DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on February 19, 2026, Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1, 5, 7, 12-14, and 16-17 have been amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 15-17 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267) in view of Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941) and in further view of Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035).
Regarding claim 1, Foster, et al. teaches: A work machine comprising: a control system having (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0013]: "…autonomous work vehicle (10), such as a tractor, that may include an obstacle detection system (12) [obstacle detection system]. The autonomous vehicle (10) may include a control system [control system]")
a first receiver configured to obtain a first detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more first obstacles on a surface of a particular field (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]: "…suitable location to acquire data indicative of the properties of the agricultural field (14) [surface of particular field]. […] obstacle detection system (12) [first receiver] […] detects an obstacle (28) via data from the lidar sensor (20) [detecting obstacles via first detection input]")
the control system includes a memory having instructions stored therein that are executable by a processor (Paragraph [0022]: "…memory device (52) may store processor-executable instructions (e.g. , firmware or software) for the processor (50) to execute [memory having instructions stored that are executable by processor]")
to cause the processor to: receive the first detection input and the second detection input; (Paragraph [0022]: "…for the processor (50) to execute [processor], such as instructions for controlling the autonomous agricultural vehicle, instructions for determining vehicle orientation, and so forth [receive first and second detection inputs].")
selectively map, with the aid of a location system, an obstacle map identifying a location of each of the one or more first and second obstacles; (Paragraph [0033]: "...processor (50) may create or update a map (76) based on the obstacle distance and direction [location ID]. […] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [location of obstacles].")
assign a first visual indicator to visually indicate on the obstacle map the one or more first obstacles are on the surface of the particular field (Paragraph [0033]: "...processor (50) may create or update a map (76) based on the obstacle distance and direction [creation of obstacle map]. […] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [presence of one or more first obstacles on particular field].")
and on an anticipated time at which the work implement will reach the at least one obstacle (Paragraph [0028]: "Based on a speed at which the radio waves travel and an amount of time between when the radio waves (66) are sent and received, a distance between the obstacle (28) may be determined and the agricultural vehicle (10) may be determined (e.g., via the controller (44) and/or the sensor (22) [anticipated time to collision as a function of distance])".
Foster, et al. does not teach a frame structure; a work implement coupled to the frame structure; and a second receiver configured to obtain a second detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more second obstacles that are at least partially below the surface of the particular field, assign a second visual indicator to visually indicate on the obstacle map the one or more second obstacles are at least partially below the surface, the first visual indicator being different than the second visual indicator; and comprises an adjustment of a vertical position of the work implement.
In a similar field of endeavor (work vehicle obstruction monitoring), Buehler teaches: a frame structure; (Paragraph [0041]: “…planting machine (10) in this specific implementation is a row crop planter (12) having a central crossbar (14) [frame structure]”)
a work implement coupled to the frame structure; (Paragraph [0041]: “…and multiple planting row units (12) mounted to the crossbar (14) [work implement couped to the frame structure].")
and a second receiver configured to obtain a second detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more second obstacles that are at least partially below the surface of the particular field, (Paragraph [0050]: "…sensor data collected may include gauge wheel load, vertical acceleration, supplemental downforce system pressure, and location [various inputs]." ; Paragraph [0074]: "…system (100) [second receiver], is configured to automatically flag the presence of both surface and subterraneous obstructions (2) [second detection input - obstacles at least partially below the surface]")
assign a second visual indicator to visually indicate on the obstacle map the one or more second obstacles are at least partially below the surface, the first visual indicator being different than the second visual indicator; (Paragraph [0052]: "…a map of obstruction (2) locations and sizes [obstacle map] […] exemplary graphs show rock or other obstacle (2) strikes events and the corresponding sensor data [second visual indicator for second obstacle]; Paragraph [0074]: "…system (100), is configured to automatically flag the presence of both surface and subterraneous obstructions (2) on a row-by-row basis [below surface characteristic of obstacle].")
the first visual indicator being different than the second visual indicator (Paragraph [0069]: "…may include strike severity data and size data [different visual indicator; first indicator conducts size only]").
and comprises an adjustment of a vertical position of the work implement (Paragraph [0044]: "made up of two linkage arms (22A), (22B) such that the individual units (12) are vertically moveable by a predetermined amount relative to the crossbar (20) [adjusting vertical position of work implement]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster, et al. to include the teaching of Buehler based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural planting (Buehler Paragraph [0002]).
The combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler does not teach determine whether the work implement is anticipated to contact at least one obstacle of the one or more first and second obstacles prior to contact by the work implement with the at least one obstacle; determine, whether a property of the at least one obstacle satisfies a predetermined criteria prior to contact by the work implement; and generate, in response to the predetermined criteria being determined to be satisfied by the at least one obstacle and in response to the work implement being anticipated to contact the at least one obstacle, a signal to adjust an operation of the work implement, the signal being generated prior to contact between the work implement and the at least one obstacle, wherein the predetermined criteria comprises an anticipated strike severity that is based on whether the at least one obstacle is within a reference location along, or at a threshold distance from, a planned path of travel of the work implement wherein the adjustment occurs before contact of the at least one obstacle by the work implement and is based on an anticipated strike severity between the work implement and the at least one obstacle.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural machine collision avoidance), Amann, et al. teaches: determine whether the work implement is anticipated to contact at least one obstacle of the one or more first and second obstacles prior to contact by the implement with the at least one obstacle; (Paragraph [0030]: "If a moving object (150) [obstacle] stops in the region of the agricultural machine (105) [implement], it can be detected by means of the scanning device (140). […] On the basis of trajectories (120) and (155), it can be determined whether there is a collision point (160), i.e., whether a collision is to be expected between the object (150) and the agricultural machine (105) [anticipated to contact obstacle prior to contact].")
determine, whether a property of the at least one obstacle satisfies a predetermined criteria prior to contact by the work implement; (Paragraph [0030]: "An imminent collision can be determined if the collision point (160) falls below a predetermined maximum distance [position] from the agricultural machine (105) [predetermined criteria].")
