DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 05/29/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 2 has been amended.
Claim 8b(second) has been canceled.
Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 112(f) interpretation: Applicant argues that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure and interpretation be withdrawn. Examiner agrees with the argument. In previous office action, Examiner discloses how and where within the specification the sufficient structures for the claim limitations are provided. The 112(f) interpretations were provided because (1) the term “module” is a generic placeholder for means for, (2) the term was modified by functional language, and (3) the term is not modified by sufficient structure within the claim. The claim limitations pass the 112(f) interpretation analysis and this is why the Examiner provided the interpretation in the previous office action. Examiner would like to indicate that this is NOT a claim rejection but simply an interpretation which was done correctly by the Applicant. Examiner would also like to indicate that the term “module” is not known to one of ordinary skilled in the art to describe sufficient structure, as for example a device. Therefore, the 112(f) interpretation is held.
Regarding claim objections: Applicant’s amendment to claims 2 and 8b has overcome the claim objection raised in the previous action; therefore the claim objection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding 102(a)(1) rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Flann fails to teach the claimed feature of "determining an exclusion zone for the planter to prohibit planting of one or more rows of seeds or seedlings within the exclusion zone based on the estimated potential interference; and activating or executing the path plan and determined exclusion zone in accordance with the established path plan and determined exclusion zone", recited in claims 1 and similarly in claim 10. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim limitation merely states that a zone is determine to prohibit planting based on interference (obstacles). Once the zone is determined, come up and execute a path plan. With that said, Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0080] and Figure 21 of the Flann reference where it states that “The work area of FIG. 21 contains a number of obstacles 777. Each obstacle 777 is surrounded by an obstacle clearance zone 779 into which a turn may occur so long as the obstacle 777 is not impacted, contacted or struck. The obstacle clearance zone 779 is associated with a zone boundary 781, which is coextensive with an outer perimeter or outer periphery of the corresponding obstacle clearance zone 779 about a respective obstacle 777”. This indicates that the work area of Figure 21 shows obstacles 777. These obstacles 777 provide an interference when planting the work area. In order to avoid the obstacles 777, each obstacle is surrounded by an obstacle clearance zone 779 which also is associated with zone boundary 781. This provides a zone boundary 781 which is an inner boundary within obstacle clearance zone 779, which is only used for turning and not planting, that surrounds the obstacle where no vehicle is to enter.
Furthermore, Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0030] where it states that “the definer 26 defines a reference row that tracks around an inner boundary (e.g., about an obstacle or no-entry zone) within the work area”. This indicates that the inner boundary, a no-entry zone, is provided around the obstacle due to the obstacle interference. As shown in Figure 21, the path plan is created in order to avoid all obstacles 777 on the work vehicle. See paragraph [0081] where it states that “The path planning system of FIG. 22 is similar to the path planning system of FIG. 1, except that path planning system of FIG. 22 further includes a linear path estimator 51, a spiral path estimator 53, a turn estimator 55, and a data processor 57 for supporting the determination of whether to use a linear path plan or a path plan with a spiral component (e.g., a spiral path plan) to service a defined work area”. Also, Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0078] where it states “a path plan having a spiral component and avoiding internal obstacle areas”. This indicates that a path plan is created based on avoiding obstacles within the work area. Therefore, Flann does teach "determining an exclusion zone for the planter to prohibit planting of one or more rows of seeds or seedlings within the exclusion zone based on the estimated potential interference; and activating or executing the path plan and determined exclusion zone in accordance with the established path plan and determined exclusion zone" and as such meets the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
path planning module configured to establish in claim 10
path interference estimator configured to estimate in claim 10
exclusion zone module configured to determine in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specifications for some the above limitations:
path planning module – page 5, paragraph 2, Figure 1A, item 57
path interference estimator – page 5, paragraph 2, Figure 1A, item 58
exclusion zone module - page 5, paragraph 2, Figure 1A, item 59
