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
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 01/05/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/05/2026 is being entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are amended. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been overcome. However, after further search and consideration, a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection are presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites on Page 2 lines 7-8 “wherein the at least one sensor is integrated with the intelligent control to simultaneously perform a plurality of the following functions and/or all of the following functions..”. There is no support in the specification for “the intelligent control to simultaneously perform a plurality of the following functions and/or all of the following functions”. Applicant points to Page 3, lines 11-23 for the support for these limitations. However, this portion of the specification appears to describe “on-the-fly operation” using modules (i.e. sensors) on the vehicle. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the at least one sensor is integrated with the intelligent control to simultaneously perform a plurality of the following functions and/or all of the following functions..” is new matter.
Claims 17-20 depend from claim 16 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Interpretation
The limitation in claims 1, 11, and 16 each recite “at least one sensor”. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation as more than one sensor. See Prior Art sections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0278696 A1) hereinafter Anderson in view of Posselius et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0336818 A1) hereinafter Posselius further in view of Nakano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0283905 A1) hereinafter Nakano in view of Strong (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0254840 A1) hereinafter Strong in view of Liu et al. (CN 103020623 A) hereinafter Liu in view of Kokubo (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0069507 A1) hereinafter Kokubo in view of Hiramatsu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0139418 A1) hereinafter Hiramatsu.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses an autonomous, self-controlled agricultural system comprising:
a frame capable [see Paragraphs 0018 and 0028] of (i) travelling through a field through use of a self-propelled drive system [see Paragraphs 0023 and 0092 – motors and wheels controlled autonomously] and (ii) performing at least one other agricultural operation within said field [see Paragraphs 0018, 0028 and 0057];
an intelligent control operatively connected to the self-propelled drive system and a power supply [see Paragraph 0020, see Paragraph 0092 - the machine 800 may be autonomously controlled using the path planner 802 and the controller 804 and ‘The example measurement devices may include sensors, gauges, or navigation systems…for autonomous operation…. path planner 102 determines a number of costs (e.g., monetary, time, etc.) for potential work paths for the machine configuration 100 based on a number of cost factors (e.g., topography, soil conditions, estimated load, desired speed of operation, etc.)… the selected work path may be provided to the controller 104 for use or execution’, see Paragraph 0024 – ‘In some examples, the path planner 102 may provide instructions to a controller 104 of the machine configuration 100 to autonomously control the machine configuration 100’, and see Paragraph 0093 – the controller instructs the battery to provide additional power to the motors to increase power output to the wheels, see Figure 8 below – depicts the self-propelled drive system 812 motors/810 wheels connected with the controller 804 and the battery 802];
PNG
media_image1.png
376
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Anderson
at least one sensor that senses agricultural characteristics [see Paragraph 0021 – discusses a machine measurement device includes sensors to determine characteristics of the work area such as soil conditions, topography] and communicates agricultural data of the agricultural characteristics to the intelligent control [see Paragraph 0092 – discusses that the controller receives information from the machine measurement devices, see Figure 2 below – depicts the path planner receiving information from the machine measurement devices],
a global positioning system (GPS) for tracking positioning information in real time [see Paragraph 0021];
a communication system that establishes data communications between the intelligent control, the GPS, and the at least one sensor [see Figure 2 below – depicts machine measurement devices (GPS, soil sensor) in communication with the path planner and the controller through the data port]; and
PNG
media_image2.png
637
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Anderson
a cab attached atop the frame [see Paragraph 0023 – discusses the machine is autonomous with a cab] including a steering mechanism [see Paragraph 0018 – discusses that the machine has steering controls]
Posselius discloses wherein at least one sensor is capable of determining a position of nearby obstructions [see Paragraph 0070 - discusses using a sensor onboard an agricultural robot to detect obstacles] and an intelligent control automatically guides the frame so as to avoid said obstructions [see Paragraphs 0073, 0075, and 0080 - discusses that the agricultural robot performs goal oriented navigation (see Paragraph 0072 – discusses a deliberative behavior is planned sequential steps to reach a goal (path planning)) and obstacle avoidance (see Paragraph 0073 – discusses reactive behavior is performed under unpredictable situations), the agricultural robot travels from point A to point B (along a desired path (see Paragraph 0074 – discusses a path planning module and see Paragraph 0011 – discusses that goal-oriented/deliberative behavior is a pre-planned execution of control steps (path planning)), however once the agricultural robot encounters an unexpected event (obstacle along the desired path (deliberative behavior)), the agricultural robot switches to a reactive mode to avoid the obstacle, and see Figure 2 below – depicts the desired path (deliberative) and obstacle avoidance (reactive) along the desired path by the agricultural robot].
PNG
media_image3.png
718
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Posselius
Posselius suggests that there are unexpected situations/events along desired paths (goal oriented pre planned paths) [see Paragraphs 0073 and 0074] and that using obstacle detection (vision sensor) and avoidance (reactive mode) ensures safety of the agricultural robot [see Paragraph 0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system as taught by Anderson to include a sensor capable of determining a position of nearby obstructions and modify the intelligent control to include a reactive mode to automatically guide the frame so as to avoid said obstruction as taught by Posselius in order to ensure safety of the agricultural vehicle during unexpected events along desired pre-planned paths [Posselius, see Paragraphs 0073-0075].
Nakano discloses wherein a sensor is capable of determining areas in which a frame is not to travel [see Paragraphs 0062-0064 – discusses determining obstacle information acquired by a sensor and determining virtual object information (obstacle zone and no entry-zone) acquired by another sensor, and then integrating this sensor data], based upon programmed data [see Paragraphs 0040-0041 – discusses a user setting the no-entry zone].
Nakano suggests that by a user setting a no entry zone prevents the autonomous mobile device from entering the no entry zone [see Paragraph 0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of determining areas in which a frame is not to travel based upon programmed data as taught by Nakano in order to prevent the autonomous mobile device from entering a no entry zone based on user input [Nakano, see Paragraph 0040].
Strong discloses wherein a sensor is capable of indicating to actuators or other mechanisms on a frame [see Paragraph 0148 – discusses that attitude sensor(s) sense the everchanging attitude of a vehicle, sends the attitude information to a controller that then adjusts the fore-aft position of the pair of rear drive wheels for stability] and further to provide the frame does not roll over or become stuck [by adjusting the position of wheels, based on the sensor, this would prevent the vehicle from becoming stuck, and maintaining stability would prevent the vehicle from rolling over].
Strong suggests actively maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0148].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of indicating to actuators or other mechanisms on the frame as taught by Strong in order to maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [Strong, see Paragraph 0148].
Liu discloses wherein a sensor is capable of determining the shape of a stop sign such that the sensor indicates for a frame to stop [see Paragraphs 0066-0092, and see Paragraph 0099 – discusses detecting a stop sign and controlling the vehicle to brake or decelerate].
Liu suggests detecting a stop sign using a sensor avoids danger [see Paragraph 0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of determining the shape of a stop sign such that the sensor indicates for the frame to stop as taught by Liu in order to avoid danger [Liu, see Paragraph 0099].
Kokubo discloses additional sensors emit data collection around in a 360 degree manner from a frame to indicate the presence of any other objects, and when no objects are detected, the frame receives further instruction to proceed travel [see Paragraphs 0051-0053 – discusses a robot determining the presence of an obstacle in a 360 degree manner around the robot using a detection sensor, the robot includes a plurality of sensors to detect the obstacle, a control unit determines the presence of the obstacle at the current position based on the detection sensor, and determines an area containing no obstacle to be an area the robot freely moves around, the control unit then controls moving operation (of the robot)].
Kokubo suggests that it is difficult to carry out obstacle detection in a forward direction while moving backwards and that a system that detects an obstacle only in a single direction, it is likely that the system will not be able to acquire sufficient information to avoid a collision with an obstacle [see Paragraphs 0015-0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include additional sensors emit data collection around in a 360 degree manner from a frame to indicate the presence of any other objects, and when no objects are detected, the frame receives further instruction to proceed travel as taught by Kokubo in order to acquire sufficient information in all directions around a vehicle before travelling [Kokubo, see Paragraphs 0015-0016].
Hiramatsu discloses a safety handheld remote including an emergency stop button that allows a user to perform an emergency stop remotely [see Paragraph 0086 – discusses an emergency stop button for an autonomously traveling work vehicle, the emergency stop button is provided on a remote control device].
Hiramatsu suggests that an obstacle sensor does not detect an obstacle that exists and using the emergency stop button stops the travelling [see Paragraph 0088] and prevents a collision with an obstacle [see Paragraph 0087].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system as taught by Anderson to include a safety handheld remote including an emergency stop button that allows a user to perform an emergency stop remotely as taught by Hiramatsu in order to emergency stop a vehicle when an obstacle sensor is not functioning [Hiramatsu, see Paragraph 0088] and to prevent a collision with the object [see Paragraph 0087].
Regarding claim 5, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Anderson further discloses a moisture content sensor [see Paragraph 0035].
Posselius further discloses a heat sensor [see Paragraph 0070 – an infrared sensor].
Posselius suggests that using obstacle detection (heat sensor) ensures safety of the agricultural robot by avoiding the obstacle[see Paragraph 0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the at least one sensor as taught by Anderson to include a heat sensor as taught by Posselius in order to detect objects/obstructions to avoid objects/obstructions [Posselius, see Paragraph 0075].
Regarding claim 6, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Posselius further discloses wherein the intelligent control continuously and wirelessly communicates said agricultural data among the autonomous, self controlled agricultural vehicle and see Paragraph 0071 – discusses a remote base station (command center) sends a command wirelessly to the agricultural robot].
Posselius suggests that when a sensor fails and the agricultural robot is in danger of collision then a master module (remote base station) sends emergency commands to the agricultural robot [see Paragraph 0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to be automated through information conveyed from a command center as taught by Posselius in order to overcome emergencies (collisions) when sensors fail [Posselius, see Paragraph 0071].
Regarding claim 7, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Anderson further discloses an attachment mechanism to attach a tug unit of said agricultural system to said frame [see Paragraph 0018 — discusses an attachment mechanism 117 to attach a tug unit 110 and a frame 120].
Regarding claim 8, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 7. Anderson further discloses wherein the attachment mechanism comprises: see Paragraph 0018 – discusses power take off (PTO) connections]
Regarding claim 9, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
Strong further discloses an actuatable system that can, based on the agricultural data communicated, adjust an output force of an actuator which provides weight distributionsee Paragraph 0191 – discusses using agricultural data (slope of field) to adjust the weight distribution of a vehicle, see Paragraph 0190 – discusses using for agricultural vehicles].
Strong suggests by adjusting the weight distribution of a vehicle, stability is improved [see Paragraph 0191].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include an adjustable actuator to provide weight distribution as taught by Strong in order to improve stability on slopes [Strong, see Paragraph 0191].
Regarding claim 10, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein the agricultural characteristics are selected from the group consisting of: a. moisture content [see Paragraph 0035].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Posselius in view of Nakano in view of Strong in view of Liu in view of Kokubo in view of Hiramatsu further in view of Warachka (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0020369 A1) hereinafter Warachka.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo, and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, the combination of Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo, and Hiramatsu fails to disclose wherein the power supply comprises a modular motor.
Warachka discloses wherein a power supply comprises a modular motor [see Paragraphs 0052-0054 - discusses using a modular motor unit to power wheels, power a lift, and power an implement].
Warachka suggests that this offers a key flexibility; it allows select components, component modules, and combinations of these “modules” to be recombined in different configurations [see Paragraph 0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the power supply as taught by Anderson to include a modular motor as taught by Warachka in order to allow for flexibility for powering different combinations of configurations for components (implements, wheels) [Warachka, see Paragraph 0012].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Posselius in view of Nakano in view of Strong in view of Liu in view of Kokubo in view of Hiramatsu in view of Buerkle (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0277675 A1) hereinafter Buerkle.
Regarding claim 3, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, the combination of Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo and Hiramatsu fails to disclose wherein the power supply can be recharged at a docking station within the field.
Buerkle discloses wherein a power supply can be recharged at a docking station within a field [see Column 2 lines 64-66 — discusses that the mobile station is transported to a field, and see Column 3 lines 6-9 — discusses that the mobile station comprises a refueling/recharging station].
Therefore, since Anderson discloses that the vehicle has a battery, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a recharge station as taught by Buerkle in order to recharge the batteries of the autonomous system as taught by Anderson.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu, Kokubo, Hiramatsu, and Buerkle disclose the invention with respect to claim 3. Anderson further discloses a tank for storing product selected from a group consisting of (i) propulsion fuel [see Paragraph 0022 – discusses the machine has a fuel gauge (implied there’s a fuel tank)], (ii) seed [see Paragraph 0016 - seeder].
Posselius further discloses tanks for storing product selected from the group consisting of: (iii) fertilizer, [see Paragraph 0070 — discusses crop input material being fertilizer], wherein said tanks can be re-filled with said products at said docking station [see Paragraph 0075 — discusses a refill station for the crop input material].
Posselius suggests that when the levels of the crop input material is low (sensed by the sensor), the agricultural vehicle is routed to the refill station [see Paragraph 0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the after before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system as taught by Anderson to include a refill station as taught by Posselius in order to refill crop material when the crop material is determined to be low [Posselius, see Paragraph 0075].
Claims 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Wendte et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2013/0277943 A1) hereinafter Wendte in view of Posselius in view of Nakano in view of Strong in view of Liu in view of Hiramatsu.
