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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/08/2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 7, 11-13 and 16-17. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim rejections under 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (US20250081873A1; “Nilsson”) in view of Keyes et al. (US20230323612A1; “Keyes”), in view of Garwood (US20240040978A1; “Garwood”) and in view of Dix et al. (US20080103694A1; “Dix”).
As to claim 1, Nilsson discloses:
an agricultural vehicle (Agricultural machine 50 – see at least ¶ 40.);
a sensor coupled to the agricultural vehicle, the sensor configured to detect a change in position (An input 6 may comprise “data indicative of a boundary for a working environment for the harvester 50,” wherein said data may pertain to data acquired from “sensing systems on machines operating within that environment” or from “a satellite based mapping system;” indeed, “the harvester 50 may include one or more sensing systems” – see at least ¶ 42. Furthermore, a “change in heading” (i.e., change in a position) may be determined – see at least ¶ 51.); and
a vehicle control system comprising one or more processing circuits, each processing circuit including a processor and a memory (Control system 10 comprising at least an electronic processor 4 and memory 12 – see at least ¶ 41 and FIG. 1.), the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processing circuit to:
receive sensor information for the agricultural vehicle from the sensor (An input 6 may comprise “data indicative of a boundary for a working environment for the harvester 50,” wherein said data may pertain to data acquired from “sensing systems on machines operating within that environment” or from “a satellite based mapping system;” indeed, “the harvester 50 may include one or more sensing systems” – see at least ¶ 42.),
receive an indication to mark a geographic position based on the sensor information (“In an initial step 102, a boundary for the working environment is determined. As discussed herein, this comprises retrieving boundary data from server 29 and analyzing the boundary data to extract information therefrom.” ¶ 48 and FIG. 3. NOTE: Entering the method 100 of FIG. 3 and performing the disclosed initial step 102 analogizes to the BRI of receiving an indication to mark a geographic position because an indication is necessarily required to begin performing a method.),
mark a plurality of geographic positions associated with a border (“The boundary for the working environment is determined as a boundary polygon defined by a plurality of points” – see at least ¶ 50.),
determine a complete location of the border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border (“The boundary for the working environment is determined as a boundary polygon defined by a plurality of points. A subset of those points is then selected to define a simplified boundary polygon for the working environment, before ultimately using the simplified boundary polygon and/or the points thereof to determine the boundary segments.” ¶ 50 and FIGS. 3, 5 and 6.), and
update an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border (“Following selection of the primary boundary segment, and the associated operational path, one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine, e.g. the harvester 50, are controlled accordingly.” See at least ¶ 58 and FIG. 3.).
Nilsson fails to explicitly disclose: determine a complete location of the pivot track based on the plurality of marked geographic positions with the pivot track, at least in part by extrapolating from the plurality of geographic positions.
Nevertheless, Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions (“The virtual boundary 505 could also be extrapolated and created by a plurality of furthest spaced apart sensed points along a path during the operator implemented steering of the compactor.” ¶ 42 and FIGS. 6, 6A.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions.
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 invention of Nilsson to include the feature of: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions, as taught by Keyes, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for generating a boundary of a desired workspace for an agricultural vehicle (See at least Keyes, ¶ 41–42.)
The combination of Nilsson and Keyes fails to explicitly perform the above recitations in regards to a pivot track.
Nevertheless, Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track (“Arrows 720 and 722 show a direction in which the traction device 641 can travel along a spiraling pathway centered on the central pivot point of circular section 20 and gradually gets closer to either first arc 700 or second arc 710 depending upon the direction of the spiral pathway.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 4; see also FIG. 1.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track.
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 combination of Nilsson and Keyes to include the feature of: determine a complete location of a pivot track, as taught by Garwood, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for planning harvesting operations which consider pivot tracks.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system. Hence, Nilsson’s invention would be applicable to Garwood with a reasonable expectation of success by indicating the pivot tracks of Garwood as borders to be mapped. In a similar fashion, Keyes’ extrapolation could be used with a reasonable expectation of success to map Garwood’s pivot tracks as the pivot tracks serve as a form of border. Therefore, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes and Garwood would yield the predictable result of a system capable of detecting pivot tracks in the claimed fashion.
The combination of Nilsson, Keyes and Garwood fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the autoguidance system generates an adjusted path for the agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone based on the complete location of the pivot track.
