground-following wheel movement [computer adjusted system]." ; Lansberry Col. 30, lines 47-52: "…The controller (250) determines the position of a baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) at blocks (400) and (404). As described above, the baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) is preferably a 3-position spring-returned-to-center toggle switch [adjustable spring mechanism]." ; Lansberry Col. 22, lines 19-23: "If the vehicle (10) is tilted, the electronic controller (250) responds by simultaneously increasing the pressure in the suspension assembly (164) on the "downhill" side (i.e., the side toward which the vehicle is tilted) of the vehicle [stiffening adjustable spring mechanism with respect to downhill side]").
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent No. 10369872) in view of Cavender-Bares (U.S. Patent No. 9582002) and further in view of Lansberry (U.S. Patent No. 6425450) and further in view of Allard, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7979175) and further in view of Damme, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11596093).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. does not teach the method of claim 2, wherein the one more upcoming operating environment conditions indicate the reduced traction condition.
In a similar field of endeavor (predictive behavior for agricultural machines), Damme, et al. teaches: The method of claim 2, wherein the one more upcoming operating environment conditions indicate the reduced traction condition (Col. 12, lines 29-39: "It is also possible to associate attributes with the virtual ground profile of the terrain model [3D terrain model] wherein the attributes refer to a current or predicted ground properties and take them into consideration [upcoming operating environment condition]. Thus, in particular weather forecasts can be integrated into the terrain model in order to predictively simulate the anticipated ground properties [weather - example]. Thus, for example a deeper sinking of the wheels into anticipated wet or muddy ground can be considered [reducing potential damage to soil] by corresponding movement of the vehicle model, wherein this sinking can also integrate data of the vehicle geometry and operating data like tire width, total mass or contact pressure [reduced traction condition as a result of environmental condition].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. to include the teaching of Damme, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of predictively generating a procedure for controlling a drive track and operating sequence for an agricultural vehicle (Damme, et al. Col. 1, lines 7-10).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent No. 10369872) in view of Cavender-Bares (U.S. Patent No. 9582002) and further in view of Lansberry (U.S. Patent No. 6425450) and further in view of Allard, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7979175) and further in view of Gunter (U.S. Patent No. 4861069).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. does not teach the method of claim 2, wherein the load balancing system includes one or more of: adjusting the position of the one or more movable weights and adjusting the position of the one or more movable weights includes: moving weight distribution toward the uphill side of the slope; or moving weight distribution away from the downhill side of the slope.
In a similar field of endeavor (adjustable vehicle counterweight device), Gunter teaches: adjusting the position of the one or more movable weights and adjusting the position of the one or more movable weights includes: moving weight distribution toward the uphill side of the slope; or moving weight distribution away from the downhill side of the slope (Col. 1, line 54 to Col. 2, lines 1-2: "With respect to the operation of the device (10), the counterweight device (10) is used to shift the center of gravity of the tractor (12), or other vehicle, to help stabilize the tractor (12) as the tractor travels with the contours of a sloped surface [adjust position of moveable weights]. For example, as illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3, when the tractor (12) is moving across a slope, the hydraulic cylinder (22) is utilized to move the weight member (14) to the uphill side of the frame (16) thereby shifting the center of gravity of the tractor (12) to the uphill side of the tractor (12). This shift of the weight member (14) to the uphill side of the tractor (12) makes it less likely that the tractor (12) will flip over and increases the traction of the uphill wheels. Accordingly, the device (10) allows the tractor (12), or other vehicle, to travel along contours defining steeper grades without risk of turning over and without loss of traction on the uphill wheels [moving weight distribution toward the uphill side of the slope].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. to include the teaching of Gunter based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the selective shifting of the center of gravity of a vehicle in order to prevent the vehicle from losing traction on a sloped surface (Gunter Col. 1, lines 7-13).
Claims 11, 13, 16-18, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent No. 10369872) in view of Cavender-Bares (U.S. Patent No. 9582002), and further in view of Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170010619), and further in view of Lansberry (U.S. Patent No. 6425450), and in further view of Allard, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7979175).