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses an autonomous frame comprising:
an agricultural implement operably attached to the autonomous frame [see Paragraph 0018];
see Paragraph 0018 – discusses that a connector (mechanical PTO, hydraulic PTO, electrical PTO) connects the agricultural implement with the machine 100 (800), the machine operates the implement by provided power to the implement ];
an autonomous controller [see Paragraph 0092 - the machine 800 may be autonomously controlled using the path planner 802 and the controller 804];
a self-propelled drive system controlled by the autonomous controller [see Paragraph 0020, see Paragraph 0092 - the machine 800 may be autonomously controlled using the path planner 802 and the controller 804 and ‘The example measurement devices may include sensors, gauges, or navigation systems…for autonomous operation…. path planner 102 determines a number of costs (e.g., monetary, time, etc.) for potential work paths for the machine configuration 100 based on a number of cost factors (e.g., topography, soil conditions, estimated load, desired speed of operation, etc.)… the selected work path may be provided to the controller 104 for use or execution’, see Paragraph 0024 – ‘In some examples, the path planner 102 may provide instructions to a controller 104 of the machine configuration 100 to autonomously control the machine configuration 100’, and see Paragraph 0093 – the controller instructs the battery to provide additional power to the motors to increase power output to the wheels, see Figure 8 below – depicts the self-propelled drive system 812 motors/810 wheels connected with the controller 804 and the battery 802];
PNG
media_image1.png
376
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Anderson
wheels or tracks operably connected to the self-propelled drive system [see Paragraph 0019];
a platform [see Figure 1 above – depicts a platform ahead of the operator cab]
at least one sensor that senses agricultural characteristics [see Paragraph 0021 – discusses a machine measurement device includes sensors to determine characteristics of the work area such as soil conditions, topography] and communicates agricultural data of the agricultural characteristics to the autonomous controller [see Paragraph 0092 – discusses that the controller receives information from the machine measurement devices, see Figure 2 below – depicts the path planner receiving information from the machine measurement devices],
PNG
media_image2.png
637
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Anderson
a cab attached atop the autonomous frame [see Paragraph 0023 – discusses the machine is autonomous with a cab] including a steering mechanism [see Paragraph 0018 – discusses that the machine has steering controls]
Wendte discloses self-connecting mechanisms on the frame configured to automatically connect at least one of electrical connections, hydraulic connections, see Paragraph 0013 – discusses automatically aligning and connecting an implement hydraulic system and electrical system to a tractor hydraulic system and electrical system see Paragraph 0029 - After the receptacles 129 and pins 135 are transversely and vertically aligned with each other, the operator moves the tractor connector bank assembly 29 toward the implement connector bank assembly 27. This is done by manipulating a control of the user console 145 to move the rod 101 of the first actuator 99 in an aft direction, which moves the tractor connector bank assembly 29 away from the tractor 9. When the tractor bank assembly 29 moves toward implement connector bank assembly 27, the pins 135 enter the forward facing openings of the receptacles 129 and while the pins 135 advance through the receptacles, the implement and tractor connector bank assemblies 27, 29 automatically align with each other because of the mechanical engagement of the pins 135 and receptacles 129].
Wendte suggests that an operator getting in and out of a cab is time consuming and that automatically connecting a tractor and an implement reduces the time [see Paragraph 0002-0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the automated frame as taught by Anderson to be self-connecting between the frame and an agricultural implement when the frame and the agricultural implement are positioned sufficiently close to one another to enable connection as taught by Wendte in order to reduces the time it takes to connect an implement to a frame [Wendte, see Paragraph 0002-0003].
Posselius discloses a frame being automated through information conveyed from a command center [see Paragraph 0071 – discusses a remote base station (command center) sends a command wirelessly to the agricultural robot], said command center being selected from the group consisting of (i) a tablet; (ii) a phone; and (iii) a master module [see Paragraphs 0071 and 0076 – discusses a remote base station].
Posselius suggests that when a sensor fails and the agricultural robot is in danger of collision then a master module (remote base station) sends emergency commands to the agricultural robot [see Paragraph 0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the automated frame as taught by Anderson to be automated through information conveyed from a command center as taught by Posselius in order to overcome emergencies (collisions) when sensors fail [Posselius, see Paragraph 0071].
Posselius discloses wherein at least one sensor is capable of determining a position of nearby obstructions [see Paragraph 0070 - discusses using a sensor onboard an agricultural robot to detect obstacles] and an autonomous controller automatically guides the agricultural implement so as to avoid said obstructions [see Paragraphs 0073, 0075, and 0080 - discusses that the agricultural robot performs goal oriented navigation (see Paragraph 0072 – discusses a deliberative behavior is planned sequential steps to reach a goal (path planning)) and obstacle avoidance (see Paragraph 0073 – discusses reactive behavior is performed under unpredictable situations), the agricultural robot travels from point A to point B (along a desired path (see Paragraph 0074 – discusses a path planning module and see Paragraph 0011 – discusses that goal-oriented/deliberative behavior is a pre-planned execution of control steps (path planning)), however once the agricultural robot encounters an unexpected event (obstacle along the desired path (deliberative behavior)), the agricultural robot switches to a reactive mode to avoid the obstacle, and see Figure 2 below – depicts the desired path (deliberative) and obstacle avoidance (reactive) along the desired path by the agricultural robot].