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 1-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flann et al. (USPGPub 2005/0197757). As per claim 1, Flann discloses a method for precise planting based on planned paths, the method comprising: establishing a path plan for a planter to cover a first area of the field at least once with a sequence of path segments that are generally parallel to each other (see at least paragraph 0025; wherein the spiral region-filling module 12 establishes a path plan comprising one or more spiral components or contour rows to cover the work area or a region thereof. Contour rows may be defined by curved components, generally linear components, or both. Although generally linear rows may be employed as part of a path plan, the path plan may be structured to support a spiral path plan to cover a region of the work area) and spaced apart (see at least paragraph 0066; wherein path planner 10 forms a series of nested loops spaced apart from one another by a generally uniform spacing); estimating potential interference between two or more path segments with respect to a first path segment and a second path segment, the first path segment associated with an earlier scheduled portion of the sequence and the second path segment associated with a later scheduled portion of the sequence (see at least paragraph 0058; wherein interference module 40 defines a cross-over row at the pinch region over which the vehicle may travel multiple times to service area on each side of the pinch region within the work area); determining an exclusion zone (see at least Figure 21; obstacle clearance zone 779) for the planter to prohibit planting of one or more rows of seeds or seedlings within the exclusion zone based on the estimated potential interference (see at least paragraph 0080 and Figure 21; wherein each obstacle 777 is surrounded by an obstacle clearance zone 779 into which a turn may occur so long as the obstacle 777 is not impacted, contacted or struck. The obstacle clearance zone 779 is associated with a zone boundary 781, which is coextensive with an outer perimeter or outer periphery of the corresponding obstacle clearance zone 779 about a respective obstacle 777); and activating or executing the path plan and determined exclusion zone in accordance with the established path plan and determined exclusion zone (see at least paragraph 0081 and Figure 21; wherein the data processor 57 may apply or recommend (e.g., via the user interface 21) a spiral path plan, a linear path plan, or both to cover a particular work area. The work area may be defined by the perimeter training module 14). As per claims 2 and 11, Flann discloses further comprising: inputting, obtaining or accepting the established path plan and determined exclusion zone (see at least paragraph 0026; wherein the vehicle controller 16 accepts an input of the path plan from the path planner 10). As per claims 3 and 13, Flann discloses wherein the potential interference is indicative of intersection or overlap of at least one previously scheduled row of planted seeds or seedlings for the first path segment with the second path segment of the vehicle that is configured to propel the planter through the field (see at least paragraph 0058; wherein interference module 40 defines a cross-over row at the pinch region over which the vehicle may travel multiple times to service area on each side of the pinch region within the work area). As per claims 4 and 14, Flann discloses wherein the potential interference is indicative intersection or overlap of a set of previously scheduled rows of planted seeds or seedlings for the first path segment with the second path segment of the vehicle that is configured to propel the planter through the field (see at least paragraph 0058; wherein interference module 40 defines a cross-over row at the pinch region over which the vehicle may travel multiple times to service area on each side of the pinch region within the work area). As per claims 5 and 15, Flann discloses wherein the previously scheduled rows are generally parallel to each other and wherein the exclusion zone has a generally rectangular boundary (see at least Figure 21). As per claims 6 and 16, Flann discloses wherein the previously scheduled rows define contour segments that are parallel to each other and wherein the exclusion zone has a generally curved boundary that tracks the defined contour segments (see at least Figure 21). As per claims 7 and 17, Flann discloses wherein the potential interference is indicative of an intersection or overlap of a set of scheduled row of planted seeds or seedlings for the first path segment with the second path segment of the implement or planter that is configured to propel the planter through the field (see at least paragraph 0058; wherein interference module 40 defines a cross-over row at the pinch region over which the vehicle may travel multiple times to service area on each side of the pinch region within the work area). As per claim 19, Flann discloses wherein the exclusion zone comprises an unplanted travel path that is used and reused to traverse the established path plan to minimize damage from wheels, tracks or tires of the vehicle and the implement to previously planted seeds or plants during a subsequent agricultural operation (see at least paragraph 0080; wherein each obstacle 777 is surrounded by an obstacle clearance zone 779 into which a turn may occur so long as the obstacle 777 is not impacted, contacted or struck. The obstacle clearance zone 779 is associated with a zone boundary 781, which is coextensive with an outer perimeter or outer periphery of the corresponding obstacle clearance zone 779 about a respective obstacle 777), such as spraying, fertilizing, irrigating or applying other crop inputs (see at least paragraph 0003; wherein traverse the entire work area or a portion thereof to plant a crop (or precursor thereto), to treat a crop (or precursor thereto), to harvest a crop, or to perform another task associated with the crop or vegetation). As per claims 9 and 20, Flann discloses wherein the exclusion zone comprises a segment of subsequent path plan for the vehicle or implement to travel or align the implement to a target location and pose on the field or an uncovered, remaining or untreated region of the field (see at least Figure 21). As per claim 10, Flann discloses a system for precise planting based on planned paths, the system comprising an electronic data processor coupled to data storage device for storing one or more modules or software instructions that are executable by the data processor, the system comprising: a path planning module or electronic data processor configured to establish a path plan for a planter to cover a first area of the field at least once with a sequence of path segments that are generally parallel to each other (see at least paragraph 0025; wherein the spiral region-filling module 12 establishes a path plan comprising one or more spiral components or contour rows to cover the work area or a region thereof. Contour rows may be defined by curved components, generally linear components, or both. Although generally linear rows may be employed as part of a path plan, the path plan may be structured to support a spiral path plan to cover a region of the work area) and spaced apart (see at least paragraph 0066; wherein path planner 10 forms a series of nested loops spaced apart from one another by a generally uniform spacing); a path interference estimator or the electronic data processor configured to estimate potential interference between two or more path segments with respect to a first path segment and a second path segment, the first path segment associated with an earlier scheduled portion of the sequence and the second path segment associated with a later scheduled portion of the sequence (see at least paragraph 0058; wherein interference module 40 defines a cross-over row at the pinch region over which the vehicle may travel multiple times to service area on each side of the pinch region within the work area); an exclusion zone module or the electronic data processor configured to determine an exclusion zone (see at least Figure 21; obstacle clearance zone 779) for the planter to prohibit planting of one or more rows of seeds or seedlings within the exclusion zone based on the estimated potential interference (see at least paragraph 0080 and Figure 21; wherein each obstacle 777 is surrounded by an obstacle clearance zone 779 into which a turn may occur so long as the obstacle 777 is not impacted, contacted or struck. The obstacle clearance zone 779 is associated with a zone boundary 781, which is coextensive with an outer perimeter or outer periphery of the corresponding obstacle clearance zone 779 about a respective obstacle 777); and responsive to user input via the user interface, the electronic data processor configured to activate or execute the path plan and determined exclusion zone in accordance with the established path plan and determined exclusion zone (see at least paragraph 0081 and Figure 21; wherein the data processor 57 may apply or recommend (e.g., via the user interface 21) a spiral path plan, a linear path plan, or both to cover a particular work area. The work area may be defined by the perimeter training module 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flann et al. (USPGPub 2005/0197757) in view of Fjelstad et al. (USPGPub 2021/0267115). As per claims 8 and 18, Flann does not explicitly mention wherein the exclusion zone is within a headland of a field and comprises a unplanted travel path that is used and reused to traverse the established path plan to minimize damage from wheels, tracks or tires of the vehicle and the implement to previously planted seeds or plants. However Fjelstad does disclose: wherein the exclusion zone is within a headland of a field and comprises a unplanted travel path that is used and reused to traverse the established path plan to minimize damage from wheels, tracks or tires of the vehicle and the implement to previously planted seeds or plants (see at least paragraph 0009; wherein the agricultural vehicle is driven during turning through one or more crop rows or field zones (e.g., headlands, adjacent field zones, swaths surrounding obstacles or the like) that are oriented transversely to the completed swath. In the example including the operator driven turns the operator is responsible for minimizing damage to crop rows and avoiding obstacles). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Fjelstad with the teachings as in Flann. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid obstacles, minimize damage to crops in adjacent field zones, such as the headland, see Fjelstad paragraph 0007.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flann et al. (USPGPub 2005/0197757) in view of Ellaboudy et al. (USPGPub 2024/0065131). As per claim 12, Flann discloses receiving data related to the established path plan and determined exclusion zone (see at least paragraph 0026; wherein The vehicle controller 16 accepts an input of the path plan from the path planner 10. The vehicle controller 16 controls the vehicle consistent with the path plan, unless the safeguarding system 18 detects an obstacle, obstruction, hazard, a safety condition, or another condition that requires the vehicle to depart from the planned path, to stop movement or take evasive measures to avoid a collision with an object or living being (e.g., a person or animal)). Flann does not explicitly mention a first wireless communications device coupled to the data port for receiving wireless communication data or data messages from a second wireless communication device associated with a server, computer, computer network, or cloud service. However Ellaboudy does disclose: a first wireless communications device coupled to the data port for receiving wireless communication data or data messages from a second wireless communication device (see at least paragraph 0160; wherein a vehicle may be enabled to communicate with central locations to send and receive updates and store information) associated with a server, computer, computer network, or cloud service (see at least paragraph 0160; wherein central servers can be located on site with the vehicles or centrally in the cloud or a dedicated datacenter or some combination). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ellaboudy with the teachings as in Flann. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide accurate localization, see Ellaboudy paragraph 0045.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2019/0384303 – Provides behavior-guided path planning in autonomous machine applications. Systems and methods are disclosed that use observed behaviors—such as driving through a physical environment—to train a machine learning model(s) to predict paths through an environment. USPGPub 2019/0243371 – Provides analyzing safety procedures of a vehicle and objects in an environment for obstacle avoidance. Systems and methods are disclosed for obstacle avoidance using trajectories representative of safety procedures projected forward in time to ensure that an autonomous vehicle is capable of implementing the safety procedure at all times to avoid collisions with objects in the environment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662