and generate, in response to the predetermined criteria being determined to be satisfied by the at least one obstacle and in response to the work implement being anticipated to contact the at least one obstacle, a signal to adjust an operation of the work implement, (Paragraph [0031]: "In order to avoid the collision, it is proposed that the planned trajectory (120) of the agricultural machine (105) be modified to an adapted trajectory (120'). The modification can be achieved by increasing or decreasing a driving speed of the agricultural machine (105) and/or by changing a driving direction [signal to adjust operation of work implement based on criteria and anticipated contact]. [...] modification of the trajectory (120) are preferably carried out by means of the further control system (125) [system within apparatus makes adjustment].")
the signal being generated prior to contact between the work implement and the at least one obstacle, wherein the predetermined criteria comprises an anticipated strike severity that is based on whether the at least one obstacle is within a reference location along, or at a threshold distance from, a planned path of travel of the work implement (Paragraph [0030]: "If a moving object (150) [obstacle] stops in the region of the agricultural machine (105) [implement], it can be detected by means of the scanning device (140). […] On the basis of trajectories (120) and (155), it can be determined whether there is a collision point (160), i.e., whether a collision is to be expected between the object (150) and the agricultural machine (105) [anticipated to contact obstacle prior to contact]. An imminent collision can be determined if the collision point (160) falls below a predetermined maximum distance from the agricultural machine (105) [threshold distance from planned path of travel of work implement]")
wherein the adjustment occurs before contact of the at least one obstacle by the work implement and is based on an anticipated strike severity between the work implement and the at least one obstacle (Paragraph [0032]: "Since the agricultural machine (105) cannot reach the adapted collision point (160') since it is restricted to an operation on the other side of the boundary (110). In this way, a collision with the moving object (150) can be ruled out [adjustment made before contact of obstacle by implement]." ; Paragraph [0030]: "An imminent collision can be determined if the collision point (160) falls below a predetermined maximum distance from the agricultural machine (105) [anticipated strike severity - determined through measurement].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler to include the teaching of Amann, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the ability of an agricultural machine to anticipate and avoid a collision with an obstacle (Amann, et al. Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The work machine of claim 1, wherein the memory further includes instructions stored therein that are executable by a processor to cause the processor to determine, from the first and second detection inputs, a size of the one or more first and second obstacles, and wherein the predetermined criteria comprises a size (Buehler Paragraph [0063]: "…system (100) may monitor both gauge wheel load and vertical acceleration [first and second detection inputs] to determine the location, severity, size [size], and other sensor data about obstruction strike events. […] associated processor(s) [processor] […] when rocks (2) or other debris are struck and the various data about the strike events [first and second obstacles].").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. teach: The work machine of claim 1, wherein the second detection input is indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more second obstacles that extend both above and below the surface of the particular field (Buehler Paragraph [0050]: "…sensor data collected may include gauge wheel load, vertical acceleration, supplemental downforce system pressure, and location [various inputs]." ; Paragraph [0074]: "…system (100) [second system], […] automatically flag the presence of both surface and subterraneous obstructions (2) [second detection input - obstacles at least partially below the surface]")
wherein the control system further comprises a first detection system having the first receiver, (Foster, et al. Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]: "…obstacle detection system (12) [first receiver] […] detects an obstacle (28) via data from the lidar sensor (20) [detecting obstacles via first detection input]")
a second detection system having the second receiver, (Buehler Paragraph [0074]: "…system (100) [second receiver], […] automatically flag the presence of both surface and subterraneous obstructions (2) [second detection input - obstacles at least partially below the surface]")
the first detection system comprising at least one of a camera detection system, an ultrasonic detection system, a pressure detection system, and an ultrasound system (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0016]: "…image sensors (e.g., RGB camera sensors, stereo camera sensors, etc.) [camera detection system]").
The combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the control system further includes a third receiver configured to obtain a third information for a third detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more third obstacles positioned completely beneath the surface of the particular field, wherein the processor is further configured to receive the third detection input, and to selectively map, with the aid of the location system, a location of each of the one or more third obstacles on the obstacle map, the processor further configured to assign a third visual indicator to visually indicate a below the surface characteristic the third visual indicator being different than both the first visual indicator and the second visual indicator, and a third detection system having the third receiver, the second detection system being different than each of the first detection system and the third detection system. However, since Buehler teaches a system that has the ability to collect data from various inputs collected from sensors (Paragraph [0050]), provide a detection input in which obstacles have the ability to be measured in an above ground and fully below ground position (Paragraph [0074]) and have the ability to display this data in a map format for reference during the vehicle’s navigation (Paragraphs [0052], [0069]), and it is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a capability of a detection system in order to provide redundancy to the system in order to provide better detection coverage, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify the combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler to include a third receiver configured to obtain a third information for a third detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more third obstacles positioned completely beneath the surface of the particular field, wherein the processor is further configured to receive the third detection input, and to selectively map, with the aid of the location system, a location of each of the one or more third obstacles on the obstacle map, the processor further configured to assign a third visual indicator to visually indicate a below the surface characteristic the third visual indicator being different than both the first visual indicator and the second visual indicator, and a third detection system having the third receiver, the second detection system being different than each of the first detection system and the third detection system based on the motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural planting.
Regarding claim 6, Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The work machine of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide an alert indicating the work machine is approaching the at least one upcoming obstacle (Buehler Paragraph [0072]: "…system (100) may be able to determine the severity of an obstacle (2) strike [processor determines that obstacle is close]. […] the system (100) may display to a user the severity of each strike event in real or near real time, for example via an alert or field on a display (40) [alert].").
Regarding claim 7, Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The work machine of claim 1, wherein the work implement includes (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0015]: "…autonomous agricultural vehicle (10) [work machine] may be coupled to an agricultural implement [includes implement]")
an adjustable component, (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0030]: "…instruct actuator(s) to adjust a penetration depth of at least one ground engaging tool of the agricultural implement [adjustable component].")
and wherein the processor is configured to, (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0033]: "…obstacle is shown as an object [object is identified as target object]")
communicate a signal to adjust the vertical position of the adjustable component to avoid anticipated contact between the adjustable component and the at least one obstacle (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0018]: "…vertical axis [vertical position] […] may combine the IMU signal(s) with the spatial locating data and/or the position determined by the spatial locating device (e.g., via Kalman filtering, least squares fitting, etc.) to determine a more accurate position and/or orientation of the agricultural vehicle (e.g., by compensating for movement of the spatial locating antennas resulting from pitch and/or roll of the agricultural vehicle as the agricultural vehicle traverses uneven terrain) [adjust position in order to avoid objects].").
Regarding claim 17, Foster, et al. teaches: A method of operating a work machine including a frame structure coupled to a work implement that has a plurality of ground engagement tools configured for interaction with an underlying surface in use of the work machine, (Paragraph [0015]: "… coupled to an agricultural implement [frame structure coupled to work implement]" ; Paragraph [0030]: "…adjust a penetration depth of at least one ground engaging tool of the agricultural implement [interaction with underlying surface - ground engagement tools].")
the method comprising: obtaining, by a first receiver of the work machine, a first detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of a first obstacle positioned on a surface of a particular field; (Block (90), Fig. 4, Paragraph [0033]: "At block (90), the processor (50) [first receiver] may create or update a map (76) based on the obstacle distance and direction [first detection input]. […] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [presence of first obstacle positioned on surface of particular field].")
selectively mapping, by a controller of the work machine and with the aid of a location system, a location of the first obstacle based on the first detection input, (Block (90), Paragraph [0033]: "At block (90), the processor (50) may create or update a map (76) based on the obstacle distance and direction [creation of obstacle map by controller of work machine]. […] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [presence of first obstacle].")
assigning, by the controller, a first visual indicator to the first obstacle (Block (90), Paragraph [0033]: "At block (90), the processor (50) may create or update a map (76) based on the obstacle distance and direction [creation of obstacle map]. […] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [presence of one or more obstacles on particular field - first visual indicator].")
the first visual indicator indicating the first obstacle is on the surface of the particular field (Paragraph [0033]: "...processor (50) may create or update a map (76) based on the obstacle distance and direction [creation of obstacle map]. […] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [presence of one or more first obstacles on particular field].").
and on an anticipated time at which the work implement will reach the at least one obstacle (Paragraph [0028]: "Based on a speed at which the radio waves travel and an amount of time between when the radio waves (66) are sent and received, a distance between the obstacle (28) may be determined and the agricultural vehicle (10) may be determined (e.g., via the controller (44) and/or the sensor (22) [anticipated time to collision as a function of distance]").
Foster, et al. does not teach obtaining, by a second receiver of the work machine, a second detection indicative of an upcoming presence of a second obstacle that is partially positioned beneath, and partially positioned above, the surface of the particular field; the second obstacle based on the second detection input, a second visual indicator to the second obstacle, the second visual indicator indicating the second obstacle is partially positioned beneath, and partially positioned above, the surface of the particular field; wherein the signal causes an adjustment of a vertical position of the work implement.
In a similar field of endeavor (work vehicle obstruction monitoring), Buehler teaches: obtaining, by a second receiver of the work machine, a second detection indicative of an upcoming presence of a second obstacle that is partially positioned beneath, and partially positioned above, the surface of the particular field; (Box (102), Paragraph [0050]: "…gathers data on-the-go during planting (box 102) [receiving data] […] sensor data collected may include gauge wheel load, vertical acceleration, supplemental downforce system pressure, and location [various inputs]." ; Paragraph [0074]: "…system (100) [second receiver], […] automatically flag the presence of both surface and subterraneous obstructions (2) [second detection input - obstacles at least partially below the surface]")
the second obstacle based on the second detection input, (Boxes (110-112), Paragraph [0052]: "…processes (box 112) the data and sensor information (box 110) [second detection input] […] map of obstruction (2) locations and sizes [obstacle map for second obstacle]")
a second visual indicator to the second obstacle (Box (114), Paragraph [0052]: "…generates outputs (box 114) […] map of obstruction (2) locations and sizes [obstacle map] […] exemplary graphs show rock or other obstacle (2) strikes events and the corresponding sensor data [second visual indicator]")
the second visual indicator indicating the second obstacle is partially positioned beneath, and partially positioned above, the surface of the particular field (Paragraph [0052]: "…a map of obstruction (2) locations and sizes [obstacle map] […] exemplary graphs show rock or other obstacle (2) strikes events and the corresponding sensor data [second visual indicator]" ; Paragraph [0074]: "…system (100), is configured to automatically flag the presence of both surface and subterraneous obstructions (2) on a row-by-row basis [partially positioned beneath and partially positioned above surface characteristic of obstacle].")
wherein the signal causes an adjustment of a vertical position of the work implement (Paragraph [0044]: "made up of two linkage arms (22A), (22B) such that the individual units (12) are vertically moveable by a predetermined amount relative to the crossbar (20) [adjusting vertical position of work implement]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster, et al. to include the teaching of Buehler based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural planting (Buehler Paragraph [0002]).
The combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler does not teach obtaining, by a third receiver of the work machine, a third detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of a third obstacle that is positioned entirely beneath the surface of the particular field; and, the third obstacle based on the third detection input; and a third visual indicator to the third obstacle, and the third visual indicator indicating the third obstacle is below the surface of the particular field.
However, since Buehler teaches a system that has the ability to collect data from various inputs collected from sensors (Paragraph [0050]), provide a detection input in which obstacles have the ability to be measured in an above ground and fully below ground position (Paragraph [0074]) and have the ability to display this data in a map format for reference during the vehicle’s navigation (Paragraphs [0052], [0069]), and it is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a capability of a detection system in order to provide redundancy to the system in order to provide better detection coverage, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify the combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler to include obtaining, by a third receiver of the work machine, a third detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of a third obstacle that is positioned entirely beneath the surface of the particular field; and, the third obstacle based on the third detection input; and a third visual indicator to the third obstacle, and the third visual indicator indicating the third obstacle is below the surface of the particular field based on the motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural planting.
The combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler do not teach and determining, prior to a contact between the work implement and at least one obstacle of any one of the first, second, and third obstacles, an anticipated strike a severity of an anticipated strike of the at least one object by the work implement, the anticipated strike severity being based on whether the at least one obstacle is within a reference location along, or at a threshold distance from, a planned path of travel of the work implement; and generating, by the controller prior to the contact and in response to determinations that (i) the at least one upcoming object is within the reference location and (ii) the anticipated strike severity satisfies a predetermined criteria, a signal to adjust an operation of the work implement, the signal being generated prior to contact between the work implement and the at least one obstacle.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural machine collision avoidance), Amann, et al. teaches: and determining, prior to a contact between the work implement and at least one obstacle of any one of the first, second, and third obstacles, an anticipated strike a severity of an anticipated strike of the at least one object by the work implement, the anticipated strike severity being based on whether the at least one obstacle is within a reference location along, or at a threshold distance from, a planned path of travel of the work implement (Method (200), Step (225), Paragraph [0037]: "On the basis of the predicted sections of the trajectories (120) and (155), it can be determined in a step (225) whether a collision of the agricultural machine (105) with the object (150) is imminent, and preferably where the collision point (160) is located at which the collision is predicted to take place [determination of anticipated contact between work implement and obstacle]. If the collision point (160) is located further than a predetermined distance from the agricultural machine (105), the collision can be classified as unlikely [predetermined criteria - distance]. In this case, the method (200) can be run through again until the collision point (160) is close enough [severity of anticipated strike - based on measurements].")
and generating, by the controller prior to the contact and in response to determinations that (i) the at least one upcoming object is within the reference location and (ii) the anticipated strike severity satisfies a predetermined criteria, a signal to adjust an operation of the work implement, the signal being generated prior to contact between the work implement and the at least one obstacle (Step (230), Paragraph [0038]: "In a step (230), it can be determined on which side of the boundary (110) the determined collision point (160) is located relative to the agricultural machine (105) [determination of whether upcoming object is within reference location and determination of severity of strike based on measurements]." ; Step (235), Paragraph [0039]: "However, if both are on the same side of the boundary (110), the planned trajectory (120) can be modified to the adapted trajectory (120') of the agricultural machine (105) in a step (235) such that the collision point (160) transitions into the adapted collision point (160') which is located on the other side of the boundary (110) [signal given to adjust movement of work implement prior to contact and based on severity of anticipated strike].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler to include the teaching of Amann, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the ability of an agricultural machine to anticipate and avoid a collision with an obstacle (Amann, et al. Paragraph [0006]).
Claims 3 and 18 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267), Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941), and Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035) in view of Sibley, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220117218).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. does not teach the work machine of claim 2, wherein the memory further includes instructions stored therein that are executable by a processor to cause the processor to determine, from the second detection input, a rigidity for each of the one or more second obstacles, and wherein the processor is further configured to indicate the rigidity of each of the one or more second obstacles on the obstacle map.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural ground treatment), Sibley, et al. teaches: The work machine of claim 2, wherein the memory further includes instructions stored therein that are executable by a processor to cause the processor to determine, from the second detection input, a rigidity for each of the one or more second obstacles, and wherein the processor is further configured to indicate the rigidity of each of the one or more second obstacles on the obstacle map, and wherein the predetermined criteria comprises a rigidity (Paragraph [0096]: "…processor, a memory, [processor and memory] […] memory and non-transitory medium may store instructions for performing methods and steps described herein [instructions stored therein executable by processor]." ; Paragraph [0121]: "…display multiple views of the same patch associated with a specific object selected by the user in the virtual map [display obstacles on map]" ; Paragraph [0176]: "…rigid and complex pattern that the system can still identify and track [rigidity of obstacles].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. to include the teaching of Sibley, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural ground treatment (Sibley, et al. Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Amann, et al., and Sibley, et al. do not teach the method of claim 17, further comprising identifying, by the controller and using the third detection input, a rigidity of the third obstacle, and assigning a fourth visual indicator to the third obstacle that is indicative of a level of rigidity. However, since Buehler teaches a system that has the ability to collect data from various inputs collected from sensors (Paragraph [0050]), provide a detection input in which obstacles have the ability to be measured in an above ground and fully below ground position (Paragraph [0074]) and have the ability to display this data in a map format for reference during the vehicle’s navigation (Paragraphs [0052], [0069]), and Sibley, et al. teaches the ability of the system to identify rigid and complex patterns of obstacles from a map display (Paragraphs [0121], [0176]), and it is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a capability of a detection process in order to provide redundancy for the purpose of providing better detection coverage, these teachings would have made it obvious to modify the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Amann, et al., and Sibley, et al. to include identifying, by the controller and using the third detection input, a rigidity of the third obstacle, and assigning a fourth visual indicator to the third obstacle that is indicative of a level of rigidity based on the motivation to improve the processes of more efficient agricultural planting and ground treatment.