Regarding claim 11, Jackson teaches: A multi-operational land drone, comprising: and performing a plurality of adjustment operations with respect to the multi-operational land drone for the upcoming operating environment condition prior to the multi-operational land drone encountering the upcoming operating environment condition, (Fig. 1, Col. 5, lines 10-17: "… removing and/or opening the removable panel (14) and gaining access to the control interface (12) [operational panel], […] setup and/or control seeding rates and/or vacuum levels of the implement (15) [adjustment operation - seeding rates/vacuum levels], […] and/or the implement (15) (e.g., portions of field worked, the agricultural particulate levels and distribution), and the like.")
and initiating a remote operation mode for the multi-operational land drone (Col. 6, lines 35-37: "…remotely start the autonomous agricultural vehicle (10) when both of the ignition switches are in the ON position [autonomous navigation mode].").
Jackson does not teach one or more sensors configured to obtain sensor data; and one or more processors configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: analyzing sensor data that is obtained using the one or more sensors; determining, based on the analyzing of the sensor data, an upcoming operating environment condition corresponding to an operating environment of the multi-operational land drone; the upcoming operating environment condition including one or more of: an amount of slope of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data or a driving surface condition of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data.
In a similar field of endeavor (autonomous platforms and systems for the purpose of managing an agricultural field while self-navigating between rows of crops), Cavender-Bares teaches: one or more sensors configured to obtain sensor data; (Fig. 15, Col. 10, lines 53-59: "…sensor (175) [sensor]. […] cameras, infrared sensors, ultrasonic sensors, or a combination thereof [types of sensors].")
and one or more processors configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Fig. 14, Col. 9, lines 52-56: "…microprocessor (122) [processor] […] carry out a function or set of functions [perform operations].")
analyzing sensor data that is obtained using the one or more sensors; (Fig. 15, Col. 10, lines 53-59: "…onboard capabilities to detect, avoid, navigate around, or as appropriate navigate over a range of obstacles [analysis of data] […] a sensor (175) [sensor].")
determining, based on the analyzing of the sensor data, an upcoming operating environment condition corresponding to an operating environment of the multi-operational land drone; (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 39-44: "…agricultural field (102) can contain various rocks, debris, and other objects [upcoming operating environment - physical hazards] […] Small animals, including pets, as well as humans young and old [upcoming operating environment - human hazards]")
the upcoming operating environment condition including one or more of: an amount of slope of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data or a driving surface condition of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data (Col. 8, lines 46-53: "…autonomous vehicle platform (100) will soon encounter a side slope [analyzing sensor data based on amount of slope of operating environment]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson to include the teachings of Cavender-Bares based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of an autonomous vehicle platform which conducts various seasonal management tasks between the planted rows of an agricultural field (Cavender-Bares Col. 4, lines 27-62).
The combination of Jackson and Cavender-Bares does not teach the plurality of adjustment operations including: adjusting a powertrain setting of the multi-operational land drone.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural vehicle automation kit development), Foster, et al. teaches: the plurality of adjustment operations including: adjusting a powertrain setting of the multi-operational land drone (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Paragraph [0043]: "…path control system (92) […] subsequent signal to the velocity/powertrain control system (94) [adjusting powertrain setting] corresponding to a desired velocity of the work vehicle (12) [multi-operational land drone].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson and Cavender-Bares to include the teaching of Foster, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of an autonomous agricultural vehicle kit with a vehicle controller to control velocity and vehicle interface to communicate the controller with the braking system (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0004]).
The combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, and Foster, et al. do not teach adjusting an adjustable spring mechanism of a load balancing system of the multi-operational land drone.