PNG
media_image3.png
718
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Posselius
Posselius suggests that there are unexpected situations/events along desired paths (goal oriented pre planned paths) [see Paragraphs 0073 and 0074] and that using obstacle detection (vision sensor) and avoidance (reactive mode) ensures safety of the agricultural robot [see Paragraph 0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system as taught by Anderson to include a sensor capable of determining a position of nearby obstructions and modify the intelligent control to include a reactive mode to automatically guide the frame so as to avoid said obstruction as taught by Posselius in order to ensure safety of the agricultural vehicle during unexpected events along desired pre-planned paths [Posselius, see Paragraphs 0073-0075].
Nakano discloses wherein a sensor is capable of determining areas in which a frame is not to travel [see Paragraphs 0062-0064 – discusses determining obstacle information acquired by a sensor and determining virtual object information (obstacle zone and no entry-zone) acquired by another sensor, and then integrating this sensor data], based upon programmed data [see Paragraphs 0040-0041 – discusses a user setting the no-entry zone].
Nakano suggests that by a user setting a no entry zone prevents the autonomous mobile device from entering the no entry zone [see Paragraph 0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of determining areas in which a frame is not to travel based upon programmed data as taught by Nakano in order to prevent the autonomous mobile device from entering a no entry zone based on user input [Nakano, see Paragraph 0040].
Strong discloses wherein a sensor is capable of indicating to actuators or other mechanisms on a frame [see Paragraph 0148 – discusses that attitude sensor(s) sense the everchanging attitude of a vehicle, sends the attitude information to a controller that then adjusts the fore-aft position of the pair of rear drive wheels for stability] and further to provide the frame does not roll over or become stuck [by adjusting the position of wheels, based on the sensor, this would prevent the vehicle from becoming stuck, and maintaining stability would prevent the vehicle from rolling over].
Strong suggests actively maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0148].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of indicating to actuators or other mechanisms on the frame as taught by Strong in order to maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [Strong, see Paragraph 0148].
Strong suggests actively maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0148].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of indicating to actuators or other mechanisms on the frame as taught by Strong in order to maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [Strong, see Paragraph 0148].
Liu discloses wherein a sensor is capable of determining the shape of a stop sign such that the sensor indicates for a frame to stop [see Paragraphs 0066-0092, and see Paragraph 0099 – discusses detecting a stop sign and controlling the vehicle to brake or decelerate].
Liu suggests detecting a stop sign using a sensor avoids danger [see Paragraph 0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of determining the shape of a stop sign such that the sensor indicates for the frame to stop as taught by Liu in order to avoid danger [see Paragraph 0099].
Hiramatsu discloses a safety handheld remote including an emergency stop button that allows a user to perform an emergency stop remotely [see Paragraph 0086 – discusses an emergency stop button for an autonomously traveling work vehicle, the emergency stop button is provided on a remote control device].
Hiramatsu suggests that an obstacle sensor does not detect an obstacle that exists and using the emergency stop button stops the travelling [see Paragraph 0088] and prevents a collision with an obstacle [see Paragraph 0087].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the autonomous frame as taught by Anderson to include a safety handheld remote including an emergency stop button that allows a user to perform an emergency stop remotely as taught by Hiramatsu in order to emergency stop a vehicle when an obstacle sensor is not functioning [Hiramatsu, see Paragraph 0088] and to prevent a collision with the object [see Paragraph 0087].
Regarding claim 13, Anderson, Wendte, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 11. Anderson further discloses wherein the agricultural implement is pulled behind the frame [see Paragraph 0018].
Regarding claim 15, Anderson, Wendte, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 11. Anderson further discloses a sprayer [see Paragraph 0028]. Posselius further discloses a sprayer for spraying fertilizer and/or pesticide without a driver a present [see Paragraph 0074 – discusses agricultural robot, which is autonomous, includes a sprayer and the sprayer turns on or off based on the sprayers location (not controlled by the driver), see Paragraph 0070 – discusses that the crop input material is pesticide, fertilizer].