Claims 8-11 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267), Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941), and Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035) in view of Hoff, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200317114).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. does not teach the work machine of claim 1, further including a spotlight system communicatively coupled to the processor, the spotlight system comprising one or more actuators and, the light unit being coupled to the work machine, the processor configured to select a target object from the one or more first obstacles or the one or more second obstacles, and to generate commands to the one or more actuators to adjust a position of at least a portion of the spotlight system about one or more axes to an orientation that directs a light emitted from the spotlight system toward the target object.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural work lighting system), Hoff teaches: The work machine of claim 1, further including a spotlight system communicatively coupled to the processor, (Paragraph [0032]: "A plurality of light sources (25) [spotlight system] are arranged or positioned on the agricultural working machine (2) [containing processor]")
the spotlight system comprising one or more actuators, (Paragraph [0038]: "…actuator (30) [actuator] […] one light source (25) [spotlight system]")
and being coupled to the work machine, (Paragraph [0032]: "…plurality of light sources (25) [spotlight system] are arranged or positioned on the agricultural working machine (2) [work machine]")
the processor configured to select a target object from the one or more first obstacles or the one or more second obstacles, (Paragraph [0016]: "…first identified obstacle (such as a living obstacle) [selecting a target object from obstacle] […] controlling the frequency of output of the at least one light source (e.g., strobing) [controlling via processor]")
and to generate commands to the one or more actuators to adjust a position of at least a portion of the spotlight system about one or more axes to an orientation that directs a light emitted from the spotlight system toward the target object (Paragraph [0011]: "…regulation and control device may dynamically modify the orientation of the emitted light beam based on the position [adjust position of spotlight system with respect to orientation axes] of the agricultural working machine relative to the detected obstacle [light emitted at target object]).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. to include the teaching of Hoff based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process illuminating an operation of an agricultural machine (Hoff Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Foster, et al., Buehler, Amann, et al., and Hoff remain as applied to claim 8, and in a further embodiment, teach: The work machine of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to determine from either the first detection input or the second detection input, and with the aid of the location system, the location of the at least one upcoming object along at least a three axis coordinate system (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0033]: "...processor (50) [processor] […] obstacle distance and direction [detection inputs]. […] coordinate (e.g., Cartesian, Polar, etc.) map (e.g., 1 dimension, 2 dimensions, or 3 dimensions) [three-axis coordinate system] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [location system].").
Regarding claim 10, Foster, et al., Buehler, Amann, et al., and Hoff remain as applied to claim 9, and in a further embodiment, teach: The work machine of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to generate updated commands for the one or more actuators to adjust the position of the portion of the spotlight system about the one or more axes as a position of the work machine changes relative to the target object (Hoff Paragraph [0038]: "…regulation and control device (23) [contains processor] […] visible light toward the identified obstacle region (26) or the obstacle (19) [relative to target object]. To accomplish this, the regulation and control device (23) controls an actuator (30) [actuator] of the at least one light source (25) [spotlight system], by means of which the at least one light source (25) may be moved (e.g., may be pivoted about a vertical and/or a horizontal axis) [adjust position about one or more axes].").
Regarding claim 11, Foster, et al., Buehler, Amann, et al., and Hoff remain as applied to claim 9, and in a further embodiment, teach: The work machine of claim 10, wherein the spotlight system is configured to selectively emit the light in one of a first color and a second color, the first color being different than the second color (Hoff Paragraph [0042]: "…light source (25) [spotlight system] in order to generate different colors [selectively emit light in first and second different colors] with which the identified the obstacle region (26) and/or the obstacle (19) is illuminated").
Claims 12 and 15-16 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267) in view of Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941) and in further view of Hoff (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200317114) and further in view of Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035).
Regarding claim 12, Foster, et al. teaches: A work machine comprising: a control system having, (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0013]: "…autonomous work vehicle (10), such as a tractor, that may include an obstacle detection system (12) [obstacle detection system]. The autonomous vehicle (10) may include a control system [control system]")
a first receiver configured to obtain a first detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more first obstacles on a surface of a particular field, (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]: "…suitable location to acquire data indicative of the properties of the agricultural field (14) [surface of particular field]. […] obstacle detection system (12) [first receiver] […] detects an obstacle (28) via data from the lidar sensor (20) [detecting obstacles via first detection input]" ; Paragraph [0033]: "While the obstacle is shown as an object [presence of obstacle] […] Each grid cell may include a state of obstacle or non-obstacle [relative size of one or more first obstacles].")
the control system comprising a memory having instructions stored therein that are executable by a processor to cause the processor to: receive the first, second, and third detection inputs; (Paragraph [0022]: "…memory device (52) may store processor-executable instructions (e.g. , firmware or software) for the processor (50) to execute [memory having instructions stored that are executable by processor], such as instructions for controlling the autonomous agricultural vehicle, instructions for determining vehicle orientation, and so forth [receive multiple detection inputs].")
and to selectively map, with the aid of a location system, an obstacle map identifying a location of each of the one or more first, second obstacles; (Paragraph [0033]: "...processor (50) may create or update a map (76) based on the obstacle distance and direction [location ID]. […] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [location of obstacles].")
assign a first visual indicator to the one or more first obstacles, the first visual indicator being an indicator of an on-surface characteristic; (Paragraph [0033]: "...processor (50) may create or update a map (76) based on the obstacle distance and direction [creation of obstacle map]. […] having cells that correspond to locations on a surface of the agricultural field (14) indicating if a particular area includes an obstacle or not (e.g., an occupancy grid) [presence of one or more obstacles on first obstacles].")
and on an anticipated time at which the work implement will reach the at least one obstacle (Paragraph [0028]: "Based on a speed at which the radio waves travel and an amount of time between when the radio waves (66) are sent and received, a distance between the obstacle (28) may be determined and the agricultural vehicle (10) may be determined (e.g., via the controller (44) and/or the sensor (22) [anticipated time to collision as a function of distance])").
Foster, et al. does not teach a second receiver configured to obtain a second detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more second obstacles that are both partially below, and partially above, the surface of the particular field, assign a second visual indicator to the one or more second obstacles, the second visual indicator being an indicator of an at least partially below surface characteristic; and comprises an adjustment of a vertical position of the work implement.
In a similar field of endeavor (work vehicle obstruction monitoring), Buehler teaches: a second receiver configured to obtain a second detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more second obstacles that are both partially below, and partially above, the surface of the particular field, (Paragraph [0050]: "…sensor data collected may include gauge wheel load, vertical acceleration, supplemental downforce system pressure, and location [various inputs]." ; Paragraph [0074]: "…system (100) [second system], is configured to automatically flag the presence of both surface and subterraneous obstructions (2) [second receiver - obstacles at least partially below and partially above the surface]" ; Paragraph [0052]: "…map of obstruction (2) locations and sizes [presence and size of obstacles]")
assign a second visual indicator to the one or more second obstacles, the second visual indicator being an indicator of an at least partially below surface characteristic; (Paragraph [0052]: "…exemplary graphs show rock or other obstacle (2) strikes events and the corresponding sensor data [second visual indicator]"; Paragraph [0074]: "…system (100), is configured to automatically flag the presence of both surface and subterraneous obstructions (2) on a row-by-row basis [below surface characteristic of obstacle].")
and comprises an adjustment of a vertical position of the work implement (Paragraph [0044]: "made up of two linkage arms (22A), (22B) such that the individual units (12) are vertically moveable by a predetermined amount relative to the crossbar (20) [adjusting vertical position of work implement]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster, et al. to include the teaching of Buehler based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural planting (Buehler Paragraph [0002]).
The combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler does not teach and a spotlight system communicatively coupled to the processor, the spotlight system comprising a light unit and one or more actuators, and being coupled to the work machine, the processor configured to generate a command for the one or more actuators to adjust a position of at least a portion of the spotlight system about one or more axes to an orientation that directs a light emitted from the spotlight system toward the at least one obstacle.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural work lighting system), Hoff teaches: and a spotlight system communicatively coupled to the processor, (Paragraph [0038]: "…an actuator (30) [actuator] […] one light source (25) [light unit]")
the spotlight system comprising a light unit and one or more actuators, (Paragraph [0038]: "… actuator (30) [actuator] […] one light source (25) [light unit]")
the spotlight system comprising one or more actuators, (Paragraph [0032]: "A plurality of light sources (25) [spotlight system] are arranged or positioned on the agricultural working machine (2) [work machine]")
and being coupled to the work machine, (Paragraph [0032]: "...plurality of light sources (25) [spotlight system] are arranged or positioned on the agricultural working machine (2) [work machine]")
the processor configured to generate a command for the one or more actuators to adjust a position of at least a portion of the spotlight system about one or more axes to an orientation that directs a light emitted from the spotlight system toward the at least one obstacle (Paragraph [0016]: "…first identified obstacle (such as a living obstacle) [selecting a target from obstacle] […] controlling the frequency of output of the at least one light source (e.g., strobing) [controlling via actuators]" ; Paragraph [0011]: "…regulation and control device may dynamically modify the orientation of the emitted light beam based on the position [adjust position of light unit with respect to orientation axes] of the agricultural working machine relative to the detected obstacle [light emitted at target object]).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler to include the teaching of Hoff based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process illuminating an operation of an agricultural machine (Hoff Paragraph [0010]).
The combination of Foster, et al, Buehler, et al., and Hoff does not explicitly teach a third receiver configured to obtain a third detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more third obstacles completely beneath the surface of the particular field, assign a third visual indicator to the one or more third obstacles, the third visual indicator being an indicator of a below surface characteristic. However, since Buehler teaches a system that has the ability to collect data from various inputs collected from sensors (Paragraph [0050]), provide a detection input in which obstacles have the ability to be measured in an above ground and fully below ground position (Paragraph [0074]) and have the ability to display this data in a map format for reference during the vehicle’s navigation (Paragraphs [0052], [0069]), and it is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a capability of a detection system in order to provide redundancy to the system in order to provide better detection coverage, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify the combination of Foster, et al. and Buehler to include a third receiver configured to obtain a third detection input indicative of an upcoming presence of one or more third obstacles completely beneath the surface of the particular field, assign a third visual indicator to the one or more third obstacles, the third visual indicator being an indicator of a below surface characteristic based on the motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural planting.
The combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Hoff does not teach determine whether a work implement of the work machine is anticipated to contact at least one obstacle of the one or more first, second, and third obstacles prior to contact by the work implement with the at least one obstacle; determine whether a property of the at least one obstacle satisfies a predetermined criteria prior to contact by the work implement; generate, in response to the predetermined criteria being determined to be satisfied by the at least one obstacle and in response to the work implement being anticipated to contact the at least one obstacle, a signal to adjust an operation of the work implement, the signal being generated prior to contact between the work implement and the at least one obstacle, wherein the predetermined criteria comprises an anticipated strike severity that is based on whether the at least one obstacle is within a reference location along, or at a threshold distance from, a planned path of travel of the work implement wherein the adjustment occurs before contact of the at least one obstacle by the work implement.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural machine collision avoidance), Amann, et al. teaches: determine whether a work implement of the work machine is anticipated to contact at least one obstacle of the one or more first, second, and third obstacles prior to contact by the work implement with the at least one obstacle; (Paragraph [0030]: "If a moving object (150) [obstacle] stops in the region of the agricultural machine (105) [implement], it can be detected by means of the scanning device (140). […] On the basis of trajectories (120) and (155), it can be determined whether there is a collision point (160), i.e., whether a collision is to be expected between the object (150) and the agricultural machine (105) [anticipated to contact obstacle prior to contact].")
determine whether a property of the at least one obstacle satisfies a predetermined criteria prior to contact by the work implement; (Paragraph [0030]: "An imminent collision can be determined if the collision point (160) falls below a predetermined maximum distance [position] from the agricultural machine (105) [predetermined criteria].")
generate, in response to the predetermined criteria being determined to be satisfied by the at least one obstacle and in response to the work implement being anticipated to contact the at least one obstacle, a signal to adjust an operation of the work implement, the signal being generated prior to contact between the work implement and the at least one obstacle, wherein the predetermined criteria comprises an anticipated strike severity that is based on whether the at least one obstacle is within a reference location along, or at a threshold distance from, a planned path of travel of the work implement wherein the adjustment occurs before contact of the at least one obstacle by the work implement (Paragraph [0030]: "If a moving object (150) [obstacle] stops in the region of the agricultural machine (105) [implement], it can be detected by means of the scanning device (140). […] On the basis of trajectories (120) and (155), it can be determined whether there is a collision point (160), i.e., whether a collision is to be expected between the object (150) and the agricultural machine (105) [anticipated to contact obstacle prior to contact]. An imminent collision can be determined if the collision point (160) falls below a predetermined maximum distance [position] from the agricultural machine (105) [predetermined criteria associated with anticipated strike severity - determined through measurement]." ; Paragraph [0031]: "In order to avoid the collision, it is proposed that the planned trajectory (120) of the agricultural machine (105) be modified to an adapted trajectory (120'). The modification can be achieved by increasing or decreasing a driving speed of the agricultural machine (105) and/or by changing a driving direction [signal to adjust operation of work implement based on criteria and anticipated contact]. [...] modification of the trajectory (120) are preferably carried out by means of the further control system (125) [system within apparatus makes adjustment]." ; Paragraph [0032]: "Since the agricultural machine (105) cannot reach the adapted collision point (160') since it is restricted to an operation on the other side of the boundary (110). In this way, a collision with the moving object (150) can be ruled out [adjustment made before contact of obstacle by implement].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Hoff to include the teaching of Amann, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the ability of an agricultural machine to anticipate and avoid a collision with an obstacle (Amann, et al. Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, and Amann, et al. remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The work machine of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to provide an alert indicating the work machine is approaching at least one of the one or more first, second, or third obstacles (Buehler Paragraph [0072]: "…system (100) may be able to determine the severity of an obstacle (2) strike [processor determines that obstacle is close]. […] the system (100) may display to a user the severity of each strike event in real or near real time, for example via an alert or field on a display (40) [alert].").
Regarding claim 16, Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, and Amann, et al. remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The work machine of claim 12, wherein the work (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0015]: "…autonomous agricultural vehicle (10) [work machine] may be coupled to an agricultural implement [includes implement]")
the implement comprises an adjustable component, (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0030]: "…instruct actuator(s) to adjust a penetration depth of at least one ground engaging tool of the agricultural implement [adjustable component].")
and wherein the processor is configured to identify, based on the location identified for the one or more first, second, or third obstacles a target object, (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0033]: "…obstacle is shown as an object [object is identified as target object]")
communicate a signal to adjust the vertical position of the adjustable component to avoid anticipated contact between the adjustable component and the at least one obstacle (Foster, et al. Paragraph [0018]: "… vertical axis [vertical position] […] combine the IMU signal (s) with the spatial locating data and/or the position determined by the spatial locating device (e.g., via Kalman filtering, least squares fitting, etc.) to determine a more accurate position and/or orientation of the agricultural vehicle (e.g., by compensating for movement of the spatial locating antennas resulting from pitch and/or roll of the agricultural vehicle as the agricultural vehicle traverses uneven terrain) [adjust position in order to avoid objects].").
Claims 13-14 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267), Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941), Hoff (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200317114) and Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035) in view of Sibley, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220117218).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, and Amann, et al. does not teach the work machine of claim 12, wherein the anticipated strike severity is based on at least on a predetermined object rigidity, and wherein the memory further includes instructions stored therein that are executable by a processor to cause the processor to determine, from the third detection input, a rigidity for each of the one or more third obstacles, and wherein the processor is further configured to indicate the rigidity of each of the one or more third obstacles on the obstacle map.
In a similar field of endeavor (agricultural ground treatment), Sibley, et al. teaches: The work machine of claim 12, wherein the memory further includes instructions stored therein that are executable by a processor to cause the processor to determine, from the detection input, a rigidity for each of the one or more obstacles, and wherein the processor is further configured to indicate the rigidity of each of the one or more obstacles on the obstacle map (Paragraph [0096]: "…processor, a memory, [processor and memory] […] memory and non-transitory medium may store instructions for performing methods and steps described herein [instructions stored therein executable by processor]." ; Paragraph [0121]: "…display multiple views of the same patch associated with a specific object selected by the user in the virtual map [display obstacles on map]" ; Paragraph [0176]: "…rigid and complex pattern that the system can still identify and track [rigidity of obstacles].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, and Amann, et al. to include the teaching of Sibley, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural ground treatment (Sibley, et al. Paragraph [0007]).
The combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, Amann, et al., and Sibley, et al. does not teach a third obstacle. However, since Buehler teaches a system that has the ability to collect data from various inputs collected from sensors (Paragraph [0050]), provide a detection input in which obstacles have the ability to be measured in an above ground and fully below ground position (Paragraph [0074]), and it is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a capability of a detection system in order to provide redundancy to the system in order to provide better detection coverage, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, Amann, et al. and Sibley, et al. to include a third obstacle based on the motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural planting.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, Amann, et al., and Sibley, et al. teaches The work machine of claim 13, wherein the first visual indicator, the second visual indicator each comprises at least one of a color, a fill pattern, a line format, and a line weight (Hoff Paragraph [0042]: "To differentiate the obstacle (19) and/or the obstacle region (26), various aspects of the light may be changed [visual indicator], including any one, any combination, or all of: light color; [color]").
The combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, Amann, et al., and Sibley, et al. does not teach a third visual indicator. However, since Buehler teaches a system that has the ability to collect data from various inputs collected from sensors (Paragraph [0050]), provide a detection input in which obstacles have the ability to be measured in an above ground and fully below ground position (Paragraph [0074]) and have the ability to display this data in a map format for reference during the vehicle’s navigation (Paragraphs [0052], [0069]), and it is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a capability of a detection system in order to provide redundancy to the system in order to provide better detection coverage, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, Hoff, Amann, et al., and Sibley, et al. to include a third visual indicator based on the motivation to improve the process of more efficient agricultural planting.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement is reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The
instant claims are considered allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267), Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941), Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035), Sibley, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220117218), and Hoff (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200317114) does not teach, anticipate, or render obvious the features of:
“The work machine of claim 3, wherein the first visual indicator and the second visual indicator each comprises at least one of a color, a fill pattern, a line format, and a line weight”, as set forth in instant claim 4,
“The method of claim 18, further comprising identifying a target object from the first and second obstacles, calculating a coordinate for the target object, the coordinate providing
information regarding at least a lateral and vertical position of the target object, adjusting a position of at least a portion of a spotlight system relative to the coordinate for the target object, and emitting a light from the spotlight system toward the target object”, as set forth in instant claim 19, and
“The method of claim 19, further comprising adjusting the position of the portion of the spotlight system as a location of the work machine changes relative to the target object”, as set forth in instant claim 20.
Foster, et al. teaches the process of identifying an obstacle as an object and the calculation of an obstacle coordinate system and position (Paragraph [0033]), Buehler teaches a work implement linked to a frame structure (Paragraph [0041]), Amann, et al. teaches a methodology to determine the position of the work implement before impact with an obstacle (Paragraph [0030]), Sibley, et al. teaches the rigidity for the obstacles and the identification of the rigidity properties on a map (Paragraphs [0096], [0121], and [0176]), and Hoff teaches a visual obstacle indicator of a color (Paragraph [0042]) and adjusting the orientation of an light beam based on a position of a working machine relative to an obstacle (Paragraph [0011]). However, when combined, they do not teach:
“The work machine of claim 3, wherein the first visual indicator and the second visual indicator each comprises at least one of a color, a fill pattern, a line format, and a line weight”,
“The method of claim 18, further comprising identifying a target object from the first and second obstacles, calculating a coordinate for the target object, the coordinate providing
information regarding at least a lateral and vertical position of the target object, adjusting a position of at least a portion of a spotlight system relative to the coordinate for the target object, and emitting a light from the spotlight system toward the target object”, and
“The method of claim 19, further comprising adjusting the position of the portion of the spotlight system as a location of the work machine changes relative to the target object”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserted that amended claim 1 was patentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267) in view of Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941) and further in view of Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035) because the references did not meet the claim limitation of the signal “…generated prior to contact between the work implement and the at least one obstacle”. The examiner disagrees. In Amann, et al., a process is implemented which analyzes scanned trajectory data with respect to “…trajectories (120) and (155)”, and determines “…whether there is a collision point (160), i.e., whether a collision is to be expected between the object (150) and the agricultural machine (105)”, or the determination of the work vehicle’s prediction to collision with the obstacle prior to contact (Paragraph [0030]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Amann, et al. with Foster, et al. and Buehler because Foster, et al. teaches a predictive obstacle detection system which detects potential obstacles in an agricultural field using a LIDAR sensor (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]) and Buehler teaches a work machine containing a frame structure, a work implement coupled to the frame structure (Paragraph [0041]) and an obstacle detection system which detects obstacles that are partially below the surface (Paragraphs [0050], [0052], and [0074]).
Applicant also asserted that amended claim 1 was patentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267) in view of Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941) and further in view of Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “…an anticipated strike severity that is based on whether the at least one obstacle is within a reference location along, or at a threshold distance from, a planned path of travel of the work implement”. The examiner disagrees. In Amann, et al., the process of collision determination involves the step of identifying whether “…the collision point (160) falls below a predetermined maximum distance from the agricultural machine (105)” (Paragraph [0030]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Amann, et al. with Foster, et al. and Buehler because Foster, et al. teaches a predictive obstacle detection system which detects potential obstacles in an agricultural field using a LIDAR sensor (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]) and Buehler teaches a work machine containing a frame structure, a work implement coupled to the frame structure (Paragraph [0041]) and an obstacle detection system which detects obstacles that are partially below the surface (Paragraphs [0050], [0052], and [0074]).
Applicant also asserted that amended claim 1 was patentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267) in view of Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941) and further in view of Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “…and on an anticipated time at which the work implement will reach the at least one obstacle”. The examiner disagrees. In Foster, et al., the amount of time to collision can be calculated as a byproduct of calculating the distance between the work vehicle and obstacle through the collection of data encompassing “…a speed at which the radio waves travel and an amount of time between when the radio waves (66) are sent and received” (Paragraph [0028]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Foster, et al. with Buehler and Amann, et al. because Buehler teaches a work machine containing a frame structure, a work implement coupled to the frame structure (Paragraph [0041]) and an obstacle detection system which detects obstacles that are partially below the surface (Paragraphs [0050], [0052], and [0074]) and Amann, et al. teaches the prediction process by which obstacles can be identified prior to contact with the work vehicle (Paragraphs [0030] – [0031]).
Applicant also asserted that amended claim 1 was patentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267) in view of Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941) and further in view of Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “…the adjustment occurs before contact of the at least one obstacle by the work implement”. The examiner disagrees. In Amann, et al., the machine uses sensor data in order to identify whether “…the agricultural machine (105) cannot reach the adapted collision point (160') since it is restricted to an operation on the other side of the boundary (110)” (Paragraph [0032]), or “…the collision point (160) falls below a predetermined maximum distance from the agricultural machine (105)” (Paragraph [0030])”, which allows a prediction to interpret (and make adjustments) to the machine’s behavior before the time period of impact. Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Amann, et al. with Foster, et al. and Buehler because Foster, et al. teaches a predictive obstacle detection system which detects potential obstacles in an agricultural field using a LIDAR sensor (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]) and Buehler teaches a work machine containing a frame structure, a work implement coupled to the frame structure (Paragraph [0041]) and an obstacle detection system which detects obstacles that are partially below the surface (Paragraphs [0050], [0052], and [0074]).
Applicant also asserted that amended claim 1 was patentable over Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170357267) in view of Buehler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210243941) and further in view of Amann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220142035) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “…and comprises an adjustment of a vertical position of the work implement”. The examiner disagrees. In Buehler, the work vehicle has the ability to adjust “…two linkage arms (22A), (22B) such that the individual units (12) are vertically moveable” (Paragraph [0044]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Buehler with Foster, et al. and Amann, et al. because Foster, et al. teaches a predictive obstacle detection system which detects potential obstacles in an agricultural field using a LIDAR sensor (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]) and Amann, et al. teaches the prediction process by which obstacles can be identified prior to contact with the work vehicle (Paragraphs [0030] – [0031]).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Foster, et al., Buehler, and Amann, et al. reads on the claim limitations “…generated prior to contact between the work implement and the at least one obstacle”, “…an anticipated strike severity that is based on whether the at least one obstacle is within a reference location along, or at a threshold distance from, a planned path of travel of the work implement and on an anticipated time at which the work implement will reach the at least one obstacle”, and “…the adjustment occurs before contact of the at least one obstacle by the work implement and comprises an adjustment of a vertical position of the work implement”, as stated in amended clam 1, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Impola, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210318420) describes a work machine containing a frame, blade, sensor assembly, and an ultrasonic sensor which has the ability to detect obstacles in areas surrounding specific portions of the work machine.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights