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
The amendment filed on 05/06/2026 is being entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 11, 16, and 18 are amended. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection and the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been overcome. However, after further search and consideration, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection are presented. Therefore, responsive to this amendment, this rejection has been made final as necessitated by the amendment. Further, Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the communicated information" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 11, 13, and 15 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 Wendte et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2013/0277943 A1) hereinafter Wendte in view of Posselius et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0336818 A1) hereinafter Posselius 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 Hiramatsu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0139418 A1) hereinafter 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 connected to the self-propelled drive system [see Paragraph 0019]
a platform [see Figure 1 above – depicts a platform ahead of the operator cab
a 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 a 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 wheels see Paragraph 0148 – discusses that attitude sensors determine whether a vehicle is on uneven terrain (terrain conditions) and that the wheels positions are adjusted using an actuation system (adjusting the rear wheels will change the width between the front wheels and rear wheels), by changing the rear wheels to move forward this will change the center of gravity to a different location due to a weight of the wheel assembly being moved which changes the weight distribution] and 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 maintaining 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 actuators that selectively vary a width of the wheels to provide stability when traveling on a side hill such that the autonomous frame does not roll over, wherein the actuators move a center of gravity of the autonomous frame to a different location based on terrain conditions and 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 et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0278696 A1) hereinafter Anderson in view of Wendte et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2013/0277943 A1) hereinafter Wendte in view of Posselius et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0336818 A1) hereinafter Posselius 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 Hiramatsu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0139418 A1) hereinafter 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
a 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]
PNG
media_image2.png
637
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Anderson
Wendte discloses self-connecting mechanisms configured to automatically connect at least one of electrical connections, hydraulic connections, pneumatic connections, and power take-off connections between the unmanned agricultural vehicle and the agricultural implement when the unmanned agricultural vehicle and the agricultural implement are positioned sufficiently close to one another to enable connection [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 Paragraphs 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 an unmanned agricultural vehicle as taught by Anderson to be self-connecting between the unmanned agricultural vehicle and an agricultural implement when the unmanned agricultural vehicle 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 Paragraphs 0002-0003].
Posselius discloses wherein a 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, Wendte, 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, Wendte, 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 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 Cavender-Bares et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0325242 A1) hereinafter Cavender-Bares.
Regarding claim 18, Anderson, Wendte, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu disclose the invention with respect to claim 16.
However, the combination of Anderson, Wendte, Posselius, Nakano, Strong, Liu and Hiramatsu fails to disclose wherein the 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, Wendte, 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
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 11-20 filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues, on Pages 11-12 of the Remarks, that “rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” and that the “proposed combination fails to provide such articulated reasoning because the cited references address fundamentally different problems that would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them into the unified agricultural operation control system recited in the claims”.”
Examiner disagrees, each of the secondary references has a teaching, suggestion, and motivation for combining with the primary reference, and are not “merely conclusory statements”. Each secondary reference follows the Graham vs. Deere analysis for indicating obviousness. Further, regarding the argument the “the Office’s proposed combination fails to provide such articulated reasoning because the cited references address fundamentally different problems that would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them into the unified agricultural operation control system recited in the claims”, Examiner points again to the Graham vs. Deere analysis in the rejections above. These analysis show that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references into the unified agricultural operation control system as recited in the claims.
Applicant argues, on Page 13 of the Remarks, that the “The combination proposed by the Office merely aggregates disparate sensors from different references addressing fundamentally different problems… all without teaching or suggesting their integration into a single unified system for agricultural operations as recited in the claims.”, and that “the specification describes "autonomous vehicles" where "a master module continually updates the vehicle with new instructions" and "on-the-fly operation can also be continuously updated by the use of modules placed on and around the tug unit" including "various sensors, radar, LIDAR, cameras, radio, antennas, GPS, and the like to provide updated information that will aid in operating the tug unit.". It appears that Applicant is arguing that there are various sensors (i.e. modules) that are used for the sensor determinations on the agricultural vehicle, therefore there are “disparate sensors” on the claimed invention. The proposed combination teaches using various sensors as argued by the Applicant. Further, it appears that a/the “sensor” in the claims is actually a module of multiple sensors and each of the references and their respective recited sensor and sensor functions as combined above would lead to a module of multiple sensors.
Applicant further argues, on Page 13 of the Remarks, that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the references addressing such disparate problems to arrive at the unified agricultural operation control system with integrated sensor functions in the claims. There is no teaching or suggestion in any of the cited references that would lead one to integrate hospital navigation systems (Nakano et al.), automobile traffic sign detection (Liu et al.), and vehicle stability systems (Strong) into a unified agricultural sensor system. "To support the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references." Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The Office has not provided such a convincing line of reasoning.”. Examiner disagrees, each of the secondary references has a teaching, suggestion, and motivation to combine the references with the primary reference. Again, this is the obviousness test of following Graham vs. Deere analysis above.
Therefore, in view of the arguments for claims 11-20, claims 11-20 are not patentable over the cited references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights