DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to communications: Amendment filed 8/23/2005.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 10-12 are pending in the case. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
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 .
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.
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, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen (US 20180095476,4/5/2018) in view of Madsen (US 8,155,870, 4/10/2012) hereinafter Morten [the second listed inventor].
ALLCLAIMS 1-2, 4-6 and 10-12
STARTREJ 1-2, 4-6 and 10
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, Madsen discloses:
a self-propelled implement; and an autosteer controller for controlling traveling of the self-propelled implement; (See Madsen at [0029] where an autosteer implementation for maintaining a vehicle track or path is disclosed. A vehicle is held to be self-propelled since it provides its own power rather than being pulled.)
a global positioning system to provide GPS coordinates; (See [0030] where the reference states is uses GPS and GNSS interchangeably, and [0033] where GNSS is used to direct the vehicle )
a vision guidance system comprising at least one camera and a processor; (See [0031]-[0033] where camera are used to guide the control system.)
wherein the global positioning system is in communication with the processor, and the processor is in communication with the autosteer controller; and (See again [0033] where the GPS is in communication with the steering controller)
wherein the processor is configured to - receive the GPS coordinates from the global positioning system (para. 43),
receive images from the at least one camera (para 42)
process the images to determine whether the autosteered implement is driving a desired travel and determine if a steering correction is needed to stay on the desired travel, (para. 52-56, where the system determines what path the vehicle is on, and steers it on to that path.))
determine a GPS offset based on the GPS coordinates received from the global positioning system and GPS coordinates for the desired travel and modify the GPS coordinates received from the global positioning system using the GPS offset to a modified GPS coordinates to maintain a desired travel for the self-propelled implement, (para. 54-55, the invention is about stay on the desired path. Steering is the changing of the heading, or GPS coordinates, mathematically there is an offset and there is a modification to the new coordinates.)
communicate the modified GPS coordinates to the autosteer controller, wherein the autosteer controller is configured to receive the modified GPS coordinates from the processor and to use the modified GPS coordinates to automatically direct steering of the implement along the desired travel through actuators that steer wheels or tracks of the autosteered implement (see above about changing the steering directions, and para 54, the hydraulic valve steering system)
Madsen discloses a desired travel, but not specifically what that travel path is. Morten discloses a vision guidance system which determines whether the autosteered implement is driving a desired travel in alignment along a row of crops (col. 8, ll 44-57). Since it is in alignment, it is not damaging the plants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the steering corrections of Madsen to the desired path of Morten, because Morten’s path was possibility of high accuracy from that type of adjustment (Morten, col.8, line 51). Additionally, Madsen teaches a base device of which the present claimed invention may be seen as an improvement, an autonomous drive for farm vehicles. Morten teaches a similar improvement, a farm vehicle that aligns with crops. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that using to a tractor aligning with crops as the vehicle in Madsen would have yielded predictable results.
The rationale for the combination is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I.C.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2, the combination and rationale for combining Madsen and Morten is explain in in claim 1 above. Additionally, Morten’s application to crop rows is using a tractor (col.8, ll 44).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 4, Madsen discloses a limitation wherein the at least one camera is disposed to capture images for the vision guidance system. (See Madsen at [0046] “control system 100 may receive vision data 140 from camera.”)
Regarding dependent claim(s) 5, Madsen discloses a limitation wherein each camera processes images captured by the camera. (See Madsen at [0072] where it is stated that a “camera 102 may detect a vehicle pos[ition] and orientation over a path 212 indicated by circles with arrows.” This is held to teach the above limitation (camera itself processing images captured by the camera) because it is stated that the camera detects path from the arrows, not that images are necessarily sent from the camera to the system that detects said path from arrows.)
Regarding dependent claim(s) 6, Madsen discloses a limitation wherein the vision guidance system includes a monitor having the processor to process images captured by the at least one camera. (See again Madsen at [0033] where captured images are processed frame by frame by algorithms.)
Regarding dependent claim(s) 10, Madsen discloses the vision guidance system is connected to the GPS and the autosteer controller (para. 33).
ENDREJ
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen and Morten, and further in view of Sibley (US 11694434, 7/4/2023).
STARTREJ 11-12
Regarding dependent claim(s) 11, the above combination does not specifically disclose a tractor that straddles multiple rows of crops.
Sibley discloses a limitation further comprising: a first set of wheels or a track that are aligned in a row spacing between a first row of plants and a second row of plants. (See Sibley Figure 24 where illustrated is sprayer rig tractor with one set of wheels between two rows of crops.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to invention to combine Madsen and Sibley. Madsen teaches a base device of which the present claimed invention may be seen as an improvement, an autonomous drive for farm vehicles. Sibley teaches a similar improvement a farm vehicle that straddles rows of crops. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that using to a row straddling tractor as the vehicle in Madsen would have yielded predictable results.
The rationale for the combination is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I.C.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 12, the above combination does not specifically disclose a tractor that straddles multiple rows of crops.
Sibley disclose a limitation further comprising: a second set of wheels or track that are aligned in a row spacing between the second row of plants and a third row of plants. (See Sibley Figure 24 where illustrated is sprayer rig tractor with one set of wheels between two rows of crops, and a second set of wheels between two different rows of crops.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to invention to combine Madsen and Sibley. Madsen teaches a base device of which the present claimed invention may be seen as an improvement, an autonomous drive for farm vehicles. Sibley teaches a similar improvement a farm vehicle that straddles rows of crops. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that using to a row straddling tractor as the vehicle in Madsen would have yielded predictable results.
The rationale for the combination is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I.C.
ENDREJ
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges various novel design features of the invention; however, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (pp. 5-6) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant alleges that Madsen discloses using GPS data but never discloses adjusting that data. It is noted that above are new rejections and more clearly point toward the fusion and steering portions of Madsen. The office believes that Applicant’s argument (and invention) is that there is a stock GPS system, it takes coordinates and modifies them based image data, and passes it to the tractor without the tractor knowing that image data was used (among other things.) Thus, the tractor changes its steering to the modified coordinate. However, steering to a modified coordinate is the definition of steering in general. For example, if Madsen recognizes it is off-course and changes its heading (GPS) to get back on course. As explain above, this meets the claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. For example claim 3 was not completely incorporated, and the entire scope of amended claim 1 was not rejected in the prior action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M QUELER whose telephone number is (571)272-4140. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM -6 PM ET.
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, David Wiley can be reached at 571-272-4150. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172