Posselius suggests reducing human operators reduces labor costs and increases productivity [see Paragraph 0006]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the autonomous frames sprayer as taught by Anderson to spray fertilizer without a driver present as taught by Posselius in order to reduce labor costs and increase productivity [Posselius, see Paragraph 0006]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Wendte in view of Posselius in view of Nakano in view of Strong in view of Liu in view of Hiramatsu further in view of Diekhans (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0145571 A1) hereinafter Diekhans.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson, Wendte, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 11.
However, the combination Anderson, Wendte, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu fails to disclose wherein an automatic platform follows harvesters in rows or between rows of fruit and/or vegetables in order to hold harvested fruits and/or vegetables from the harvesters.
Diekhans discloses an automatic platform that follows harvesters in rows or between rows of fruit and/or vegetables [see Paragraph 0043 - discusses that a route planning system of a harvester determines signals for the steering and speed of a transport vehicle (automatic platform) and signals are transmitted to a control system of the transport vehicle] in order to hold harvested fruits and/or vegetables from the harvesters [see Figure 3 below — depicts carts 38/39 for holding crops (grain, fruit, or vegetable)].
PNG
media_image4.png
327
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Diekhans
Diekhans suggests that by determining a route for the transport vehicle, reliable transfer of crop to the transport vehicle from the harvester is determined [see Paragraph 0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the after before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the autonomous frame as taught by Anderson to include an automatic platform and a harvester that is followed by the automatic platform as taught by Diekhans in order to reliably transfer crops from the transport vehicle to the harvester [Diekhans, see Paragraph 0043].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Wendte in view of Posselius in view of Nakano in view of Strong in view of Liu in view of Hiramatsu in view of Buerkle (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0277675 A1) hereinafter Buerkle.
Regarding claim 14, Anderson, Wendte, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 11.
However, the combination of Anderson, Wendte, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu fails to disclose an automatic platform that is movable with respect to a central location determined by wheels or tracks.
Buerkle further discloses an automatic platform that is movable with respect to a central location determined by wheels or tracks [see Paragraphs 0054-0055 — discusses that an offset 506 is determined for a machine (autonomous frame) and a second machine (an automatic platform), the offset 506 is determined using a central location 502 of the machine (which is determined by automatic control of the wheels), the second machine moves so that its central location 504 is offset from central location 502].
Buerkle suggests that by offsetting a first machine (autonomous frame) and a second machine (automatic platform) reduces soil compaction [see Paragraph 0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the after before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the autonomous frame as taught by Anderson to include an automatic platform that is movable with respect to a central location determined by wheels or tracks as taught by Buerkle in order to reduce soil compaction [Buerkle, see Paragraph 0054].
Claims 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Posselius in view of Nakano in view of Strong in view of Liu in view of Hiramatsu.
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses an unmanned agricultural vehicle comprising:
an operable attachment to an agricultural implement selected from the group consisting of: (see Paragraph 0028 – discusses a sprayer]; (c) a tiller [see Paragraph 0018 – discusses tillage machinery]; (d) a planter [see Paragraph 0028 – discusses a planter]; and (e) a harvester [see Paragraph 0018 – discusses an implement behind the agricultural vehicle 110, and see Paragraph 0028 – discusses that the machine is a harvest];
a self-propelled drive system [see Paragraphs 0023 and 0092 – motors and wheels controlled autonomously];
a power supply [see Paragraph 0093 – battery, ICE, and generator];
a cab attached atop the self-propelled drive system [see Paragraph 0023 – discusses the machine is autonomous with a cab] including a steering mechanism [see Paragraph 0018 – discusses that the machine has steering controls];
an intelligent control operatively connected to the self-propelled drive system and the power supply [see Paragraph 0020, see Paragraph 0092 - the machine 800 may be autonomously controlled using the path planner 802 and the controller 804 and ‘The example measurement devices may include sensors, gauges, or navigation systems…for autonomous operation…. path planner 102 determines a number of costs (e.g., monetary, time, etc.) for potential work paths for the machine configuration 100 based on a number of cost factors (e.g., topography, soil conditions, estimated load, desired speed of operation, etc.)… the selected work path may be provided to the controller 104 for use or execution’, see Paragraph 0024 – ‘In some examples, the path planner 102 may provide instructions to a controller 104 of the machine configuration 100 to autonomously control the machine configuration 100’, and see Paragraph 0093 – the controller instructs the battery to provide additional power to the motors to increase power output to the wheels, see Figure 8 below – depicts the self-propelled drive system 812 motors/810 wheels connected with the controller 804 and the battery 802];
a location determining system that communicates navigation information to the intelligent control [see Paragraphs 0021, 0028-0029, and 0092];
PNG
media_image1.png
376
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Anderson
