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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/26/2023, 10/24/2023, and 8/14/2025, were filed before the first office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per Nieto:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The applicant alleges that Nieto does not teach having a remote system to analyze the fault. The examiner is depending on Nieto, ONLY to show the well-known art of remote monitoring. MPEP 2141.01(a) (Analogous and Nonanalogous Art): the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Having a remote computer work on a problem is well known in the field of computer art, and can be applied to any computer system. MPEP 2143: D: Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; E: “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The independent claim in question does not teach sending a command etc. Please limit your arguments to what is actually claimed.
Per Matsuzaki: Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Response to Amendment
The previous objections to claim 1 have been removed in view of the applicant's amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 12, and 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 20220087091 A1, published: 3/24/2022), in view of Matsuzaki (US 20180173233 A1, published: 6/21/2018).
Claim 1: Nieto teaches a method for monitoring one or more autonomous agricultural production machines, the method comprising:
autonomously performing, by an autonomous agricultural production machine, an agricultural job (a device for safely operating an autonomously operable agricultural machine [Nieto, 0008]. The agricultural machine operates autonomously, i.e., without operator [Nieto, 0039]);
detecting, by the autonomous agricultural production machine based on anomaly data sensed by the autonomous agricultural production machine, an anomaly (the sensor signal comprising information about objects in the surroundings of the agricultural machine. The device further includes a processor configured to recognize a fault situation based on the sensor signal [Nieto, 0008]);
executing, by the autonomous agricultural production machine, a response routine, wherein detecting the anomaly is one or both of during or after executing the response routine (the device further includes a processor configured to recognize a fault situation based on the sensor signal, a classification unit configured to assign the recognized fault situation to a fault class based on a predefined assignment rule [Nieto, 0008]);
responsive to detecting an anomaly: interrupting, by the autonomous agricultural production machine (of the agricultural machine [Nieto, 0039]), performance of the agricultural job (responses of the agricultural machine can be, for example, emergency braking, slow braking until stoppage, slight braking in the sense of deceleration, strong braking, or even swerving [Nieto, 0039]);
transmitting, by the autonomous agricultural production machine, the anomaly data to a monitoring center (the control device is designed to change from an autonomous operating state, in which the agricultural machine operates autonomously, into a remote-controlled operating state, in which the agricultural machine can be controlled remotely, if the fault class satisfies a predefined state condition [Nieto, 0031]. The fault class is transmitted to the control device of the agricultural machine via the transmission interface 36 [Nieto, 0045]);
generating a control instruction (a control device for receiving the message and for controlling a self-driving unit and/or an implement of the agricultural machine based on the received message [Nieto, 0016]);
transmitting the control instruction to the autonomous agricultural production machine (a transmission interface configured to periodically transmit a message to a control device of the agricultural machine via a vehicle bus system of the agricultural machine [Nieto, 0008]);
executing the control instruction (a self-driving unit for moving the agricultural machine and/or an implement for executing an agricultural task [Nieto, 0017]); and
resuming, by the autonomous agricultural production machine (the agricultural machine [Nieto, 0035]), performance of the agricultural job (if no fault situation was recognized, empty messages are transmitted [Nieto, 0020]. The agricultural machine in particular has a self-driving unit which enables a movement of the machine without control intervention by an operator, and an implement which performs an agricultural function without control intervention by an operator (actuators of the agricultural machine) [Nieto, 0035]; Examiner's Note: wherein when no fault is detected normal operation resumes).
Nieto does not teach transmitting, the anomaly data to a remote monitoring center that comprises a central server; by the remote monitoring center; by the autonomous agricultural production machine.
However, Matsuzaki teaches transmitting the anomaly data to a remote monitoring center that comprises a central server (management computer at a remote place [Matsuzaki, 0031]. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim [MPEP 2114, II]); by the remote monitoring center based on the anomaly data; by the remote monitoring center; by the autonomous agricultural production machine (the first controlling unit 4 that is the data processing terminal may be configured to be carried by a manager and to wirelessly exchange data with the control system of the tractor. Additionally, the first controlling unit 4 may be constructed as a management computer at a remote place, and connected to the control system of the tractor through the Internet [Matsuzaki, 0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous agricultural production machine that monitors anomalies invention of Nieto to include the remote monitoring center feature of Matsuzaki.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to better communicate with multiple machines at a central location, from which to control remote devices.
Claim 16, having similar deficiencies to claim 1, is likewise rejected.