In a similar field of endeavor (load shifting agriculture vehicle), Lansberry teaches: adjusting an adjustable spring mechanism of a load balancing system of the multi-operational land drone (Col. 37, lines 17-20: "…single-sided suspension assembly includes a pressure transducer on its piston side and is computer controllable to maintain suspension assembly baseline pressure foreground-following wheel movement [computer adjusted system]." ; Col. 30, lines 47-52: "…The controller (250) determines the position of a baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) at blocks (400) and (404). As described above, the baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) is preferably a 3-position spring-returned-to-center toggle switch [adjustable spring mechanism].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, and Foster, et al. to include the teaching of Lansberry based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of the navigation of agricultural vehicles with respect to uneven or steep terrain conditions (Lansberry Col. 1, lines 10-15).
The combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., and Lansberry does not teach in response to the upcoming operating environment condition indicating that the multi-operational land drone is approaching a tipping point.
In a similar field of endeavor (control systems and methods for unmanned ground vehicles), Allard, et al. teaches: in response to the upcoming operating environment condition indicating that the multi-operational land drone is approaching a tipping point, wherein the adjustable spring mechanism is adjusted prior to encountering the tipping point (Col. 14, lines 30-34: "…localization sensor suite (602) fuses the data from each sensor in the suite together in a weighted fashion to achieve a more robust estimations of state [in response to one or more upcoming operating environment conditions] […] In some embodiments, the localization sensor suite (602) determines the orientation of the vehicle, such as its pitch, roll, or yaw in part to ensure that the vehicle is not in danger of tipping over on its side, for example [multi-operational land drone approaching tipping point]." ; Col. 14, lines 10-13: "The selected preferred response may be to adjust the vehicle trajectory by moving one degree to the right causing the vehicle to continue close to the terrain feature while avoiding a collision [adjustment is make in order to prevent collision].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., and Lansberry to include the teaching of Allard, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling unmanned ground vehicles in response to environmental changes or operator intervention (Allard, et al. Col. 3, lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 13, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The multi-operational land drone of claim 11, wherein, adjusting the powertrain setting includes adjusting an amount of activated wheels (Cavender-Bares Col. 7, lines 50-53: "The autonomous vehicle platform (100) has at least one powertrain (112) fixedly coupled to vehicle base (108) and operably coupled to at least one ground contacting wheel (110) [powertrain adjusting wheel].").
Regarding claim 16, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The multi-operational land drone of claim 11, wherein the plurality of adjustment operations further comprise selecting between different remote operation modes for the multi-operational land drone based on one or more current or upcoming operating environment conditions (Allard, et al. Col. 19, line 61 to Col. 20, lines 1-5: "…remote unmanned tele-operation mode (806) [remote mode #1] and assisted remote tele-operations mode (812) [remote mode #2] are the states where the unmanned vehicle is being operated from a remote location by a dismounted operator or by an operator in a chase vehicle. […] plurality of alternative actions (804) of an action set (805) include a trajectory set (814) [mode selection linked to action set]. […] vehicle modifies the selected action to avoid a terrain feature [selecting by computing system based on operating environment].").
Regarding claim 17, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The multi-operational land drone of claim 11, wherein the upcoming operating environment condition includes one or more of: one or more weather conditions or one or more terrain conditions (Jackson Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines 1-4: "…seeding location on the terrain [terrain condition]").
Regarding claim 18, Jackson teaches: A multi-operational land drone comprising: and performing a plurality of adjustment operations with respect to the multi-operational land drone for the upcoming operating environment condition prior to the multi-operational land drone encountering the upcoming operating environment condition (Fig. 1, Col. 5, lines 10-17: "…removing and/or opening the removable panel (14) and gaining access to the control interface (12) [operational panel], […] setup and/or control seeding rates and/or vacuum levels of the implement (15) [adjustment operation – seeding rates/vacuum levels], […] and/or the implement (15) (e.g., portions of field worked, the agricultural particulate levels and distribution)").
Jackson does not teach one or more sensors configured to obtain sensor data; and one or more processors configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: analyzing sensor data that is obtained using the one or more sensors, determining, based on the analyzing of the sensor data, an upcoming operating environment condition corresponding to an operating environment of the multi-operational land drone; the upcoming operating environment condition including one or more of: an amount of slope of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data or a driving surface condition of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data.