Nevertheless, Dix teaches: generate an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone based on a complete location of a pivot track (“Many fields require the use of paths having a curvature that varies along at least some portion of its length, whether … to contour the ground for irrigation …. In order to provide generally equally spaced swaths, the path of each adjacent swath must change slightly compared to the prior swath path as the vehicle moves generally transversely across the field (i.e., from one swath to the next) the radius of each curved portion of the swath path varies slightly from the adjacent swath path.” Emphases added; ¶ 5; see also FIG. 4. NOTE: One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that contouring a ground for irrigation is tied to traveling along pivot tracks.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes and Garwood to include the feature of: generate an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track, as taught by Dix, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for fields which require the use of paths having a curvature that varies along at least some portion of its length, whether to follow irregularly shaped boundaries or to contour the ground for irrigation (such as in the case of following pivot tracks). (See Dix, ¶ 5.) Moreover, it is well-known in the art that uniformly-spaced swaths are desirable in precision agricultural given that they improve efficiency and accuracy of agricultural operations.
Independent claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 2 and 16, Nilsson discloses: populate an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border (“Following selection of the primary boundary segment, and the associated operational path, one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine, e.g. the harvester 50, are controlled accordingly.” See at least ¶ 58 and FIG. 3.).
While the combination of Nilsson and Keyes fails to explicitly disclose performing the foregoing in regards to a pivot track, Examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system as explained in the rejection of claim 1. (See supra.)
As to independent claim 7, Nilsson discloses a system for automatically detecting pivot tracks comprising:
an agricultural vehicle (Agricultural machine 50 – see at least ¶ 40.);
a sensor, the sensor configured to collect data indicating a geographic position (An input 6 may comprise “data indicative of a boundary for a working environment for the harvester 50,” wherein said data may pertain to data acquired from “sensing systems on machines operating within that environment” or from “a satellite based mapping system;” indeed, “the harvester 50 may include one or more sensing systems” – see at least ¶ 42.); and
a vehicle control system comprising one or more processing circuits, each processing circuit including a processor and a memory (Control system 10 comprising at least an electronic processor 4 and memory 12 – see at least ¶ 41 and FIG. 1.), the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processing circuit to:
receive sensor information for the agricultural vehicle from the sensor, wherein the sensor information is indicative of a plurality of geographic positions of one or more borders (An input 6 may comprise “data indicative of a boundary for a working environment for the harvester 50,” wherein said data may pertain to data acquired from “sensing systems on machines operating within that environment” or from “a satellite based mapping system;” indeed, “the harvester 50 may include one or more sensing systems” – see at least ¶ 42.),
determine a complete location of a border from sensor information (“The boundary for the working environment is determined as a boundary polygon defined by a plurality of points. A subset of those points is then selected to define a simplified boundary polygon for the working environment, before ultimately using the simplified boundary polygon and/or the points thereof to determine the boundary segments.” ¶ 50 and FIGS. 3, 5 and 6.).
Nilsson fails to explicitly disclose: determine a complete location of the pivot track from the sensor information, at least in part by extrapolating from the plurality of geographic positions.
Nevertheless, Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions (“The virtual boundary 505 could also be extrapolated and created by a plurality of furthest spaced apart sensed points along a path during the operator implemented steering of the compactor.” ¶ 42 and FIGS. 6, 6A.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions.
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 invention of Nilsson to include the feature of: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions, as taught by Keyes, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for generating a boundary of a desired workspace for an agricultural vehicle (See at least Keyes, ¶ 41–42.)
The combination of Nilsson and Keyes fails to explicitly disclose:
a sensor coupled to an irrigation system;
wherein the sensor information is indicative of a plurality of geographic positions of one or more pivot tracks; and
determine a complete location of a pivot track from the sensor information.
Nevertheless, Garwood teaches:
a sensor coupled to an irrigation system (“An irrigation and harvesting system” is disclosed – see at least Abstract. Continuing, sensors coupled to the irrigation system may comprise at least “radar or LIDAR” – see at least ¶ 9.); and
determine a complete location of a pivot track based on sensor information of one or more pivot tracks ( “Arrows 720 and 722 show a direction in which the traction device 641 can travel along a spiraling pathway centered on the central pivot point of circular section 20.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 4; see also FIG. 1.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track.
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 combination of Nilsson and Keyes to include the features of: a sensor coupled to an irrigation system; and determine a complete location of a pivot track, as taught by Garwood, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for planning harvesting operations which consider pivot tracks. Additionally:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s radar/lidar may serve a similar purpose as Nilsson’s sensor to collect data indicating a geographic position as radar/lidar are known in the art as being tools to gather geographic position; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system. Hence, Nilsson’s invention would be applicable to Garwood by indicating the pivot tracks of Garwood as borders to be mapped.
In a similar fashion, Keyes’ extrapolation could be used with a reasonable expectation of success to map Garwood’s pivot tracks as the pivot tracks serve as a form of border. Therefore, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes and Garwood would yield the predictable result of a system capable of detecting pivot tracks in the claimed fashion.
The combination of Nilsson, Keyes and Garwood fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the autoguidance system generates an adjusted path for the agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone based on the complete location of the pivot track.
Nevertheless, Dix teaches: generate an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone based on a complete location of a pivot track (“Many fields require the use of paths having a curvature that varies along at least some portion of its length, whether … to contour the ground for irrigation …. In order to provide generally equally spaced swaths, the path of each adjacent swath must change slightly compared to the prior swath path as the vehicle moves generally transversely across the field (i.e., from one swath to the next) the radius of each curved portion of the swath path varies slightly from the adjacent swath path.” Emphases added; ¶ 5; see also FIG. 4. NOTE: One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that contouring a ground for irrigation is tied to traveling along pivot tracks.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes and Garwood to include the feature of: generate an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track, as taught by Dix, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for fields which require the use of paths having a curvature that varies along at least some portion of its length, whether to follow irregularly shaped boundaries or to contour the ground for irrigation (such as in the case of following pivot tracks). (See Dix, ¶ 5.) Moreover, it is well-known in the art that uniformly-spaced swaths are desirable in precision agricultural given that they improve efficiency and accuracy of agricultural operations.
As to claim 11, Nilsson discloses: populate an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border (“Following selection of the primary boundary segment, and the associated operational path, one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine, e.g. the harvester 50, are controlled accordingly.” See at least ¶ 58 and FIG. 3.).
The combination of Nilsson fails to explicitly disclose: populate an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the pivot track.
Nevertheless, Garwood teaches:
determine a complete location of a pivot track ( “Arrows 720 and 722 show a direction in which the traction device 641 can travel along a spiraling pathway centered on the central pivot point of circular section 20.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 4; see also FIG. 1.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track.
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 combination of Nilsson to include the features of: a sensor coupled to an irrigation system; and determine a complete location of a pivot track, as taught by Garwood, to arrive at the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for planning harvesting operations which consider pivot tracks. Additionally:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s radar/lidar may serve a similar purpose as Nilsson’s sensor to collect data indicating a geographic position as radar/lidar are known in the art as being tools to gather geographic position; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system. Hence, Nilsson’s invention would be applicable to Garwood by indicating the pivot tracks of Garwood as borders to be mapped.
As to claim 17, Nilsson discloses: displaying the adjusted path (“Controlling operation of a user interface 32 for displaying to an operator the determined operational path.” – see at least ¶ 58.).
Claims 3, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson in view of Keyes, in view of Garwood and in view of Dix as applied to claim 2 – further in view of Schoon et al. (US20210341944A1; “Schoon”).
As to claim 3, Nilsson discloses: wherein populating the autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle includes displaying an image of the border on a display (“Controlling operation of a user interface 32 for displaying to an operator the determined operational path.” – see at least ¶ 58; see also ¶ 45 providing further discussion regarding the user interface 32, and see also ¶ 42 disclosing that data may be derived from “a satellite based mapping system.”).
While the combination of Nilsson and Keyes fails to explicitly disclose performing the foregoing in regards to a pivot track, Examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system as explained in the rejection of claim 1. (See supra.)
The combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix fails to explicitly disclose: displaying an image of the pivot track on a GPS unit.
Nevertheless, Schoon teaches: displaying location information on a GPS unit (“The tow vehicle/tractor 100 include a global positioning system (‘GPS’). The GPS may be separate from or part of the display 150, and is used to provide location information for the tractor 100.” See at least ¶ 86.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Schoon teaches: displaying location information on a GPS unit.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix to include the feature of: displaying location information on a GPS unit, as taught by Schoon, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing location information pertaining to an agricultural vehicle. Indeed, a GPS unit is merely a form of display; therefore, it would have been obvious to perform a simple substitution of Schoon’s GPS unit with Nilsson’s display to yield the predictable result of a GPS unit which is capable of displaying a border (and ultimately a pivot track in light of Garwood).
As to claim 8, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix fails to explicitly disclose: wherein at least one sensor is a GPS receiver communicatively coupled to the agricultural vehicle.
Nevertheless, Schoon teaches: wherein a sensor is a GPS receiver communicatively coupled to an agricultural vehicle (“The tow vehicle/tractor 100 include a global positioning system (‘GPS’). The GPS may be separate from or part of the display 150, and is used to provide location information for the tractor 100.” See at least ¶ 86.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Schoon teaches: displaying location information on a GPS unit.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix to include the feature of: wherein a sensor is a GPS receiver communicatively coupled to an agricultural vehicle, as taught by Schoon, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing location information pertaining to an agricultural vehicle.
As to claims 9 and 15, Nilsson discloses:
a plurality of sensors configured to collect data indicating a geographic position (An input 6 may comprise “data indicative of a boundary for a working environment for the harvester 50,” wherein said data may pertain to data acquired from “sensing systems on machines operating within that environment” or from “a satellite based mapping system;” indeed, “the harvester 50 may include one or more sensing systems” – see at least ¶ 42.); and
wherein a processing circuit is configured to receive sensor information for an agricultural vehicle from each of a plurality of sensors (See at least ¶ 42.).
The combination of Nilsson and Keyes fails to explicitly disclose:
a plurality of sensors coupled to the irrigation system, and
determine a complete location of a pivot track associated with each of the plurality of sensors.
Nevertheless, Garwood teaches:
determine a complete location of a pivot track ( “Arrows 720 and 722 show a direction in which the traction device 641 can travel along a spiraling pathway centered on the central pivot point of circular section 20.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 4; see also FIG. 1.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track.
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 combination of Nilsson and Keyes to include the feature of: a sensor coupled to an irrigation system; and determine a complete location of a pivot track, as taught by Garwood, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for planning harvesting operations which consider pivot tracks. Additionally:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s radar/lidar may serve a similar purpose as Nilsson’s sensor to collect data indicating a geographic position as radar/lidar are known in the art as being tools to gather geographic position; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system. Hence, Nilsson’s invention would be applicable to Garwood by indicating the pivot tracks of Garwood as borders to be mapped.
The combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix fails to explicitly disclose: each of the plurality of sensors coupled to a pivot tower of the irrigation system.
Nevertheless, Schoon teaches: a plurality of sensors, each coupled to a tower of an agricultural system configured to collect data indicating a geographic position (“Shown in FIG. 6 are additional inputs 208 that are part of the network, and which provide information for current and historical mapping . . . . Such inputs can include … GPS information or other location information (such as from … [a] tower, or the like), sensor information, prescription maps, map data, [etc.].).” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 136 and FIG. 6. Continuing, “FIG. 7A shows a tower 224 emitting a network signal 226. The tower 224, which could be one of many towers around the field, can provide additional location determining aspects for the field 274” – Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 139 and FIG. 7A. NOTE: A plurality of towers which provide location information are necessarily associated with a plurality of sensors as each tower necessarily requires a sensor (e.g., GPS) to be able to provide sensor information.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Schoon teaches: a plurality of sensors, each coupled to a tower of an agricultural system configured to collect data indicating a geographic position.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix to include the feature of: a plurality of sensors, each coupled to a tower of an agricultural system configured to collect data indicating a geographic position, as taught by Schoon, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to supplement or otherwise augment GPS, IMU, or other information.” (Schoon, ¶ 139.) Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tower can be equipped to function as Schoon’s tower in order to optimally adapt Schoon’s invention to an irrigation system.
As to claim 10, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix fails to explicitly disclose: wherein each of the plurality of sensors is a GPS receiver communicatively coupled to the agricultural vehicle.
Nevertheless, Schoon teaches: wherein a plurality of sensors are a GPS receiver communicatively coupled to an agricultural vehicle (“Shown in FIG. 6 are additional inputs 208 that are part of the network, and which provide information for current and historical mapping . . . . Such inputs can include … GPS information or other location information (such as from an unmanned autonomous vehicle, remote controlled vehicle, tower, or the like).).” See at least ¶ 136 and FIG. 6. See also ¶ 139, discussing how a plurality of towers may be disposed in an agricultural area. NOTE: the foregoing teaches that a plurality of sources (sensors) may provide GPS data to a vehicle.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Schoon teaches: displaying location information on a GPS unit; and a plurality of sensors, each coupled to a tower of an agricultural system configured to collect data indicating a geographic position, wherein a plurality of sensors are a GPS receiver communicatively coupled to an agricultural vehicle.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix to include the feature of: wherein a plurality of sensors are a GPS receiver communicatively coupled to an agricultural vehicle, as taught by Schoon, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing location information pertaining to an agricultural vehicle.
As to claim 12, Nilsson discloses: populate an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border associated with a plurality of sensors (“Following selection of the primary boundary segment, and the associated operational path, one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine, e.g. the harvester 50, are controlled accordingly.” See at least ¶ 58 and FIG. 3.).
The combination of Nilsson and Keyes fails to explicitly disclose: populate an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of each pivot track associated with a plurality of sensors.
Nevertheless, Garwood teaches:
determine a complete location of a pivot track ( “Arrows 720 and 722 show a direction in which the traction device 641 can travel along a spiraling pathway centered on the central pivot point of circular section 20.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 4; see also FIG. 1.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track.
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 combination of Nilsson and Keyes to include the features of: a sensor coupled to an irrigation system; and determine a complete location of a pivot track, as taught by Garwood, to arrive at the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for planning harvesting operations which consider pivot tracks. Additionally:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s radar/lidar may serve a similar purpose as Nilsson’s sensor to collect data indicating a geographic position as radar/lidar are known in the art as being tools to gather geographic position; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system. Hence, Nilsson’s invention would be applicable to Garwood by indicating the pivot tracks of Garwood as borders to be mapped.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson in view of Keyes, in view of Garwood and in view of Dix as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Benson et al. (US6714662B1; “Benson”).
As to claims 4 and 14, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the agricultural vehicle further comprises a header; and the sensor is coupled to the header and is configured to detect the change in position as the header travels over the pivot track.
Nevertheless, Benson teaches: wherein the agricultural vehicle further comprises a header; and a sensor is coupled to the header and is configured to detect the change in position as the header travels over a border (“The vehicle is aligned such that the camera points down along the boundary line.” Col. 7, ll. 50–52. “With the camera mounted on the header as shown in FIG. 1, this is the preferred position for harvesting.” Col. 8, ll. 13-14; FIG. 1.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border, wherein the vehicle control system updates an autoguidance system of the agricultural vehicle with the complete location of the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Benson teaches: an agricultural vehicle equipped with a header, and a sensor coupled to the header which is configured to detect a change in position as a header travels over a border.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix to include the feature of: wherein the agricultural vehicle further comprises a header; and a sensor is coupled to the header and is configured to detect the change in position as the header travels over a border, as taught by Benson, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) it is well-known in the art that agricultural vehicles typically comprise headers; and (2) this feature is useful for tracking a border.
Also, while Benson fails to explicitly disclose performing the foregoing in regards to a pivot track, Examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system as explained in the rejection of claim 1. (See supra.) Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Benson’s teaching to a pivot track context with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson in view of Keyes and in view of Garwood as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Hamilton et al. (US20180022402A1; “Hamilton”).
As to claim 5, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the agricultural vehicle further comprises a hydraulic cylinder; and the sensor is coupled to the hydraulic cylinder and is configured to detect the change in position as the hydraulic cylinder travels over the pivot track.
Nevertheless, Hamilton teaches: wherein an agricultural vehicle comprises a hydraulic cylinder; and a sensor is coupled to the hydraulic cylinder (A sensor may be embodied within or mounted proximal to hydraulic cylinder 28A or hydraulic cylinder 30A – see at least ¶ 24 and FIG. 2A, 2B.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Hamilton teaches: wherein an agricultural vehicle comprises a hydraulic cylinder; and a sensor is coupled to the hydraulic cylinder.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix to include the feature of: wherein an agricultural vehicle comprises a hydraulic cylinder; and a sensor is coupled to the hydraulic cylinder, as taught by Hamilton, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) it is well-known in the art that agricultural vehicles typically comprise a hydraulic cylinder; and (2) this feature is useful for tracking a border. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform a simple substitution of Nilsson’s sensor with Hamilton’s sensor to achieve a sensor coupled to a hydraulic cylinder which is configured to detect a change in position as Hamilton showcases that a sensor in general can be mounted on a hydraulic cylinder.
Claims 6 and 18 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson in view of Keyes, in view of Garwood and in view of Dix as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Vandike et al. (US20230309449A1; “Vandike”).
As to claims 6 and 18, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Dix fails to explicitly disclose:
receive an indication of a period bounded by a start time and an end time; and
wherein the processor only marks the plurality of geographic positions associated with the pivot track during the period bounded by the start time and the end time.
Nevertheless, Vandike teaches:
receive an indication of a period bounded by a start time and an end time; and wherein a process only marks a plurality of geographic positions associated with a border during the period bounded by the start time and the end time (A map pertaining to an agricultural harvester’s work area may be generated “during an interim period (such as the period since the time of the previous harvesting operation and the generation of the … map).” See at least ¶ 72.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Vandike teaches: marking a plurality of geographic positions associated with a border during the period bounded by the start time and the end time.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes and Garwood to include the feature of: receive an indication of a period bounded by a start time and an end time; and wherein a process only marks a plurality of geographic positions associated with a border during the period bounded by the start time and the end time, as taught by Vandike, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for bounding a marking process to generate an accurate depiction of a border. In fact, the successful operation of Nilsson requires that a period bounds the disclosed marking process or otherwise the invention would be inoperable. That is, without a period, it would be impossible to accurately perform the marking process and there would be no indication to begin or end said process — Vandike provides the teaching that such is indeed necessary.
Also, while Vandike fails to explicitly disclose performing the foregoing in regards to a pivot track, Examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Garwood’s pivot tracks serve as a form of border in the context of an irrigation system as explained in the rejection of claim 1. (See supra.) Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Benson’s teaching to a pivot track context with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson in view of Keyes, in view of Garwood, in view of Dix and in view of Vandike as applied to claim 18—further in view of Nishii et al. (US20240016088A1; “Nishii”).
As to claim 19, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Vandike fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the start time corresponds to a beginning of a process of cutting headlands.
Nevertheless, Nishii teaches: wherein an agricultural process comprises cutting headlands (“To generate the field contour 70 [i.e., a headland], the operator manually travels the combine 1 along the outer edge of the field . . . . By the combine 1 performing one lap of round reaping [i.e. cutting] around the field while repeatedly alternating straight advance and turn (i.e., performing round reaping), the field information setting unit 60 generates a field contour 70 based on the position information (measurement points 71) acquired via the positioning unit 34.” See at least ¶ 57 and FIGS. 4, 5.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Vandike teaches: marking a plurality of geographic positions associated with a border during the period bounded by the start time and the end time. Nishii teaches: wherein an agricultural process comprises cutting headlands.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood, Dix and Vandike to include the feature of: wherein an agricultural process comprises cutting headlands, as taught by Nishii, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because cutting headlands is a well-known agricultural operation in the art. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art that Nishii’s cutting headlands operation would serve as a simple substitution of Vandike’s “harvesting operation” to adapt Vandike’s invention to the well-known agricultural operation of cutting headlands.
As to claim 20, the combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood, Dix and Vandike fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the start time corresponds to a conclusion of a process of cutting headlands.
Nevertheless, Nishii teaches: wherein an agricultural process comprises cutting headlands (“To generate the field contour 70 [i.e., a headland], the operator manually travels the combine 1 along the outer edge of the field . . . . By the combine 1 performing one lap of round reaping [i.e. cutting] around the field while repeatedly alternating straight advance and turn (i.e., performing round reaping), the field information setting unit 60 generates a field contour 70 based on the position information (measurement points 71) acquired via the positioning unit 34.” See at least ¶ 57 and FIGS. 4, 5.).
Nilsson discloses: a system for automatically detecting borders, comprising an agricultural coupled with a sensor configured to detect a change in position; and a vehicle control system configured to determine a complete location of a border based on a plurality of marked geographic positions associated with the border. Keyes teaches: determine a complete location of a border based on the plurality of geographic positions associated with the border, at least in part by extrapolating from a plurality of geographic positions. Garwood teaches: determine a complete location of a pivot track. Dix teaches: generates an adjusted path for an agricultural vehicle comprising a plurality of swaths that are uniformly spaced within an agricultural zone in relation to a pivot track. Vandike teaches: marking a plurality of geographic positions associated with a border during the period bounded by the start time and the end time. Nishii teaches: wherein an agricultural process comprises cutting headlands.
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 combination of Nilsson, Keyes, Garwood and Vandike to include the feature of: wherein an agricultural process comprises cutting headlands, as taught by Nishii, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because cutting headlands is a well-known agricultural operation in the art. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art that Nishii’s cutting headlands operation would serve as a simple substitution of Vandike’s “harvesting operation” to adapt Vandike’s invention to the well-known agricultural operation of cutting headlands.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668