at least one sensor that senses agricultural characteristics [characteristics [see Paragraph 0021 – discusses a machine measurement device includes sensors to determine characteristics of the work area such as soil conditions, topography] and communicates agricultural data of the agricultural characteristics to the intelligent control [see Paragraph 0092 – discusses that the controller receives information from the machine measurement devices, see Figure 2 below – depicts the path planner receiving information from the machine measurement devices]
PNG
media_image2.png
637
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Anderson
Posselius further discloses wherein at least one sensor is capable of determining a position of nearby obstructions [see Paragraph 0070 - discusses using a sensor onboard an agricultural robot to detect obstacles] and an intelligent control automatically guides the unmanned agricultural vehicle so as to avoid said obstructions [see Paragraphs 0073, 0075, and 0080 - discusses that the agricultural robot performs goal oriented navigation (see Paragraph 0072 – discusses a deliberative behavior is planned sequential steps to reach a goal (path planning)) and obstacle avoidance (see Paragraph 0073 – discusses reactive behavior is performed under unpredictable situations), the agricultural robot travels from point A to point B (along a desired path (see Paragraph 0074 – discusses a path planning module and see Paragraph 0011 – discusses that goal-oriented/deliberative behavior is a pre-planned execution of control steps (path planning)), however once the agricultural robot encounters an unexpected event (obstacle along the desired path (deliberative behavior)), the agricultural robot switches to a reactive mode to avoid the obstacle, and see Figure 2 below – depicts the desired path (deliberative) and obstacle avoidance (reactive) along the desired path by the agricultural robot].
Posselius suggests that there are unexpected situations/events along desired paths (goal oriented pre planned paths) [see Paragraphs 0073 and 0074] and that using obstacle detect and avoidance (reactive mode) ensures safety of the agricultural robot [see Paragraph 0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the unmanned agricultural vehicle as taught by Anderson to include a sensor capable of determining a position of nearby obstructions and modify the intelligent control to include a reactive mode to automatically guide the unmanned agricultural vehicle so as to avoid said obstruction as taught by Posselius in order to ensure safety of the agricultural vehicle during unexpected events along desired pre-planned paths [Posselius, see Paragraphs 0073 and 0075].
Nakano discloses wherein a sensor is capable of determining areas in which a frame is not to travel [see Paragraphs 0062-0064 – discusses determining obstacle information acquired by a sensor and determining virtual object information (obstacle zone and no entry-zone) acquired by another sensor, and then integrating this sensor data], based upon programmed data [see Paragraphs 0040-0041 – discusses a user setting the no-entry zone].
Nakano suggests that by a user setting a no entry zone prevents the autonomous mobile device from entering the no entry zone [see Paragraph 0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of determining areas in which a frame is not to travel based upon programmed data as taught by Nakano in order to prevent the autonomous mobile device from entering a no entry zone based on user input [Nakano, see Paragraph 0040].
Strong discloses wherein a sensor is capable of indicating to actuators or other mechanisms on a frame [see Paragraph 0148 – discusses that attitude sensor(s) sense the everchanging attitude of a vehicle, sends the attitude information to a controller that then adjusts the fore-aft position of the pair of rear drive wheels for stability] and further to provide the frame does not roll over or become stuck [by adjusting the position of wheels, based on the sensor, this would prevent the vehicle from becoming stuck, and maintaining stability would prevent the vehicle from rolling over].
Strong suggests actively maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0148].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of indicating to actuators or other mechanisms on the frame as taught by Strong in order to maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [Strong, see Paragraph 0148].
Strong suggests actively maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0148].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of indicating to actuators or other mechanisms on the frame as taught by Strong in order to maintain the fore-aft stability of the vehicle [Strong, see Paragraph 0148].
Liu discloses wherein a sensor is capable of determining the shape of a stop sign such that the sensor indicates for a frame to stop [see Paragraphs 0066-0092, and see Paragraph 0099 – discusses detecting a stop sign and controlling the vehicle to brake or decelerate].
Liu suggests detecting a stop sign using a sensor avoids danger [see Paragraph 0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the frame as taught by Anderson to include a sensor that is capable of determining the shape of a stop sign such that the sensor indicates for the frame to stop as taught by Liu in order to avoid danger [see Paragraph 0099].
Hiramatsu discloses a safety handheld remote including an emergency stop button that allows a user to perform an emergency stop remotely [see Paragraph 0086 – discusses an emergency stop button for an autonomously traveling work vehicle, the emergency stop button is provided on a remote control device].
Hiramatsu suggests that an obstacle sensor does not detect an obstacle that exists and using the emergency stop button stops the travelling [see Paragraph 0088] and prevents a collision with an obstacle [see Paragraph 0087].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system as taught by Anderson to include a safety handheld remote including an emergency stop button that allows a user to perform an emergency stop remotely as taught by Hiramatsu in order to emergency stop a vehicle when an obstacle sensor is not functioning [Hiramatsu, see Paragraph 0088] and to prevent a collision with the object [see Paragraph 0087].