In a similar field of endeavor (autonomous platforms and systems for the purpose of managing an agricultural field while self-navigating between rows of crops), Cavender-Bares teaches: one or more sensors configured to obtain sensor data; and (Fig. 15, Col. 10, lines 53-59: "…onboard capabilities to detect, avoid, navigate around, or as appropriate navigate over a range of obstacles [sensor data] can include a sensor (175) [sensor].")
one or more processors configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Fig. 14, Col. 9, lines 52-56: "…microprocessor (122) [processor] […] carry out a function or set of functions [perform operations].")
analyzing sensor data that is obtained using the one or more sensors (Fig. 15, Col. 10, lines 53-59: “…sensor (175). Such as one or more cameras, infrared sensors, ultrasonic sensors, or a combination thereof. In one embodiment, sensor (175) is mounted to the top of a telescoping tower or mast (127).”)
determining, based on the analyzing of the sensor data, an upcoming operating environment condition corresponding to an operating environment of the multi-operational land drone; (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 39-44: "…agricultural field (102) can contain various rocks, debris, and other objects […] Small animals, including pets, as well as humans young and old, can also be encountered by the autonomous vehicle platform (100) [analyzing sensor data based on operating environment].")
the upcoming operating environment condition including one or more of: an amount of slope of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data or a driving surface condition of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data (Col. 8, lines 46-53: “…autonomous vehicle platform (100) will soon encounter a side slope [analyzing sensor data based on amount of slope of operating environment]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson to include the teachings of Cavender-Bares based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of an autonomous vehicle platform which conducts various seasonal management tasks between the planted rows of an agricultural field (Cavender-Bares Col. 4, lines 27-62).
The combination of Jackson and Cavender-Bares does not teach the plurality of adjustment operations including: adjusting a powertrain setting of the multi-operational land drone.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural vehicle automation kit development), Foster, et al. teaches: the plurality of adjustment operations including one or more of: adjusting a powertrain setting of the multi-operational land drone (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Paragraph [0043]: "…path control system (92) […] subsequent signal […] velocity/powertrain control system (94) [adjusting powertrain setting] corresponding to a desired velocity of the work vehicle (12) [multi-operational land drone].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson and Cavender-Bares to include the teaching of Foster, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of an autonomous agricultural vehicle kit with a vehicle controller to control velocity and vehicle interface to communicate the controller with the braking system (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0004]).
The combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, and Foster, et al. do not teach and adjusting an adjustable spring mechanism of a load balancing system of the multi-operational land drone.
In a similar field of endeavor (load shifting agriculture vehicle), Lansberry teaches: and adjusting an adjustable spring mechanism of a load balancing system of the multi-operational land drone (Col. 37, lines 17-20: "…single-sided suspension assembly includes a pressure transducer on its piston side and is computer controllable to maintain suspension assembly baseline pressure foreground-following wheel movement [computer adjusted system]." ; Col. 30, lines 47-52: "…The controller (250) determines the position of a baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) at blocks (400) and (404). As described above, the baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) is preferably a 3-position spring-returned-to-center toggle switch [adjustable spring mechanism].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, and Foster, et al. to include the teaching of Lansberry based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of the navigation of agricultural vehicles with respect to uneven or steep terrain conditions (Lansberry Col. 1, lines 10-15).
The combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., and Lansberry does not teach in response to the upcoming operating environment condition indicating that the multi-operational land drone is approaching a tipping point, wherein the adjustable spring mechanism is adjusted prior to encountering the tipping point.
In a similar field of endeavor (control systems and methods for unmanned ground vehicles), Allard, et al. teaches: in response to the upcoming operating environment condition indicating that the multi-operational land drone is approaching a tipping point wherein the adjustable spring mechanism is adjusted prior to encountering the tipping point (Col. 14, lines 30-34: "…localization sensor suite (602) fuses the data from each sensor in the suite together in a weighted fashion to achieve a more robust estimations of state [in response to one or more upcoming operating environment conditions] […] In some embodiments, the localization sensor suite (602) determines the orientation of the vehicle, such as its pitch, roll, or yaw in part to ensure that the vehicle is not in danger of tipping over on its side, for example [multi-operational land drone approaching tipping point]." ; Col. 14, lines 10-13: "The selected preferred response may be to adjust the vehicle trajectory by moving one degree to the right causing the vehicle to continue close to the terrain feature while avoiding a collision [adjustment is make in order to prevent collision].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., and Lansberry to include the teaching of Allard, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling unmanned ground vehicles in response to environmental changes or operator intervention (Allard, et al. Col. 3, lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 21, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 18, and in a further embodiment, teach: The multi-operational land drone of claim 18, wherein the adjusting of the powertrain setting includes independently and individually adjusting power applied to each of multiple wheels of the multi-operational land drone (Foster, et al. Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Paragraph [0049]: "…path control system (92) may send a signal to a 4WD/differential lock control system (120). […] 4WD/differential lock control system (120). Accordingly, the work vehicle (12) may be enabled to traverse the obstacle (e.g., soft soil) because all four wheels (18), (20) may be used to drive the work vehicle (12).").
Regarding claim 24, Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. remain as applied to claim 18, and in a further embodiment, teach: The multi-operational land drone of claim 18, wherein adjusting the adjustable spring mechanism includes one or more of: loosening the adjustable spring mechanism in instances in which the adjustable spring mechanism corresponds to an uphill side of the multi operational land drone; or stiffening the adjustable spring mechanism in instances in which the adjustable spring mechanism corresponds to a downhill side of the multi-operational land drone (Lansberry Col. 37, lines 17-20: "…single-sided suspension assembly includes a pressure transducer on its piston side and is computer controllable to maintain suspension assembly baseline pressure foreground-following wheel movement [computer adjusted system]." ; Lansberry Col. 30, lines 47-52: "…The controller (250) determines the position of a baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) at blocks (400) and (404). As described above, the baseline pressure setting adjustment switch (260) is preferably a 3-position spring-returned-to-center toggle switch [adjustable spring mechanism]." ; Lansberry Col. 22, lines 19-23: "If the vehicle (10) is tilted, the electronic controller (250) responds by simultaneously increasing the pressure in the suspension assembly (164) on the "downhill" side (i.e., the side toward which the vehicle is tilted) of the vehicle [stiffening adjustable spring mechanism with respect to downhill side]").
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent No. 10369872), Cavender-Bares (U.S. Patent No. 9582002), Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170010619), Lansberry (U.S. Patent No. 6425450), and Allard, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7979175) in view of Letscher, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11186326).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. do not teach the multi-operational land drone of claim 11, wherein the plurality of adjustment operations further comprise changing a position of a moveable weight from a first position to a second position.
In a similar field of endeavor (ballasting device for agricultural vehicles), Letscher, et al. teaches: The multi-operational land drone of claim 11, wherein the plurality of adjustment operations further comprise changing a position of a moveable weight from a first position to a second position (Col. 12, lines 1-22: "…first ballasting arm (36) the first ballasting weight (38) and by the second ballasting arm (40) the second ballasting weight (42) are adjustable [adjustment operations with weights], […] the first and second ballasting arms (36), (40) are adjustable or pivotable in relation to one another from an open position [first position], in which the center of gravity S of the ballasting device (32) is at no distance or a minimum distance from the ballasting body (34), into a closed position [second position] in which the center of gravity S of the ballasting device (32) is at a maximum distance from the ballasting body (34).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. to include the teaching of Letscher, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of modifying the center of gravity of a ballasting device of an agricultural vehicle with respect to changing working conditions (Letscher, et al. Col. 3, lines 22-47).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. do not teach the multi-operational land drone of claim 18, wherein the plurality of adjustment operations further include adjusting a position of an adjustable weight of the load balancing system.
In a similar field of endeavor (ballasting device for agricultural vehicles), Letscher, et al. teaches: The multi-operational land drone of claim 18, wherein the plurality of adjustment operations further include adjusting a position of an adjustable weight of the load balancing system (Col. 12, lines 1-22: “…first ballasting arm (36) the first ballasting weight (38) and by the second ballasting arm (40) the second ballasting weight (42) are adjustable [adjustment operations with weights]” […] “the first and second ballasting arms (36), (40) are adjustable or pivotable in relation to one another from an open position [first position], in which the center of gravity S of the ballasting device (32) is at no distance or a minimum distance from the ballasting body (34), into a closed position [second position] in which the center of gravity S of the ballasting device (32) is at a maximum distance from the ballasting body (34).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. to include the teaching of Letscher, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of modifying the center of gravity of a ballasting device of an agricultural vehicle with respect to changing working conditions (Letscher, et al. Col. 3, lines 22-47).
Claims 22 and 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent No. 10369872), Cavender-Bares (U.S. Patent No. 9582002), Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170010619), Lansberry (U.S. Patent No. 6425450), and Allard, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7979175) in view of Damme, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11596093).
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. do not teach the multi-operational land drone of claim 18, wherein the upcoming operating environment condition indicates a reduced traction condition and the plurality of adjustment operations are based on reducing potential damage to soil upon which the multi-operational land drone is operating due to the reduced traction condition.
In a similar field of endeavor (predictive behavior for agricultural machines), Damme, et al. teaches: the multi-operational land drone of claim 18, wherein the upcoming operating environment condition indicates a reduced traction condition and the plurality of adjustment operations are based on reducing potential damage to soil upon which the multi-operational land drone is operating due to the reduced traction condition (Col. 12, lines 29-39: "In certain embodiments, the path control system (92) may send a signal to a 4WD/differential lock control system (120). For example, when the obstacle detection control system (100) determines that an obstacle (e.g., soft soil) is positioned along the mission path, and the work vehicle (12) cannot avoid such obstacle, the path control system (92) may send a signal to activate the 4WD/differential lock control system (120). Accordingly, the work vehicle (12) may be enabled to traverse the obstacle (e.g., soft soil) because all four wheels (18), (20) may be used to drive the work vehicle (12).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. to include the teaching of Damme, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of predictively generating a procedure for controlling a drive track and operating sequence for an agricultural vehicle (Damme, et al. Col. 1, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. do not teach the multi-operational land drone of claim 18, wherein adjusting the adjustable spring mechanism is further in response to the upcoming operating environment condition indicating a reduced traction condition of one or more wheels of the multi-operational land drone.
In a similar field of endeavor (predictive behavior for agricultural machines), Damme, et al. teaches: The multi-operational land drone of claim 18, wherein adjusting the adjustable spring mechanism is further in response to the one or more upcoming operating environment condition indicating one or more of: the multi-operational land drone approaching a tipping point; or a reduced traction condition of one or more wheels of the multi-operational land drone (Col. 11, lines 61-67: "The three-dimensional terrain model (11) includes a virtual ground profile (15) that is determined from geo data. In the vehicle model (2) the radii of the vehicle wheels and the pivot arms S that are geometrically determined by the spring travel [adjustable spring mechanism]" ; Col. 12, lines 29-39: "…virtual ground profile of the terrain model [3D terrain model] wherein the attributes refer to a current or predicted ground properties and take them into consideration [upcoming operating environment condition]. Thus, in particular weather forecasts can be integrated into the terrain model in order to predictively simulate the anticipated ground properties [weather - example]. Thus, for example a deeper sinking of the wheels into anticipated wet or muddy ground can be considered by corresponding movement of the vehicle model, wherein this sinking can also integrate data of the vehicle geometry and operating data like tire width, total mass or contact pressure [reduced traction condition of vehicle wheels as a result of environmental condition].