Claim 2: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination further teaches further comprising: inputting an instruction, via the autonomous agricultural production machine, indicating a request for enabling a service to be performed by the remote monitoring center to perform monitoring of the autonomous agricultural production machine (the control device is designed to request an operator command via the operator interface if the fault class satisfies a predefined input condition. It is also possible for a human operator to be asked to perform an input if a specific condition is satisfied. An action instruction for specific fault classes can in particular be transmitted to the operator [Nieto, 0033]); transmitting the request from the autonomous agricultural production machine to the remote monitoring center (the first controlling unit 4 that is the data processing terminal may be configured to be carried by a manager and to wirelessly exchange data with the control system of the tractor. Additionally, the first controlling unit 4 may be constructed as a management computer at a remote place, and connected to the control system of the tractor through the Internet [Matsuzaki, 0031]); and responsive to receiving the request, the remote monitoring center enables the service to perform the monitoring of the autonomous agricultural production machine (the control device is designed to request an operator command via the operator interface if the fault class satisfies a predefined input condition. It is also possible for a human operator to be asked to perform an input if a specific condition is satisfied. An action instruction for specific fault classes can in particular be transmitted to the operator [Nieto, 0033])
Claim 17, having similar deficiencies to claim 2, is likewise rejected.
Claim 3. (Currently Amended): The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. Nieto further teaches wherein the autonomous agricultural production machine executing the response routine performs an emergency stop of the autonomous agricultural production machine (responses of the agricultural machine can be, for example, emergency braking, slow braking until stoppage, slight braking in the sense of deceleration, strong braking, or even swerving [Nieto, 0039]), and wherein resuming performance of the agricultural job comprises resuming operation of the autonomous agricultural production machine (Examiner's Note: it is implicit in the nature of mechanical and/or electronic machines, that the machine can be turned on after being turned off, and thus an operation will resume when turned back on).
Claim 18, having similar deficiencies to claim 3, is likewise rejected.
Claim 4: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. Nieto further teaches wherein the anomaly comprises detecting an obstacle (fault situations can be, for example, dusty or dirty sensors, recognized obstacles, defective sensors, or even defective actuators [Nieto, 0039]).
Claim 19, having similar deficiencies to claim 4, is likewise rejected.
Claim 5: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 4. Nieto further teaches wherein the control instruction sent to the autonomous agricultural production machine is an instruction based on user input at the remote monitoring center in order to avoid the obstacle (the control device is designed to change from an autonomous operating state, in which the agricultural machine operates autonomously, into a remote-controlled operating state, in which the agricultural machine can be controlled remotely, if the fault class satisfies a predefined state condition [Nieto, 0031]. Fault situations can be, for example, dusty or dirty sensors, recognized obstacles, defective sensors, or even defective actuators. Responses of the agricultural machine can be, for example, emergency braking, slow braking until stoppage, slight braking in the sense of deceleration, strong braking, or even swerving [Nieto, 0039]).
Claim 20, having similar deficiencies to claim 5, is likewise rejected.
Claim 10: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. Nieto further teaches wherein the anomaly data comprise one or more of: environment data; machine data; a driving route; work assembly data of the autonomous agricultural production machine; or GPS data of the autonomous agricultural production machine (fault situations can be, for example, dusty or dirty sensors, recognized obstacles, defective sensors, or even defective actuators [Nieto, 0039]).
Claim 12: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the autonomous agricultural production machine transmits the anomaly data to the remote monitoring center responsive to executing the response routine (the fault class is transmitted to the control device of the agricultural machine via the transmission interface 36 [Nieto, 0045]. The first controlling unit 4 that is the data processing terminal may be configured to be carried by a manager and to wirelessly exchange data with the control system of the tractor. Additionally, the first controlling unit 4 may be constructed as a management computer at a remote place, and connected to the control system of the tractor through the Internet [Matsuzaki, 0031]).
Claim(s) 6 and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 20220087091 A1, published: 3/24/2022) and Matsuzaki (US 20180173233 A1, published: 6/21/2018), and in further view of Richard et al. (US 20210173399 A1, published: 6/10/2021).
Claim 6: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 4, in order to avoid the obstacle (fault situations can be, for example, dusty or dirty sensors, recognized obstacles, defective sensors, or even defective actuators [Nieto, 0039]). The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, does not teach wherein the control instruction sent to the autonomous agricultural production machine is based on artificial intelligence (AI) at the remote monitoring center controlling the autonomous agricultural production machine.
However, Richard teaches wherein the control instruction sent to the autonomous agricultural production machine is based on artificial intelligence (AI) at the remote monitoring center controlling the autonomous agricultural production machine (the image processor 505 comprises a memory 506 for storing image information and instructions for processing images, a processor 507, and a plurality of Artificial Intelligence (AI) modules 508.sub.x for performing image recognition and pattern recognition in order to assess the level and nature of degradation and/or deterioration of the track 41 or other track system component [Richard, 0279]. Once the AI modules 508.sub.x has determined the cause, level and/or nature of the degradation and/or deterioration of the track 41 or other track system component, the image processor 505 may send data relating to the cause, level and/or nature of the degradation and/or deterioration of the track 41 or other track system component back to monitoring system 82 and/or the image capture device 501 for further processing and/or notification to a user [Richard, 0282]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous agricultural production machine that monitors anomalies invention of The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, to include the AI monitoring feature of Richard.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve monitoring using AI to assist users in determining which machinery has detected faults.
Claim 15: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, does not teach wherein the remote monitoring center monitors: preparation for the agricultural job; approach of the autonomous agricultural production machine to the agricultural job; performance of the autonomous agricultural production machine of the agricultural job; and follow-up after the performance of the autonomous agricultural production machine of the agricultural job.
However, Richard teaches wherein the remote monitoring center monitors: preparation for the agricultural job; approach of the autonomous agricultural production machine to the agricultural job; performance of the autonomous agricultural production machine of the agricultural job; and follow-up after the performance of the autonomous agricultural production machine of the agricultural job (the monitoring system 82 may perform certain actions in respect of the agricultural vehicle 10 based on identification of components of the track systems 16.sub.1-16.sub.4 using the tags 78.sub.1-78.sub.G, such as controlling the agricultural vehicle 10 (e.g., the speed of the agricultural vehicle 10, etc.) differently based on what is identified and/or conveying information relating to what is identified to a remote party (e.g., a provider such as a manufacturer or distributor of the track systems 16.sub.1-16.sub.4 and/or of the agricultural vehicle 10) who can act differently based on what is identified (e.g., manage a warranty, prepare for maintenance of the agricultural vehicle 10, etc.) [Richard, 0396]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous agricultural production machine that monitors anomalies invention of The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, to include the AI monitoring feature of Richard.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve monitoring using AI to assist users in determining which machinery has detected faults.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 20220087091 A1, published: 3/24/2022) and Matsuzaki (US 20180173233 A1, published: 6/21/2018), and in further view of Fattey et al. (US 20200404846 A1, published: 12/31/2020).
Claim 7: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, does not teach wherein the remote monitoring center monitors a plurality of autonomous agricultural production machines while performing a plurality of agricultural jobs; wherein the plurality of autonomous agricultural production machines perform response routines and reporting routines when anomalies occur; wherein the remote monitoring center generates control instructions for a respective autonomous agricultural production machines based on the anomaly data from one or more of the plurality of autonomous agricultural production machines.
However, Fattey teaches wherein the remote monitoring center monitors a plurality of autonomous agricultural production machines while performing a plurality of agricultural jobs; wherein the plurality of autonomous agricultural production machines perform response routines and reporting routines when anomalies occur; wherein the remote monitoring center generates control instructions for a respective autonomous agricultural production machines based on the anomaly data from one or more of the plurality of autonomous agricultural production machines (the AOS 110 includes a system to monitor for obstacles, stopping or rerouting the harvester machine M3 when obstacles are detected, and keeping the harvester machine M3 within the optimal path and allowed boundaries during operation of the harvester machine M3. Any adjustments needed by the harvester machine M3 during operation of the harvester machine M3 may also be automated. The adjustments may include harvester implement controls and auger settings. A single person may monitor a plurality of harvester machines M3 from an on-farm location [Fattey, 0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous agricultural production machine that monitors anomalies invention of The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, to include the monitoring of a plurality of agricultural machines feature of Fattey.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to increase the amount of machines that can be concurrently used, and to have them work as a single unit.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 20220087091 A1, published: 3/24/2022) and Matsuzaki (US 20180173233 A1, published: 6/21/2018), and in further view of Blackwell et al. (US 20150105965 A1, published: 4/16/2015).
Claim 9: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, does not teach wherein the autonomous agricultural production machine comprises one or more autonomous agricultural universal production machines; wherein each of the one or more autonomous agricultural universal production machines are configurable to perform a plurality of different agricultural jobs by being equipped with alternate work assemblies.
However Blackwell teaches wherein the autonomous agricultural production machine comprises one or more autonomous agricultural universal production machines (the communication of information between the vehicles will allow a convoy-like travelling of the vehicles to maximize the safety of moving the plurality of vehicles without having to load and unload the vehicles on a trailer or other transport device [Blackwell, 0075]); wherein each of the one or more autonomous agricultural universal production machines are configurable to perform a plurality of different agricultural jobs by being equipped with alternate work assemblies (the modular power supply can be used to provide electric output for different equipment or tools that may be needed at remote locations [Blackwell, 0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous agricultural production machine that monitors anomalies invention of The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, to include the plurality of agricultural machines capable of performing alternate jobs feature of Blackwell.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for machines to be adapted to do several jobs.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 20220087091 A1, published: 3/24/2022) and Matsuzaki (US 20180173233 A1, published: 6/21/2018), and in further view of Schlipf et al. (US 20150377945 A1, published: 12/31/2015).
Claim 13: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying, to a user via the remote monitoring center and based on the anomaly data, that the anomaly is a malfunction of the autonomous agricultural production machine (fault situations can be, for example, dusty or dirty sensors, recognized obstacles, defective sensors, or even defective actuators [Nieto, 0039]). The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, does not teach and responsive to identifying that the anomaly is a malfunction, soliciting user input; and responsive to the user input, communicating with a service technician to fix the malfunction of the autonomous agricultural production machine.
However, Schlipf teaches and responsive to identifying that the anomaly is a malfunction, soliciting user input; and responsive to the user input, communicating with a service technician to fix the malfunction of the autonomous agricultural production machine (the advantageous application of TDR analysis in a mobile controller, and in conjunction with the fault analysis control and interface as previously described, allows technicians and operators to quickly identify and repair faults in equipment [Schlipf, 0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous agricultural production machine that monitors anomalies invention of The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, to include the communication with a technician feature of Schlipf.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to help users reach repair facilities as fast and as efficient as possible.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 20220087091 A1, published: 3/24/2022) and Matsuzaki (US 20180173233 A1, published: 6/21/2018), and in further view of Mangus et al. (US 20220366730 A1, filed: 9/27/2021).
Claim 14: The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, does not teach wherein the agricultural job is performed by a plurality of agricultural production machines that are networked to communicate with one another; wherein responsive to the autonomous agricultural production machine executing the response routine, the autonomous agricultural production machine sends a communication to at least one other agricultural production machine indicative of one or both of detecting an anomaly or executing the response routine; and responsive to sending the communication, the at least one other agricultural production machine transmits environment sensor data to the remote monitoring center, wherein the environment sensor data depict one or both of: at least one aspect the autonomous agricultural production machine; or an immediate environment of the autonomous agricultural production machine.
However, Mangus teaches wherein the agricultural job is performed by a plurality of agricultural production machines that are networked to communicate with one another; wherein responsive to the autonomous agricultural production machine executing the response routine, the autonomous agricultural production machine sends a communication to at least one other agricultural production machine indicative of one or both of detecting an anomaly or executing the response routine; and responsive to sending the communication, the at least one other agricultural production machine transmits environment sensor data to the remote monitoring center (FIG. 1 is a block diagram of one example of an agricultural system 100. System 100 includes a fault analysis system 102 that can be accessed by a plurality of different agricultural machines 104-106 over network 108. Fault analysis system 102 and agricultural machines 104-106 may also be in communication with other machines 110 and other systems 112 over network 108. Agricultural machines 104-106 may be any type of agricultural machines, such as tillage machines, harvesters, seeders or planters, or other agricultural machines [Mangus, 0016, FIG. 1]), wherein the environment sensor data depict one or both of: at least one aspect the autonomous agricultural production machine; or an immediate environment of the autonomous agricultural production machine (sensors 128 may sense one or more of the performance of agricultural machine 104, environmental conditions in the environment of agricultural machine 104, crop conditions or crop properties, soil conditions or soil properties, the operation of processors 124, the operation of communication system 126, and other sensors 128, or a wide variety of other sensors [Mangus, 0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous agricultural production machine that monitors anomalies invention of The combination of Nieto and Matsuzaki, to include the communication between a plurality of agricultural machines feature of Mangus.
One would have been motivated to make this modification so that all machines can be made to work together, or in groups, to best get the job or jobs done, in an efficient manner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached on (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172