Hiramatsu discloses a safety handheld remote including an emergency stop button that allows a user to perform an emergency stop remotely [see Paragraph 0086 – discusses an emergency stop button for an autonomously traveling work vehicle, the emergency stop button is provided on a remote control device].
Hiramatsu suggests that an obstacle sensor does not detect an obstacle that exists and using the emergency stop button stops the travelling [see Paragraph 0088] and prevents a collision with an obstacle [see Paragraph 0087].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the autonomous frame as taught by Anderson to include a safety handheld remote including an emergency stop button that allows a user to perform an emergency stop remotely as taught by Hiramatsu in order to emergency stop a vehicle when an obstacle sensor is not functioning [Hiramatsu, see Paragraph 0088] and to prevent a collision with the object [see Paragraph 0087].
Regarding claim 17, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 16. Anderson further discloses wherein the location determining system is selected from the group consisting of: (a) GPS [see Paragraphs 0021, 0028-0029, and 0092]
Regarding claim 20, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 16. Posselius further discloses wherein the agricultural vehicle wirelessly communicates with a command center selected from the group consisting of (i) a tablet; (ii) a phone; and (iii) a master module [see Paragraph 0071 – discusses a remote base station (command center) sends a command wirelessly to the agricultural robot, and see Paragraphs 0071 and 0076 – discusses a remote base station].
Posselius suggests that when a sensor fails and the agricultural robot is in danger of collision then a master module (remote base station) sends emergency commands to the agricultural robot [see Paragraph 0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the unmanned agricultural vehicle as taught by Anderson to be automated through information conveyed from a command center as taught by Posselius in order to overcome emergencies (collisions) when sensors fail [Posselius, see Paragraph 0071].
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Posselius in view of Nakano in view of Strong in view of Liu in view of Hiramatsu further in view of Cavender-Bares et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0325242 A1) hereinafter Cavender-Bares.
Regarding claim 18, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 16.
However, the combination of Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu fails to disclose wherein the at least one sensor is cameras which provide operating information to the intelligent control.
Cavender-Bares discloses cameras which provide operating information to an intelligent control [see Paragraph 0067].
Cavender-Bares suggests using a camera to detect objects/obstructions [see Paragraph 0067] to navigate around the objects/obstructions [see Paragraph 0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the sensor as taught by Posselius to include cameras as taught by Cavender-Bares in order to detect objects/obstructions to navigate around the objects/obstructions [Cavender-Bares, see Paragraphs 0067 and 0071].
Regarding claim 19, Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 18. Cavender-Bares further discloses wherein the operating information is selected from the group consisting of: see Paragraph 0067 and 0071].
Cavender-Bares suggests using a camera to detect objects/obstructions [see Paragraph 0067] to navigate around the objects/obstructions [see Paragraph 0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the unmanned agricultural vehicle as taught by Anderson to include cameras for detecting a location of an object/obstruction as taught by Cavender-Bares in order to detect objects/obstructions to navigate around the objects/obstructions [Cavender-Bares, see Paragraphs 0067 and 0071].
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding claim 1-20 appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter, and are not persuasive, as noted supra in the rejections of that claimed subject matter.
Specifically regarding claim 16, Applicant argues, on Page 19 of the Remarks, that “The Office's position that "a vehicle can have multiple sensors for detecting different aspects of an environment for different reasons" and that "combining all the already existing sensors on one vehicle does not make the claimed invention patentable" fails to address the amended claim language. Amended claim 16 does not merely recite multiple sensors on a vehicle. Rather, amended claim 16 recites at least one sensor that is "integrated with the intelligent control to simultaneously perform all of' the enumerated functions "as part of a unified agricultural operation control system".
Examiner disagrees, the limitation “at least one sensor” at least one sensor is interpreted as reciting and meaning multiple sensors on a vehicle. Therefore, the combined sensors from Anderson, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu on the vehicle reads on the limitation “at least one sensor”. Each of the sensors, while the vehicle is operating, would be powered on and actively detecting for an input based on the external environment (an obstruction, an area not to travel, conditions the vehicle is travelling on, and determining a stop sign). Therefore, the sensors would be simultaneously operating based on their assigned functions. Further, the Applicant has not explained in the specification how one sensor has multiple modalities for simultaneous detection. The specification at Page 3, lines 11-23 (as provided by the Applicant) appears to describe multiple sensors being used for the “functionalities”, which is how the Examiner is interpreting the claim. Therefore, the rejection regarding claim 16 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665