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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 16 October 2025. The Applicant has amended claims 1, 7-8, 16-17 and 20. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 16 October 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 16 October 2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 16 October 2025, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “Guyette neither nor suggest a system in which a subsystem…is automatically activated or deactivated as the machine approaches, enters, or exits a coverage or non-coverage area…updating of the coverage map information…” for claims 1, 8 and 17, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Guyette teaches a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths… (para 0008, Fig. 5), i.e. the sprayer turns on in the spray path within the boundary. Guyette also teaches …as the sprayer 2 approaches the orchard it is in GNSS Mode… upon receipt of a set of waypoints having substantially the same headings 3 the controller 10 will be have sufficient information to enter DR Mode. As the sprayer 2 enters under the canopy, the controller 10 will detect the receipt of GNSS signals that fail to meet minimum GNSS positioning accuracy data values and enter DR Mode (para 0020, Fig. 5), i.e., GNSS mode and DR mode switching between coverage and non-coverage areas. Guyette further teaches …the controller 10 obtains GNSS positioning data 44 data from the GNSS subsystem 40 and uses the GNSS positioning data 44 to generate guidance display output for the sprayer 2 and/or to log discreet agricultural input placement amounts and locations… the controller 10 may initiate storage of GNSS positioning data 44 to memory based on a command input to the controller 10… (para 0016-0017), i.e., updating map information. Therefore, the prior art discloses the claim limitations as recited and the prior art and rejections have been maintained.
With respect to the dependent claims 2-7, 9-16 and 18-20, the Applicant provides no additional arguments other than their dependency from the independent claims 1, 8 and 17. Because independent claims 1, 8 and 17 are not allowable, dependent claims 2-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are not allowable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/492,476.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose a method operating a guidance system of an agricultural machine in a first guidance mode in response to a control system of the agricultural machine identifying the agricultural machine entering a coverage area and/or exiting a non-coverage area, the non-coverage area containing a crop for which the agricultural machine is to perform an agricultural operation, the coverage area being a location at which the agricultural machine is to not perform the agricultural operation; and operating the guidance system in a second guidance mode in response to the control system identifying the agricultural machine entering the non-coverage area and/or exiting the coverage area, wherein guidance in the second guidance mode, and not in the first guidance mode, is based at least in part on a detection by an external sensor of the agricultural machine of a presence of the crop being adjacent to the agricultural machine.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. They are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application in view of Lange, US20060282205 (A1) suggests the limitation of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/492,476 that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining an end turn guidance line for end turn of the agricultural machine (Lange: Fig. 10, para 0074-0081).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “automatically activating a subsystem of the agricultural machine to perform the agricultural operation when the agricultural machine is identified as approaching, entering, or exiting the non- coverage area from a coverage area, and to automatically deactivate the subsystem when the agricultural machine is identified as approaching, entering, or exiting the coverage area from the non-coverage area, the activation or deactivation being performed at least prior to entry or after exit as determined using an updated coverage map information, and the coverage map being updated while the agricultural operation is performed to provide the updated coverage map” which is not explicitly, implicitly or inherently disclosed in the specification. The closest paragraph in the specification is para 0076 which has “…a determination can be made as to whether the agricultural machine 10 is, or will be, approaching or crossing a coverage boundary 88, entering a coverage area 84, and/or exiting the non-coverage area 86. In the event a determination is made that no such crossing or approach is occurring, the guidance system 76 can continue at block 728 with operating in the second, row sense guidance mode. However, if a determination is made that such crossing or approach is occurring, then at block 734, and similar to block 724, a determination can be made by the guidance system 76 and/or the operator as to whether the agricultural machine 10 is, or is not, at least at the current time, to perform any other agricultural operations….”, while the specification does not disclose “automatically activating a subsystem of the agricultural machine to perform the agricultural operation” when “approaching, entering or exiting the non-coverage area from…” or “automatically deactivating the subsystem” when “approaching, entering or exiting the coverage area from…”. Therefore, the claim recites new matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 8 recites similar languages as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 2-7 and 9-16 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “automatically activating a subsystem of the agricultural machine to perform the agricultural operation when the agricultural machine is identified as approaching, entering, or exiting the non- coverage area from a coverage area, and to automatically deactivate the subsystem when the agricultural machine is identified as approaching, entering, or exiting the coverage area from the non-coverage area, the activation or deactivation being performed at least prior to entry or after exit as determined using an updated coverage map information, and the coverage map being updated while the agricultural operation is performed to provide the updated coverage map” which is ambiguous. It is not clear when the machine “approaching, entering, or exiting the non- coverage area from a coverage area”, how the machine exiting the non-coverage area from the coverage area. Similarly, it is not clear when the machine “approaching, entering, or exiting the coverage area from the non-coverage area”, how the machine exits the coverage area from the non-coverage area. In addition, it seems “entering the coverage area” is equivalent to the “exiting the non-coverage area” from the claim language, while it is not clear whether the subsystem is activated or deactivated when the machine enters the coverage area, i.e. exits the non-coverage area. Similarly, it seems “entering the non-coverage area” is equivalent to the “existing the coverage area”, thus it is not clear whether the subsystem is activated or deactivated when the machine enters the non-coverage area, i.e. exits the coverage area. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 8 recites similar languages as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 2-7 and 9-16 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guyette (US20160366815, hereinafter Guyette) in view of Wilcox (US20080030320, hereinafter Wilcox) and further in view of Weisberg (US20170112049, hereinafter Weisberg).
As to claim 1, Guyette teaches a method comprising:
operating a guidance system of an agricultural machine in a first guidance mode in response to a control system of the agricultural machine identifying, the agricultural machine is entering a coverage area from a non-coverage area, the non-coverage area containing a crop for which the agricultural machine is to perform an agricultural operation, the coverage area being a location at which the agricultural machine is to not perform the agricultural operation (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in DR/Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5); and
operating the guidance system in a second guidance mode in response to the control system identifying, the agricultural machine entering the non-coverage area from the coverage area, wherein guidance in the second guidance mode, and not in the first guidance mode, is based at least in part on a detection by an external sensor of the agricultural machine of a presence of the crop being adjacent to the agricultural machine (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths; para 0009:…DR Mode is used on the first path where valid or reliable GNSS positioning data 44 is missing due to the tree canopy blocking GNSS signal acquisition. Subsequent vehicle paths 4 will use predictive heading selection or Snap Mode…; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5);
automatically activating a subsystem of the agricultural machine to perform the agricultural operation when the agricultural machine is identified as approaching, entering, or exiting the non- coverage area from a coverage area, and to automatically deactivate the subsystem when the agricultural machine is identified as approaching, entering, or exiting the coverage area from the non-coverage area, the activation or deactivation being performed at least prior to entry or after exit as determined using an updated coverage map information, and the coverage map being updated while the agricultural operation is performed to provide the updated coverage map (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths…; para 0016-0017: …the controller 10 obtains GNSS positioning data 44 data from the GNSS subsystem 40 and uses the GNSS positioning data 44 to generate guidance display output for the sprayer 2 and/or to log discreet agricultural input placement amounts and locations… the controller 10 may initiate storage of GNSS positioning data 44 to memory based on a command input to the controller 10…; also see para 0020: …as the sprayer 2 approaches the orchard it is in GNSS Mode… upon receipt of a set of waypoints having substantially the same headings 3 the controller 10 will be have sufficient information to enter DR Mode. As the sprayer 2 enters under the canopy, the controller 10 will detect the receipt of GNSS signals that fail to meet minimum GNSS positioning accuracy data values and enter DR Mode; Fig. 5).
Guyette further teaches the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path (see at least para 0008, Fig. 5), i.e., boundary between coverage and non-coverage areas.
Guyette does not teach identifying…approaching a first/second boundary and the operating using a coverage map.
Wilcox is directed to an agricultural data system. Wilcox teaches in orchard operations, GPS may be augmented by a tree row map for further localization information (see at least Wilcox, para 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include the operating using a coverage map in view of Wilcox et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that GPS augmented tree row map of Wilcox can be used in Guyette to create tree map correlated with GPS coverage, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Wilcox because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to guide the vehicle with both crop information and GPS information so that the guidance could be more accurate and robust.
Weisberg is directed to an overlap control system includes an agricultural vehicle control system operable to utilize a product delay (PD) value in seconds, a start early (SE) distance, and/or a stop late (SL) distance to determine at least one offset edge from a location of an agricultural implement. Weisberg teaches the agricultural vehicle control system is operable to look ahead along a guidance swath or at least one predicted path of the agricultural implement, and to determine that an intercept will occur between the at least one offset edge and a boundary along the guidance swath or predicted path. The agricultural vehicle control system is further operable to calculate a distance or time to the intercept, and to send a command to change an on/off state of the agricultural implement in the calculated distance or time (see at least Weisberg, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include identifying… approach the first/second boundary in view of Weisberg et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that identifying the boundary for adjusting vehicle operations of Weisberg can be used in Guyette to switch navigation mode of the agricultural machine before reaching the next area of operation, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Weisberg because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 2, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising changing, by the guidance system, from the first guidance mode to the second guidance mode in response to the detection of the agricultural machine is approaching the second boundary (see at least Guyette para 0020: upon receipt of a set of waypoints having substantially the same headings 3 the controller 10 will be have sufficient information to enter DR Mode. As the sprayer 2 enters under the canopy, the controller 10 will detect the receipt of GNSS signals that fail to meet minimum GNSS positioning accuracy data values and enter DR Mode; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5).
As to claim 3, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 2, further including detecting, by the external sensor, the crop being located adjacent to the agricultural machine, and wherein the change from the first guidance mode to the second guidance mode occurs prior to the agricultural machine being in the non-coverage area (see at least Guyette para 0009: :…DR Mode is used on the first path where valid or reliable GNSS positioning data 44 is missing due to the tree canopy blocking GNSS signal acquisition. Subsequent vehicle paths 4 will use predictive heading selection or Snap Mode…; also see para 0027-0030).
As to claim 4, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 3, further including performing the agricultural operation by a subsystem of the agricultural machine in the non-coverage area, the agricultural operation comprising one of harvesting the crop, spraying the crop, or baling the crop (see at least Guyette para 0020 for sprayer entering under the canopy, also see para 0019, Fig. 1).
As to claims 6 and 9, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 8, wherein the first guidance mode is a global positioning system guidance mode and the second guidance mode is a row sense guidance mode (see at least Guyette para 0020 for GPS and DR/SNAP mode, also see para 0013, Fig. 3, Fig. 5).
As to claim 8, Guyette teaches a method comprising:
identifying, by a control system of an agricultural machine and using a location system, a first location of the agricultural machine relative to a coverage boundary between a coverage area and a non-coverage area, the non-coverage area containing a crop for which the agricultural machine is to perform an agricultural operation, the coverage area being a location at which the agricultural machine is to not perform the agricultural operation (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in DR/Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths; para 0016: GNSS subsystem and positioning data; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5);
guiding, by a guidance system of the agricultural machine and in response to the identified first location relative to the coverage boundary, a travel of the agricultural machine in a first guidance mode (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in DR/Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5);
identifying, by the control system and while the agricultural machine is being guided in the first guidance mode, a second location of the agricultural machine relative to at least one of the coverage area, the coverage boundary, and the non-coverage area (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths; para 0009:…DR Mode is used on the first path where valid or reliable GNSS positioning data 44 is missing due to the tree canopy blocking GNSS signal acquisition. Subsequent vehicle paths 4 will use predictive heading selection or Snap Mode…; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5); and
changing, in response to the second location being identified, from guidance in the first guidance mode to guidance of the travel by the guidance system in a second guidance mode (see at least Guyette para 0020: upon receipt of a set of waypoints having substantially the same headings 3 the controller 10 will be have sufficient information to enter DR Mode. As the sprayer 2 enters under the canopy, the controller 10 will detect the receipt of GNSS signals that fail to meet minimum GNSS positioning accuracy data values and enter DR Mode; para 009: …DR Mode is used on the first path where valid or reliable GNSS positioning data 44 is missing due to the tree canopy blocking GNSS signal acquisition. Subsequent vehicle paths 4 will use predictive heading selection or Snap Mode…; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5),
automatically activating a subsystem of the agricultural machine to perform the agricultural operation when the agricultural machine is identified as approaching, entering, or exiting the non- coverage area from a coverage area, and to automatically deactivate the subsystem when the agricultural machine is identified as approaching, entering, or exiting the coverage area from the non-coverage area, the activation or deactivation being performed at least prior to entry or after exit as determined using an updated coverage map information, and the coverage map being updated while the agricultural operation is performed to provide the updated coverage map (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths…; para 0016-0017: …the controller 10 obtains GNSS positioning data 44 data from the GNSS subsystem 40 and uses the GNSS positioning data 44 to generate guidance display output for the sprayer 2 and/or to log discreet agricultural input placement amounts and locations… the controller 10 may initiate storage of GNSS positioning data 44 to memory based on a command input to the controller 10…; also see para 0020: …as the sprayer 2 approaches the orchard it is in GNSS Mode… upon receipt of a set of waypoints having substantially the same headings 3 the controller 10 will be have sufficient information to enter DR Mode. As the sprayer 2 enters under the canopy, the controller 10 will detect the receipt of GNSS signals that fail to meet minimum GNSS positioning accuracy data values and enter DR Mode; Fig. 5);
wherein guidance in one of the first guidance mode and the second guidance mode is based at least in part on a detection by an external sensor of the agricultural machine of the crop being adjacent to the agricultural machine (see at least Guyette para 0009: :…DR Mode is used on the first path where valid or reliable GNSS positioning data 44 is missing due to the tree canopy blocking GNSS signal acquisition. Subsequent vehicle paths 4 will use predictive heading selection or Snap Mode…; also see para 0027-0030).
Guyette does not teach a coverage map, identifying… a second location of the agricultural machine relative to the coverage boundary, the second location being a location at which the agricultural machine is approaching or crossing and changing navigation mode in response to the identification of the agricultural machine being at the second location relative to the coverage boundary.
Wilcox is directed to an agricultural data system. Wilcox teaches in orchard operations, GPS may be augmented by a tree row map for further localization information (see at least Wilcox, para 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include a coverage map in view of Wilcox et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that GPS augmented tree row map of Wilcox can be used in Guyette to create tree map correlated with GPS coverage, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Wilcox because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to guide the vehicle with both crop information and GPS information so that the guidance could be more accurate and robust.
Weisberg is directed to an overlap control system includes an agricultural vehicle control system operable to utilize a product delay (PD) value in seconds, a start early (SE) distance, and/or a stop late (SL) distance to determine at least one offset edge from a location of an agricultural implement. Weisberg teaches the agricultural vehicle control system is operable to look ahead along a guidance swath or at least one predicted path of the agricultural implement, and to determine that an intercept will occur between the at least one offset edge and a boundary along the guidance swath or predicted path. The agricultural vehicle control system is further operable to calculate a distance or time to the intercept, and to send a command to change an on/off state of the agricultural implement in the calculated distance or time (see at least Weisberg, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include identifying… a second location of the agricultural machine relative to the coverage boundary, the second location being a location at which the agricultural machine is approaching or crossing and changing navigation mode in response to the identification of the agricultural machine being at the second location relative to the coverage boundary in view of Weisberg et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that identifying the boundary for adjusting vehicle operation mode of Weisberg can be used in Guyette to switch navigation mode of the agricultural machine before reaching the next area of operation, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Weisberg because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 12, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 8.
