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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-11, filed 15 Sep 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rust, Colosky, Posselius, Bybee, and Nasri.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust et al. US 20230229163 A1 (herein, Rust), in view of Colosky et al. US 20210231453A1 (herein, Colosky), and in further view of Bybee et al., US 20220266862 A1 (herein, Bybee).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Rust discloses, a predictive path lookahead system (Abstract) for use with an agricultural implement (FIG. 5, #505) comprising:
a plurality of row units (FIG. 5 illustrates the plurality of units and ¶[0061] – “…500 optionally includes components (e.g., sprayer booms, sprayer nozzles or the like) similar…”) ;
a navigation orientation tool (¶[0004] – “…such as positional data generated by a GPS device,…”);
one or more navigation sensors (¶[0049] – “…one or more video cameras or other optical sensors that are configured to provide data that is useful for local navigation or vehicle position determination of an agricultural vehicle,…”) configured to measure one or more navigation factors (¶0041] – “…a GPS sensor can provide data that is indicative of the global position of the agricultural vehicle…”);
a processing component (FIG. 7, #s 702, 704, and 708) to generate a predicted lookahead trajectory of the implement based on the navigation orientation tool and the motion model (¶[0073-0074 – “…and the determined crop row curvature (as calculated above)…” – i.e., the predicted lookahead trajectory based on the inputs of 702, 704, and 708 that are none linear as having a row curvature), said predicted lookahead trajectory being non-linear; and
a display (FIG. 14, #1610, ¶[0091]) in which the predicted lookahead trajectory of the implement can be displayed to a user (¶[0091] – user).
Rust discloses, a motion model (FIG. 7, #700) into which the one or more navigation factors can be input (¶[0073] – “…determine vehicle positioning based on sensor input…”) but does not disclose, a motion model into which one or more environmental conditions and the one or more navigation factors can be input.
However, Bybee teaches, a motion model into which one or more environmental conditions and the one or more navigation factors can be input (¶[0019] – “…an input that receives at least one environmental parameter from at least one environmental sensor, wherein the path estimator is operable to calculate obstacle data based on the at least one environmental parameter…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Rust to include the environmental conditions as taught by Bybee. Doing so, improves the efficiency of the system by taking into account the environmental conditions so as to improve the requisite agricultural function.
Modified Rust does not disclose, wherein the system is adapted to turn ON the row unit of the implement to plant seed, via the row unit and/or turn OFF the row unit to prevent seed from being planted, via the row unit, among the plurality of row units based on the predicted lookahead trajectory of the implement.
However, Colosky teaches, wherein the system is adapted to turn ON (¶[0045-46] – “…the first coded color may indicate that an implement section is currently engaged into a field to agitate or displace localized regions of the soil…” i.e., turned on, and Claim 13 – “..an implement section is currently engaged…) and/or turn OFF individual row units among the plurality of row units based on the predicted lookahead trajectory of the implement (¶[0045-46] – “…while the second coded color indicates that an implement section is not currently engaged into the field…” – i.e., turned off , Claim 13 – “…an implement section is not currently engaged…” and [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by modified Rust to include the function to turn on/ or off each individual row unit based the trajectory as taught by Colosky. Doing so, improves the efficiency of the system by turning on when needed to perform the requisite agricultural function.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, modified Rust further discloses, wherein the one or more navigation sensors (¶[0049]) further comprise a GPS sensor (FIG. 14, #1616 – GPS sensor) and/or GPS receiver, a speed sensor (¶[0038] – speed sensor), an attitude sensor (¶[0087] – location sensor), a tilt sensor (¶[0038] – yaw sensor), an acceleration sensor (¶[0038] – acceleration sensor), an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (¶[0048] – inertial sensor), one or more cameras (¶[0041] – “…a visual sensor (e.g., a camera or other optical sensing device)…”), and/or a steering angle sensor.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, modified Rust further discloses, wherein the one or more navigation factors comprises GPS coordinates of the implement (¶[0041] – “…configured to provide positional or navigation data…”), speed of the implement (¶[0038] – speed), attitude of the implement (¶[0041] – “…an provide data that is indicative of the global position…”), tilt of the implement (¶[0038] – yaw rate), acceleration of the implement (¶[0038] – acceleration), heading of the implement (¶[0041] – “guide the agricultural vehicle…” – i.e. heading along with orientation), curvature, force, angular rate of the implement (¶[0041] – angle sensor thus angular rate), orientation of the implement (¶[0041] – “guide the agricultural vehicle…” – i.e. orientation), trajectory of the implement (¶[0041] – “position of the vehicle relative to crop rows..”), and/or steering angle of the implement.
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, modified Rust further discloses, wherein the navigation factors are continuously monitored (FIG. 7, ¶[0004] and ¶[0083] – “…a continuous TKE calibration…” – i.e., the as the TKE in 702 is continuously calibrated for 704).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, modified Rust discloses the row unit but does not disclose, wherein each individual row unit is automatically turned ON and/or OFF.
However, Colosky teaches, wherein each individual row unit is automatically turned ON (¶[0046-47] and Claim 13) and/or OFF.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by modified Rust to include the function to turn on the row unit automatically as taught by Colosky. Doing so, improves the efficiency of the system by turning on the row unit when needed to perform the requisite agricultural function.
Regarding Claims 8 and 13, modified Rust further discloses, wherein the navigation orientation tool is a map of agricultural terrain (¶[0090] – “…generating coverage maps and reports, relaying coverage data,…”) and/or an automated guidance tool.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Rust further discloses, wherein the system is adapted to automatically steer the implement (¶[0002] – “…automatic steering control…”) based on the predicted lookahead trajectory such that the implement can operate autonomously (Abstract – “…autonomous vehicle control…”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Rust further discloses, wherein the motion model (700) processes the one or more navigation factors (FIG. 7 illustrates the flow chart of processing the navigation factors pertaining to navigation).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Rust further discloses, further comprising a display (FIG. 14, #1610, ¶[0091]) in which the predicted lookahead trajectory of the implement can be displayed to a user (¶[0091] – user).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Rust further discloses, further comprising inputting physical factors associated with the implement into the motion model (¶[0039] – “The steering controller receives a set of vehicle position, orientation, and behavior inputs, as wells as a guidance line parameter. The steering controller uses this information to steer or adjust the angle (e.g., the yaw) of one or more axles of the vehicle to adjust the position or orientation of the vehicle responsive to the guidance line parameter.”).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust et al. US 20230229163 A1 (herein, Rust), in view of Bybee, Colosky et al. US 20210231453 A1 (herein, Colosky), and in further view of Posselius et al. US 20180310469 A1 (herein, Posselius).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Rust discloses the system but does not disclose, wherein the system alerts a user when to manually turn ON and/or turn OFF a row unit.
However, Posselius teaches, wherein the system alerts a user when to manually turn ON and/or turn OFF a row unit (¶[0033] – “…the map signal 88 to an operator (e.g., on the display of the agricultural product application system user interface or the display of the base station user interface). In turn, the operator may manually control the agricultural product control system to control a down pressure of the row unit,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by modified Rust to include the system alert, user and manually operating a row unit as taught by Posselius. Doing so, improves the efficiency of the system by informing the user when turn on and off the row unit so as to improve efficiency by not having the row unit engaged when not in the area in which the crops will be planted.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust et al. US 20230229163 A1 (herein, Rust), in view of Bybee, Colosky et al. US 20210231453 A1 (herein, Colosky), and in further view of Peake et al. US 20110118926 A1 (herein, Peake).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Rust discloses the non-linear predicted lookahead trajectory but does not disclose, wherein the non-linear predicted lookahead trajectory may be generated via a Kalman filter.
However, Peake teaches, wherein the non-linear predicted lookahead trajectory may be generated via a Kalman filter. (¶[033] – “…using an algorithm such as a Kalman filter to produce position, velocity and attitude information more accurately…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by modified Rust to include utilizing the Kalman filter as taught by Peake. Doing so, improves the efficiency of the system improving the accuracy of navigational data.
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust et al. US 20230229163 A1 (herein, Rust), in view of Nasri et al, US 20230350079 A1 (herein, Nasri) Colosky et al. US 20210231453A1 (herein, Colosky), and in further view of Bybee et al., US 20220266862 A1 (herein, Bybee).
Regarding Claim 20, Rust discloses, a predictive path lookahead system (Abstract) for use with an agricultural implement (FIG. 5, #505) comprising:
a plurality of row units (FIG. 5 illustrates the plurality of units and ¶[0061] – “…500 optionally includes components (e.g., sprayer booms, sprayer nozzles or the like) similar…”) ;
a navigation orientation tool (¶[0004] – “…such as positional data generated by a GPS device,…”);
one or more navigation sensors (¶[0049] – “…one or more video cameras or other optical sensors that are configured to provide data that is useful for local navigation or vehicle position determination of an agricultural vehicle,…”) configured to measure one or more navigation factors (¶0041] – “…a GPS sensor can provide data that is indicative of the global position of the agricultural vehicle…”);
a motion model (FIG. 7, #700) into which the one or more navigation factors can be input (¶[0073] – “…determine vehicle positioning based on sensor input…”).
Rust discloses,
a processing component (FIG. 7, #s 702, 704, and 708) to generate a predicted lookahead trajectory of the implement based on the navigation orientation tool and the motion model (¶[0073-0074 – “…and the determined crop row curvature (as calculated above)…” – i.e., the predicted lookahead trajectory based on the inputs of 702, 704, and 708 that are none linear as having a row curvature), but does not disclose, wherein the generation of the predicted future position comprises utilizing artificial intelligence and/or machine learning.
However, Nasri teaches, wherein the generation of the predicted future position comprises utilizing artificial intelligence and/or machine learning (¶[0046] – “…a system may be provided that includes a controller that may receive a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal for a moving vehicle. The controller may determine a position estimation of the vehicle by inputting values of observable characteristics into an artificial intelligence (AI)-based model and receiving the position estimation…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by modified Rust to include the utilizing AI to predict the future position as taught by Nasri. Doing so, improves the efficiency of the system by utilizing AI so as to improve the prediction of future positions of the agricultural system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited but not utilized in the Office Action pertain to an agricultural system.
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.
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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666