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Foster, et al., Lansberry, and Allard, et al. to include the teaching of Damme, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of predictively generating a procedure for controlling a drive track and operating sequence for an agricultural vehicle (Damme, et al. Col. 1, lines 7-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that amended claim 2 was patentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent No. 10369872) in view of Cavender-Bares (U.S. Patent No. 9582002) and in further view of Allard, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7979175) because the Cavender-Bares did not meet the claim limitation “the one or more upcoming operating environment conditions including one or more of: an amount of slope of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data or a driving surface condition of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data”. The examiner disagrees. In Cavender-Bares, the agricultural vehicles is describes as having the capabilities to “…detect, avoid, navigate around, or as appropriate navigate over a range of obstacles can include a sensor (175)”, which may include “…one or more cameras, infrared sensors, ultrasonic sensors, or a combination thereof” (Col. 10, lines 53-57). As a result, the data stemming from these cameras can be used in order to determine the projected route of the machine, and as a result, determine the condition in which “…if it is known that autonomous vehicle platform (100) will soon encounter a side slope”, or the analysis of the sensor data is based on amount of slope of operating environment, “…the contents of tank (116) can be transferred from one side to the other to improve stability” (Col. 8, lines 46-53). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Cavender-Bares with Jackson, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. because Jackson teaches a remote-control mode for an autonomous agricultural vehicle (Col. 6, lines 35-37), Lansberry teaches the process of adjusting the spring mechanisms of a multi-operational drone (Col. 37, lines 17-20 and Col. 30, lines 47-52), and Allard, et al. teaches the process by which a sensor suite can be used to identify the vehicle’s orientation and identify when the vehicle is specifically reaching a tipping point (Col. 14, lines 30-34).
Applicant also asserted that amended claim 2 was patentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent No. 10369872) in view of Cavender-Bares (U.S. Patent No. 9582002) and in further view of Allard, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7979175) because Allard, et al. did not meet the claim limitation of an “upcoming environment condition” that includes “approaching a tipping point”. The examiner disagrees. In Allard, et al., the autonomous vehicle contains a localization sensor suite (602), which “…determines the orientation of the vehicle, such as its pitch, roll, or yaw in part to ensure that the vehicle is not in danger of tipping over on its side, for example” (Col. 14, lines 30-34), and as a result, if it is determined that the vehicle is approaching a tipping point, the vehicle has the ability to use “…the most preferred alternative trajectory may be that trajectory that requires the smallest adjustment to avoid a collision” (Col. 14, lines 2-4), or, for example, “…adjust the vehicle trajectory by moving one degree to the right causing the vehicle to continue close to the terrain feature while avoiding a collision” (Col. 14, lines 10-13). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Allard, et al. with Jackson, Cavender-Bares, and Lansberry because Jackson teaches a remote-control mode for an autonomous agricultural vehicle (Col. 6, lines 35-37), Cavender-Bares teaches the identification of sensor data toward the determination of an upcoming slope of the vehicle’s operating environment (Col. 10, lines 53-59, Col. 15, lines 60-65, Col. 10, lines 19-22, and Col. 8, lines 46-53), and Lansberry teaches the process of adjusting the spring mechanisms of an multi-operational drone (Col. 37, lines 17-20 and Col. 30, lines 47-52).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Jackson, Cavender-Bares, Lansberry, and Allard, et al. reads on the claim limitations of “the one or more upcoming operating environment conditions including one or more of: an amount of slope of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data or a driving surface condition of the operating environment determined based on the sensor data” and an “upcoming environment condition” that includes “approaching a tipping point”, as stated in amended claim 2, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Schmitz, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220009521) describes an autonomous farmland tractor which includes multiple sensors for the detection of an obstacle, a central processing unit (CPU) for receiving signals from the sensors and for providing control to the tractor, and a coupler to couple the tractor to another agricultural machine. The agricultural machine also contains obstacle detection sensors in order to connect the machine to the CPU and provide data to the CPU about the sensors’ location and specifications.
Foster, et al. (U.S Patent No. 10821829) describes an autonomous agricultural vehicle with a controller, a control interface, and a display connected to the controller.
Chowdhary, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210158041) describes an apparatus and method for agricultural data collection and agricultural operations related to robot-based crop stem width estimation involving camera based sensors.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached on 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights