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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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.
In claim 1, the recitation “a control unit for controlling the travel and/or position of said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle and/or of said supply and/or maintenance station” renders the claimed invention is indefinite. Specifically, the claim is incomplete because it omits essential structural elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the programmable module integrating a computer program or artificial intelligence.
In claim 1, the phrase "for example" (twice) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-11 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
In claim 4, the recitation “if said autonomous agricultural vehicle and the supply and/or maintenance station are located in the work area or the area to be worked and are uncoupled from each other” renders the claim indefinite because means for coupling are not previously recited. Claim 11 is similarly rejected.
In claim 10, the limitation “said first and second coupling means” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 is further similarly rejected for the recitation “the first coupling means and the second coupling means.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marquering et al. (DE 10 2007 008 910 A1).
Marquering et al. ‘910 (Marquering) discloses an agricultural supply and/or maintenance equipment adapted and intended to be placed in a plot of land, said equipment comprising at least:
Claim 1 one supply and/or maintenance station (10) comprising at least one storage area (11) adapted and intended for storing at least one input,
one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) adapted and intended to perform at least one agricultural task (mowing or picking, abstract) in said plot of land (1) and comprising at least one area for receiving (3) at least one input, and
a control unit (computer with operating program) for controlling the travel and/or position of said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) and/or of said supply and/or maintenance station (10) configured at least to control the travel of said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) and/or of said supply and/or maintenance station (10) inside said plot of land,
said plot of land (1) comprising at least one work area (5, land area already worked) in which at least one agricultural task is being performed by said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) and at least one area to be worked (5, land area planned to be worked) in which at least one agricultural task is to be performed by said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2), said work area and said area to be worked being distinct from one another,
said control unit (computer with operating program ) being configured to control the travel of the supply and/or maintenance station (10) from the work area to the area to be worked if said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) must travel to perform at least one agricultural task in the area to be worked, this travel of the supply and/or maintenance station (10) being independent of or dependent on the travel of said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) from the work area to the area to be worked; and
Claim 7 wherein the supply and/or maintenance station (10) is active and comprises at least one engine (inherently) and in that said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) comprises at least one engine (inherently).
Claim 8 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the equipment disclosed by Marquering, as applied above to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquering et al. (DE 10 2007 008 910 A1).
Claim 5 Marquering fails to teach a plurality of autonomous agricultural vehicles. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art to have added at least one additional autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) to the equipment of Marquering, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate additional work operations on the plot of land.
-Claim 6 The control unit of Marquering is configured to control the first travel and the second travel of a first autonomous agricultural vehicle (2), if the other autonomous agricultural vehicles (2) located in the work area (5) do not need to be supplied and/or maintained by said supply and/or maintenance station (10).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquering et al. (DE 10 2007 008 910 A1) in view of Disberger et al. (WO 2021/146615 A1).
Claim 2 Marquering fails to teach first and second coupling means, as claimed. Disberger et al. ‘615 (Disberger) discloses an autonomous agricultural system (Fig. 21) comprising a first autonomous vehicle (12, front) that includes at least first coupling means (16, 50, rear) and a second vehicle (12, rear) that comprises second coupling means (16, 50, front). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the equipment of Marquering with the addition of first and second coupling means (50-rear, 50-front) to the supply and/or maintenance station (Marquering, 10) and the autonomous agricultural vehicle (Marquering, 2). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for enhancing control, stability, and power distribution between the maintenance station and agricultural vehicle (Disberger, ¶0004) with a reasonable expectation of success,
Claim 3 In the combination of Marquering and Disberger, the control unit (Marquering) is configured to function as claimed; i.e., the control unit is programmable to control the movement of the agricultural vehicle (Marquering, 2), whether coupled or uncoupled, and in any direction desired.
Claim 4 In the combination of Marquering and Disberger, said control unit (Marquering) is configured to control a supply and/or maintenance travel of said at least one autonomous agricultural device (2) towards said supply station (10), if said autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) and the supply and/or maintenance station (10) are located in the work area or the area to be worked and are uncoupled from each other, so as to allow the distribution of at least one input from the storage area (11) of the supply and/or maintenance station (10) to the reception area (3) of said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2) and/or the execution of a maintenance operation of said at least one autonomous agricultural vehicle (2).
Claim 9 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the equipment disclosed by Marquering, as applied above to claim 2.
Claim 10 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the equipment disclosed by Marquering, as applied above to claim 3.
Claim 11 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the equipment disclosed by Marquering, as applied above to claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
27 October 2025