Weisberg further teaches wherein the second location relative to the coverage boundary is a location at which a performance of the agricultural operation has time to be stopped before the agricultural machine crosses the coverage boundary (see at least Weisberg, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include the limitation in view of Weisberg et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Weisberg because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Behnke (US20060271243, hereinafter Behnke).
As to claim 5, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 4.
Guyette modified by Wilcox does not teach deactivating the subsystem in response to identifying the agricultural machine entering the coverage area and/or exiting the non-coverage area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Behnke teaches the system itself is then initially in a waiting state until a start-up phase has been completed, in which the parameters have stabilized once the ground speed and starting values have been set. A fixed delay time of, e.g., a few seconds, can be specified for this. Once the start-up phase has been completed and the current target harvesting conditions have been achieved, measurement of the first measured value can be started (see at least Behnke, para 0087). If the target harvesting conditions stop being met during measured-value acquisition, e.g., because the machine has driven out of the field to be harvested, the measurement is interrupted…The machine then remains in the waiting state until the target harvesting conditions are attained again… and, after the start-up phase has been completed, measured-value acquisition is continued (see at least Behnke, para 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include deactivating the subsystem in response to identifying the agricultural machine entering the coverage area and/or exiting the non-coverage area in view of Behnke et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that stop the agricultural machine when it is out of the field of Behnke can be used in Guyette, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Behnke because this would have achieved the desirable result of saving operation cost.
As to claim 13, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 12.
Guyette further teaches performing the agricultural operation by a subsystem of the agricultural machine at the first location (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…; para 0009:…DR Mode is used on the first path where valid or reliable GNSS positioning data 44 is missing due to the tree canopy blocking GNSS signal acquisition. Subsequent vehicle paths 4 will use predictive heading selection or Snap Mode…; para 0031: Straight lines are expected while spraying based upon an assumption that paths in orchards are arranged in parallel rows; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5).
Guyette modified by Wilcox does not teach deactivating, by the control system and in response to identifying the agricultural machine being at the second location, the subsystem of the agricultural machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Behnke teaches the system itself is then initially in a waiting state until a start-up phase has been completed, in which the parameters have stabilized once the ground speed and starting values have been set. A fixed delay time of, e.g., a few seconds, can be specified for this. Once the start-up phase has been completed and the current target harvesting conditions have been achieved, measurement of the first measured value can be started (see at least Behnke, para 0087). If the target harvesting conditions stop being met during measured-value acquisition, e.g., because the machine has driven out of the field to be harvested, the measurement is interrupted…The machine then remains in the waiting state until the target harvesting conditions are attained again… and, after the start-up phase has been completed, measured-value acquisition is continued (see at least Behnke, para 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include deactivating the subsystem in response to identifying the agricultural machine entering the coverage area and/or exiting the non-coverage area in view of Behnke et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that stop the agricultural machine when it is out of the field of Behnke can be used in Guyette, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Behnke because this would have achieved the desirable result of saving operation cost.
As to claim 14, Guyette in view of Wilcox, Weisberg and Behnke teaches the method of claim 13.
Guyette further teaches wherein the agricultural operation is one of harvesting the crop, spraying the crop, or baling the crop (see at least Guyette para 0020 for sprayer entering under the canopy, also see para 0019, Fig. 1).
Claims 7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Dix (US20210365036, hereinafter Dix).
As to claim 7, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Guyette modified by Wilcox does not teach receiving by the guidance system the coverage map, the coverage map providing a location for each of the coverage area and the non-coverage area; wherein updating the coverage map in response to the agricultural machine performing the agricultural operation in the non-coverage area, the agricultural operation comprising one of harvesting the crop, spraying the crop, or baling the crop.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dix teaches …vehicle control system receives input from one or more sources. For example, the vehicle control system may receive geospatial data (e.g., a coverage map, etc.) from other vehicle (see at least Dix, para 0021), vehicle control system may receive a coverage map of a farm field. The coverage map may include several geo-markers indicating the boundaries of the farm field and a number of waypoints labeled as rocks. Vehicle control system may receive location data, coverage map data, and/or identifying information from second vehicle and identify second vehicle as a combine harvester (see at least Dix, para 0046) and …input circuit may receive coverage map data from harvesting vehicle and update a coverage map stored in coverage map database based on the received coverage map data (see at least Dix, para 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include receiving by the guidance system a coverage map, the coverage map providing a location for each of the coverage area and the non-coverage area; wherein updating the coverage map in response to the agricultural machine performing the agricultural operation in the non-coverage area, the agricultural operation comprising one of harvesting the crop, spraying the crop, or baling the crop in view of Dix et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that receiving coverage map and update the map of Dix can be used in Guyette, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Dix because this would have achieved the desirable result of keeping the map updated so as to navigate the vehicle effectively.
As to claim 15, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 8, further including receiving by the guidance system a coverage map, the coverage map providing a location for at least one of the coverage area, the coverage boundary, and the non-coverage area.
Guyette modified by Wilcox does not teach receiving by the guidance system a coverage map, the coverage map providing a location for at least one of the coverage area, the coverage boundary, and the non-coverage area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dix teaches …vehicle control system receives input from one or more sources. For example, the vehicle control system may receive geospatial data (e.g., a coverage map, etc.) from other vehicle (see at least Dix, para 0021), vehicle control system may receive a coverage map of a farm field. The coverage map may include several geo-markers indicating the boundaries of the farm field and a number of waypoints labeled as rocks. Vehicle control system may receive location data, coverage map data, and/or identifying information from second vehicle and identify second vehicle as a combine harvester (see at least Dix, para 0046) and …input circuit may receive coverage map data from harvesting vehicle and update a coverage map stored in coverage map database based on the received coverage map data (see at least Dix, para 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include receiving by the guidance system a coverage map, the coverage map providing a location for at least one of the coverage area, the coverage boundary, and the non-coverage area in view of Dix et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that receiving coverage map and update the map of Dix can be used in Guyette, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Dix because this would have achieved the desirable result of keeping the map updated so as to navigate the vehicle effectively.
As to claim 16, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 15.
Guyette modified by Wilcox does not teach updating the coverage map is triggered in response to the agricultural machine performing the agricultural operation in the non-coverage area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dix teaches …vehicle control system receives input from one or more sources. For example, the vehicle control system may receive geospatial data (e.g., a coverage map, etc.) from other vehicle (see at least Dix, para 0021), vehicle control system may receive a coverage map of a farm field. The coverage map may include several geo-markers indicating the boundaries of the farm field and a number of waypoints labeled as rocks. Vehicle control system may receive location data, coverage map data, and/or identifying information from second vehicle and identify second vehicle as a combine harvester (see at least Dix, para 0046) and …input circuit may receive coverage map data from harvesting vehicle and update a coverage map stored in coverage map database based on the received coverage map data (see at least Dix, para 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include updating the coverage map is triggered in response to the agricultural machine performing the agricultural operation in the non-coverage area in view of Dix et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that receiving coverage map and update the map of Dix can be used in Guyette, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Dix because this would have achieved the desirable result of keeping the map updated so as to navigate the vehicle effectively.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lange (US20060282205, hereinafter Lange).
As to claim 10, Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg teaches the method of claim 8.
Weisberg further teaches wherein the changing from the first guidance mode to the second guidance mode occurs before the agricultural machine crosses the coverage boundary (see Weisberg abstract).
Guyette modified by Wilcox does not teach wherein the external sensor is a row sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lange teaches the row offsets measured by the row sensors are used for guiding the implement along the rows… (see at least Lange, para 0079, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include wherein the external sensor is a row sensor in view of Lange et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that guiding the vehicle along the rows using row sensor of Lange can be used in Guyette, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Lange because this would have achieved the desirable result of detecting crop rows and follow the row when working in the field.
As to claim 11, Guyette in view of Wilcox, Weisberg and Lange teaches the method of claim 10.
Lange further teaches wherein the second guidance mode is a row sense guidance mode that is based at least in part on information from the row sensor and a global positioning system (see at least Lange para 0079-0082 for row sensors used for guiding the implement along the rows, GPS positions being used to determine when the implement is within a selected swath end threshold zone about the swath end position; also see para 0087, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include wherein the second guidance mode is a row sense guidance mode that is based at least in part on information from the row sensor and a global positioning system in view of Lange et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Lange because this would have achieved the desirable result of precisely detecting crop rows and end of rows so as to provide accurate guidance to the vehicle in the field.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guyette in view of Wilcox and Weisberg, and further in view of Behnke (US20060271243, hereinafter Behnke).
As to claim 17, Guyette teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a control system of an agricultural machine, a coverage map identifying at least one of a coverage area and a non-coverage area, the non-coverage area containing a crop for which the agricultural machine is to perform an agricultural operation, the coverage area being a location at which the agricultural machine is to not perform the agricultural operation (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in DR/Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5);
detecting by the control system, and based at least in part on information from the coverage map, the agricultural machine entering the non-coverage area and/or exiting the coverage area (see at least Guyette para 0008: …the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in DR/Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths; para 0009: …DR Mode is used on the first path where valid or reliable GNSS positioning data 44 is missing due to the tree canopy blocking GNSS signal acquisition. Subsequent vehicle paths 4 will use predictive heading selection or Snap Mode…; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5);
updating the coverage map while the agricultural operation is performed to provide an updated coverage map in response to the agricultural operation being performed by the subsystem (see at least Guyette para 0016-0017: …the controller 10 obtains GNSS positioning data 44 data from the GNSS subsystem 40 and uses the GNSS positioning data 44 to generate guidance display output for the sprayer 2 and/or to log discreet agricultural input placement amounts and locations… the controller 10 may initiate storage of GNSS positioning data 44 to memory based on a command input to the controller 10…).
detecting by the control system, based at least in part on information from the updated coverage map, the agricultural machine entering the coverage area and/or exiting the non-coverage area (see at least Guyette para 0008: a vehicle such as a sprayer equipped with the system and as aided by the system outputs is steered or guided to travel between the evenly spaced, parallel rows…the tree canopy covers at most all the orchard boundary but does not extend far outside this boundary allowing open sky for the GNSS sensor mounted on the spray machine to acquire valid position during turns to the next spray path. The dotted lines indicate vehicle paths used in DR/Snap Mode based on average path heading and average distance between vehicle paths; also see para 0027-0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5).
Guyette does not teach a coverage map, detecting…approaching the coverage area…approaching the non-coverage area…activating, by the control system, a subsystem of the agricultural machine in response to the detection of the agricultural machine entering the non-coverage area and/or exiting the coverage area, the subsystem adapted to perform the agricultural operation on the crop in the non-coverage area; deactivating, by the control system, the subsystem in response to the detection of the agricultural machine entering the coverage area and/or exiting the non-coverage area.
Wilcox is directed to an agricultural data system. Wilcox teaches in orchard operations, GPS may be augmented by a tree row map for further localization information (see at least Wilcox, para 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include a coverage map in view of Wilcox et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that GPS augmented tree row map of Wilcox can be used in Guyette to create tree map correlated with GPS coverage, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Wilcox because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to guide the vehicle with both crop information and GPS information so that the guidance could be more accurate and robust.
Weisberg is directed to an overlap control system includes an agricultural vehicle control system operable to utilize a product delay (PD) value in seconds, a start early (SE) distance, and/or a stop late (SL) distance to determine at least one offset edge from a location of an agricultural implement. Weisberg teaches the agricultural vehicle control system is operable to look ahead along a guidance swath or at least one predicted path of the agricultural implement, and to determine that an intercept will occur between the at least one offset edge and a boundary along the guidance swath or predicted path. The agricultural vehicle control system is further operable to calculate a distance or time to the intercept, and to send a command to change an on/off state of the agricultural implement in the calculated distance or time (see at least Weisberg, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include detecting…approaching the coverage area…approaching the non-coverage area…in view of Weisberg et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that identifying the boundary for adjusting vehicle operations of Weisberg can be used in Guyette to switch navigation mode of the agricultural machine before reaching the next area of operation, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Weisberg because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Behnke is directed to a method for computing a target setting value, which is adapted to a harvesting process, for a control parameter of a working unit of a harvesting machine. Behnke teaches the system itself is then initially in a waiting state until a start-up phase has been completed, in which the parameters have stabilized once the ground speed and starting values have been set. A fixed delay time of, e.g., a few seconds, can be specified for this. Once the start-up phase has been completed and the current target harvesting conditions have been achieved, measurement of the first measured value can be started (see at least Behnke, para 0087). If the target harvesting conditions stop being met during measured-value acquisition, e.g., because the machine has driven out of the field to be harvested, the measurement is interrupted…The machine then remains in the waiting state until the target harvesting conditions are attained again… and, after the start-up phase has been completed, measured-value acquisition is continued (see at least Behnke, para 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include activating, by the control system, a subsystem of the agricultural machine in response to the detection of the agricultural machine entering the non-coverage area and/or exiting the coverage area, the subsystem adapted to perform the agricultural operation on the crop in the non-coverage area; deactivating, by the control system, the subsystem in response to the detection of the agricultural machine entering the coverage area and/or exiting the non-coverage area in view of Behnke et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that stop the agricultural machine when it is out of the working area and start the machine when entering the working area of Behnke can be used in Guyette, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Behnke because this would have achieved the desirable result of saving operation cost.
As to claim 18, Guyette in view of Wilcox, Weisberg and Behnke teaches the method of claim 17.
Behnke further teaches wherein the subsystem is activated prior to the agricultural machine entering the non-coverage area from the coverage area (see at least Behnke, para 0087: the system itself is then initially in a waiting state until a start-up phase has been completed, in which the parameters have stabilized once the ground speed and starting values have been set. A fixed delay time of, e.g., a few seconds, can be specified for this. Once the start-up phase has been completed and the current target harvesting conditions have been achieved, measurement of the first measured value can be started; para 0090: If the target harvesting conditions stop being met during measured-value acquisition, e.g., because the machine has driven out of the field to be harvested, the measurement is interrupted…The machine then remains in the waiting state until the target harvesting conditions are attained again… and, after the start-up phase has been completed, measured-value acquisition is continued).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include in view of Behnke et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Behnke because this would have achieved the desirable result of work more effectively in the working area without missing the crops to be worked on.
As to claim 19, Guyette in view of Wilcox, Weisberg and Behnke teaches the method of claim 17.
Guyette wherein the agricultural operation comprises harvesting the crop, spraying the crop, or baling the crop (see at least Guyette para 0020 for sprayer entering under the canopy, also see para 0019, Fig. 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guyette in view of Wilcox, Weisberg and Behnke as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Dix.
As to claim 20, Guyette in view of Behnke teaches the method of claim 17.
Guyette modified by Behnke does not teach updating the coverage map is triggered in response to the agricultural operation being performed in the non-coverage area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dix teaches …vehicle control system receives input from one or more sources. For example, the vehicle control system may receive geospatial data (e.g., a coverage map, etc.) from other vehicle (see at least Dix, para 0021), vehicle control system may receive a coverage map of a farm field. The coverage map may include several geo-markers indicating the boundaries of the farm field and a number of waypoints labeled as rocks. Vehicle control system may receive location data, coverage map data, and/or identifying information from second vehicle and identify second vehicle as a combine harvester (see at least Dix, para 0046) and …input circuit may receive coverage map data from harvesting vehicle and update a coverage map stored in coverage map database based on the received coverage map data (see at least Dix, para 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guyette so as to include updating the coverage map is triggered in response to the agricultural operation being performed in the non-coverage area in view of Dix et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that receiving coverage map and update the map of Dix can be used in Guyette, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Guyette and Dix because this would have achieved the desirable result of keeping the map updated so as to navigate the vehicle effectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664