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
The applicant has removed “for example” from Claim 2 and therefore the corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
The applicant has argued that the amendments made to independent Claim 1 are not disclosed by Tolstedt (US 2015/0025752). This argument is not persuasive as the amended limitations are disclosed by the stated reference as is demonstrated in the rejection section of this action.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tolstedt (US 2015/0025752).
As per Claim 1:
Tolstedt discloses the following limitations:
“A method for the controlled seeding of a plot of agricultural land by a seeding vehicle or a machine combination with a seeder, having a plurality of single seeding elements each configured to produce a seeding row, the seeding vehicle or machine combination being configured so as to be able to selectively, interrupt at least one seeding row, by at least one of blocking and retracting at least one of the seeding elements in order to tramline said plot while avoiding crushing crops during planned passage of a known vehicle or machine combination intended to carry out a subsequent operation on the plot, said method comprising: providing, in advance, a virtual plan of all of the plot with current, generally straight portions of arrangements of seeding rows to be produced, in a main interior region of said plot; inferring, from the virtual plan all of the plot and trajectories of travel elements of the known vehicle or machine combination carrying out the subsequent operation trajectories of the seeding vehicle or machine combination, the trajectories of the seeding vehicle or machine combination including at least one straight portion and at least one curved portion delimiting the main interior region”
Tolstedt Figure 6A discloses a virtual plan of a plot, of which the scale is arbitrary and can encompass the whole plot, the system then infers the trajectory of the vehicles that will subsequently traverse the field based on the virtual tramlines entered by the operator (See Paragraphs [0068]-[0070]". The system can accommodate areas delimited by straight and/or curved lines (see Paragraph [0040]).
“and in controlling the seeding vehicle or machine combination to carry out controlled seeding with tramlining for the current portions, based on the inferred trajectories of the seeding vehicle or machine combination wherein when the seeding vehicle or machine combination is traveling on the at least one curved portion, at least one single seeding element of the plurality of single seeding elements of the seeding vehicle or machine combination is interrupted”
Tolstedt Figure 3 discloses controlling seeding elements during a variety of movements (including U-turns or existing between portions) such that the seeding elements that are over the tramlines are deactivated therefore ensuring that seeds aren’t wasted in tramlines. See Paragraphs [0037]-[0044].
With regards to Claim 2, Tolstedt discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising determining and taking into account the trajectories of the of the seeding vehicle or machine combination during maneuvers associated with avoiding objects or obstacles, with entering or leaving the plot, with operations to load or supply inputs or with specific foreseeable operations including at least one of a type of plant cultivated on the plot considered, characteristics of soil of the plot , and a type of the seeding vehicle or machine combination.”
Tolstedt Paragraph [0026] discloses an application that determines locations of tramlines based on specific fields which naturally pathways around any natural obstacles or field irregularities which will affect foreseeable operations. The examples providing in the "depending on" aspect of this claim limitation are not considered for the purposes of prior art as they represent exemplary language and can therefore provide no meaningful limitations of the claim.
With regards to Claim 5, Tolstedt discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“having a working width that is an integer submultiple of working widths of the known vehicle or machine combinations carrying out the subsequent operation”
Tolstedt Paragraphs [0035]-[0036] disclose working widths that are integer multiples of subsequent vehicles.
With regards to Claim 6, Tolstedt discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“a seeding vehicle or a machine combination with a seeder, that is autonomous or semi- autonomous, having a plurality of single seeding elements, each configured to produce a seeding row, the vehicle or machine combination being configured so as to be able to selectively interrupt at least one seeding row by at least one of blocking and retracting at least one of the seeding elements, wherein the vehicle or machine combination is equipped with a computer configured to use a virtual plan of the plot to be sown and to define and execute a protocol for the travel and operation of said vehicle or machine combination configured to carry out controlled seeding”
Tolstedt See Figure 3 which discloses a vehicle that selectively blocks elements.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolstedt in view of Guyette (US 2016/0366815).
With regards to Claim 3, Tolstedt discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Guyette does disclose:
“comprising providing in advance models of the trajectories taking into account a possible error or shift factor determined by measurements during implementations under real conditions.”
Guyette Paragraph [0020] discloses predicting a path of an agricultural vehicle using an IMU and Paragraph [0023] discloses compensating for error in the IMU.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Tolstedt with the error shift consideration disclosed by Guyette. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more accurate by considering real-world error-drift.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolstedt in view of Gresch (US 2018/0084711).
With regards to Claim 4, Tolstedt discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Gresch does disclose:
“wherein the virtual plan of the plot comprises a division of its surface into work areas in relation with seeding recommendations”
Gresch Paragraph [0039] discloses dividing a field into sections in which the density of the distributed seeds are different.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Tolstedt with the work area distinction disclosed by Gresch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more accurate by considering field conditions for seeding.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolstedt in view of Gerrish (US 2017/0261986).
With regards to Claim 7, Tolstedt discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 but does not disclose the following limitations that Gerrish does disclose:
“wherein the seeding vehicle or machine combination is robot-controlled or controlled remotely.”
Gerrish Paragraph [0021] discloses autonomous (i.e. robot controlled) agricultural vehicles used for seeding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Tolstedt with the autonomous system disclosed by Gerrish. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by automating the process.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/JOAN T GOODBODY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667