DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 02/14/2024, 02/16/2024, 02/26/2024, 06/10/2024, 09/16/2024, 10/03/2024, 02/24/2025 and 03/21/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “172” in Fig. 4; “214” in Fig. 6; “272”, “110C”, “110A”, “110D” in Fig. 7A; “312”, “314” in Fig. 10C; and “194”, “196”, “198”, “214” in Fig. 11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “202” has been used to designate both “cloud network” in Fig. 6 and “AG data module” in Fig. 11, “204” has been used to designate both “mobile device” in Fig. 6 and “analytics module” in Fig. 11, “206” has been used to designate both “memory” in Fig. 6 and “AG task module” in Fig. 11, “192” has been used to designate both “planted information” in Fig. 5 and “CPU” in Fig. 11, “212” has been used to designate both “mobile machine 1” in Fig. 6 and “input” in Fig. 11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10-12 and 14-16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 6-7, recites “a component of the agricultural implement” but should recite – the component of the agricultural implement –; the Examiner notes that “a component” is introduced in independent claim 14.
Claim 6, line 1, recites “wherein the location information relates further comprises” but should recite – wherein the location information further comprises –
Claim 10, lines 1-2, recites “wherein the supplemental information replaces the location information during an outage of the satellite-based radio navigation system” but should recite – wherein the supplemental information replaces the location information during the outage of the satellite-based radio navigation system –; the Examiner notes that “an outage” is introduced in independent claim 14.
Claim 11, line 1, recites “showing on a display” but should recite – showing on the display –; the Examiner notes that “a display” is introduced in independent claim 14
Claim 12, lines 2-3, recites “during an outage of the satellite-based radio navigation system” but should recite – during the outage of the satellite-based radio navigation system –; the Examiner notes that “an outage” is introduced in independent claim 14.
Claim 14, line 4, recites “transmitter that continuously attempting to establish a connection” but should recite – transmitter that is continuously attempting to establish a connection –
Claim 15, line 1, recites “The dual-type navigational system of claim 14 further comprising” but should recite – The dual-type navigational system of claim 14, further comprising –; claim 16 is objected to for similar reasoning.
Claim 16, line 2, recites “the agricultural event” but should recite – the agricultural events –
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the supplemental location" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one agricultural operation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 1, line 6, recites “locating or tracking location information that relates to a component of the agricultural implement”. Claim 14, lines 2-3, recites “location information communicated from a satellite in Earth's orbit”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the “location information” in claim 1 is the same as the “location information” in claim 14 or if this is new or different location information being introduced. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this to be the same location information. Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 14-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20140324291 A1) in view of Ogura et al. (US 20170177002 A1) in further view of Wilson (US 7357087 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Jones teaches a dual-type navigational system for an agricultural implement comprising: a global navigation system satellite (GNSS) sensor that acquires location information communicated from a satellite in Earth's orbit (¶[0121]-[0122] “implement 506 can be equipped with systems including DGNSS receivers 524”), wherein the GNSS sensor includes a transmitter that continuously attempting to establish a connection to the satellite that is in Earth's orbit (¶[0121]-[0122] “implement 506 can be equipped with systems including DGNSS receivers 524” “provide GNSS-derived position and attitude outputs”, the Examiner notes a GNSS inherently continuously attempts to establish connection to a satellite); an augmentation system that acquires supplemental information (¶[0121]-[0122] “GNSS-derived position and attitude outputs, supplemented by gyro-derived rate of rotation outputs”), wherein the supplemental information includes a specific measurement of a force, an angular rate, and/or an orientation of a component on an agricultural implement (¶[0121]-[0122] “rate of rotation outputs”; the Examiner notes the limitations recites includes a specific measurement of a force, an angular rate, and/or an orientation of a component), wherein the augmentation system can tether the supplemental location information to the location information (¶[0087] “coupling GNSS data with measurement information from supplementary sensors”).
Jones does not explicitly teach a display located on the agricultural implement that (1) indicates whether there is an outage of communication between the transmitter and the satellite in Earth's orbit and (2) shows geospatial and temporal information about agricultural events. However, Ogura discloses an autonomous travel work system and teaches a display that (1) indicates whether there is an outage of communication between the transmitter and the satellite in Earth's orbit (Fig. 11 and ¶[0118] “cause of the stop is shown on the display”, i.e., GPS signal loss) and (2) shows geospatial and temporal information about agricultural events (¶[0061]-[0063] “display 113 can present operation conditions and GPS information”, “conditions include operation statuses” and “operation statuses include current location, the elapsed time of the operation, the remaining time of the operation”, i.e., the display can present location information and remaining time for the operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, a display that (1) indicates whether there is an outage of communication between the transmitter and the satellite in Earth's orbit and (2) shows geospatial and temporal information about agricultural events, as taught by Ogura, to provide the display for showing the traveling conditions of the vehicle so an operator can visually understand the condition of the vehicle. (Ogura at ¶[0068])
The combination of Jones and Ogura does not explicitly teach a display located on the agricultural implement. However, Wilson discloses a grain drill and teaches a display located on the agricultural implement (Fig. 8 “64”and Col. 9, lines 42-53, “generate a display 66”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones as modified by Ogura to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, a display located on the agricultural implement, as taught by Wilson, to provide to enable the farmer to visually determine the status of the implement from a tractor. (Wilson at Col. 9, lines 49-51)
Regarding claim 15, Jones teaches the dual-type navigational system of claim 14 further comprising a processor that is in electronic communication with the GNSS sensor and the augmentation system (Fig. 10 and ¶[0122] “microprocessor” “GNSS antenna” “system components can be interconnected by a CAN connection 530. Alternatively, components can be wirelessly interconnected, e.g., with RF transmitters and receivers”), wherein the processor utilizes the augmentation system to provide an augmented location based on the last-known location information and the supplemental information in the event of said outage (¶[0121] “GNSS-derived position and attitude outputs, supplemented by gyro-derived rate of rotation outputs for integration by the control system”).
Regarding claim 17, Jones teaches the dual-type navigation system of claim 14, wherein the augmentation system is located on the agricultural implement (¶[0121]-[0122] “implement 506 can be equipped with systems including DGNSS receivers 524”).
Regarding claim 19, Jones teaches the dual-type navigation system of claim 14, wherein the GNSS sensor comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver (¶[0073] and [0078] “GPS”).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20140324291 A1) in view of Ogura et al. (US 20170177002 A1) in view of Wilson (US 7357087 B2), as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Wang et al. (US 20170146990 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jones, Ogura and Wilson does not explicitly teach the dual-type navigation system of claim 14, wherein the augmentation system is located on an unmanned aerial vehicle. However, Wang discloses a system for augmented communication and positioning using an unmanned aerial vehicle and teaches the dual-type navigation system of claim 14, wherein the augmentation system is located on an unmanned aerial vehicle (¶[0007]-[0008] “controlling flight of at least one UAV to one or more positions where the at least one UAV can augment wireless communication signal and GPS satellite signal connectivity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones as modified by Ogura as modified by Wilson to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the augmentation system is located on an unmanned aerial vehicle, as taught by Wang, to provide meeting the machine wireless communication and satellite positioning requirements. (Wang at ¶[0007])
Claim(s) 1-8, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20140324291 A1) in view of Ogura et al. (US 20170177002 A1) in view of Wilson (US 7357087 B2), as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Tatge et al. (US 20180129987 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a method of communicating agricultural data using the dual-type navigational system of claim 14, comprising: communicating instructions to the component of the agricultural implement for performing a portion of the at least one agricultural operation (¶[0148] “implement steering subsystem 784 receives steering commands from the guidance processor CPU 736”); and using the augmentation system located on the agricultural implement, supplementing the location information with the supplemental information that includes the specific measurement of the force, the angular rate, and/or the orientation of the component (¶[0121]-[0122] “GNSS-derived position and attitude outputs, supplemented by gyro-derived rate of rotation outputs”).
The combination of Jones, Ogura and Wilson does not explicitly teach providing identification information related to the agricultural implement including a type of implement and a number of components on the agricultural implement that are capable of performing the at least one agricultural operation; locating or tracking location information that relates to a component of the agricultural implement. However, Tatge discloses a farming data collection and exchange system and teaches providing identification information related to the agricultural implement including a type of implement and a number of components on the agricultural implement that are capable of performing the at least one agricultural operation (¶[0018] “implement profile”; ¶[0080] “implement data will include nozzle information, such as the number of nozzles on the implement”); locating or tracking location information that relates to a component of the agricultural implement (¶[0036] and [0059] “information indicating the date, time and location of each farming operation”, i.e., for the farming implement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones as modified by Ogura as modified by Wilson to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, providing identification information related to the agricultural implement including a type of implement and a number of components on the agricultural implement that are capable of performing the at least one agricultural operation; locating or tracking location information that relates to a component of the agricultural implement, as taught by Tatge, to provide to enable the farmer to use this information to determine and compare what resources were used, where, and with what settings. (Tatge at ¶[0003])
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jones, Ogura and Wilson does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include a planting location for yield data. However, Tatge discloses a farming data collection and exchange system and teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include a planting location for yield data (¶[0009]-[0010] “GPS” and “information indicating the date, time and location of each farming operation, the type of farming operation (e.g., fertilizing, planting or spraying operations)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones as modified by Ogura as modified by Wilson to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include a planting location for yield data, as taught by Tatge, to provide to enable the farmer to use this information to determine and compare what resources were used, where, and with what settings. (Tatge at ¶[0003])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jones, Ogura and Wilson does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include a location for prescription maps. However, Tatge discloses a farming data collection and exchange system and teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include a location for prescription maps (¶[0070] “prescription maps”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones as modified by Ogura as modified by Wilson to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include a location for prescription maps, as taught by Tatge, to provide to enable the farmer to use this information to determine and compare what resources were used, where, and with what settings. (Tatge at ¶[0003])
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jones, Ogura and Wilson does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include planted information to mitigate later compaction of a planted zone. However, Tatge discloses a farming data collection and exchange system and teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include planted information to mitigate later compaction of a planted zone (¶[0036] and [0059] “information indicating the date, time and location of each farming operation”, i.e., for the farming implement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones as modified by Ogura as modified by Wilson to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include planted information to mitigate later compaction of a planted zone, as taught by Tatge, to provide to enable the farmer to use this information to determine and compare what resources were used, where, and with what settings. (Tatge at ¶[0003])
Regarding claim 5, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising passing said instructions through an intelligent node located at the component (¶[0148] “implement steering subsystem 784 receives steering commands from the guidance processor CPU 736”).
Regarding claim 6, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the location information relates further comprises a position of where the at least one agricultural operation is to be performed (¶[0175] “controlling optimal positioning of the guidance blade” “performing all necessary machine control and guidance functions for a predetermined task”).
Regarding claim 7, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the location information is provided by a satellite-based radio navigation system located on the agricultural implement (¶[0121]-[0122] “implement 506 can be equipped with systems including DGNSS receivers 524”).
Regarding claim 8, Jones teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the augmenting system comprises an inertial measurement unit (¶[0085] “GNSS sensor 20 in the embodiments above augmented with supplementary inertial sensors”).
Regarding claim 13, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the augmentation system comprises a plurality of components selected from the group consisting of: a. a speedometer, b. a direction device, c. an accelerometer, d. a gyroscope, e. a magnetometer, f. a lidar sensor, and g. a radar sensor (¶[0087] “supplementary sensors 50, including, but not limited to, accelerometers, gyroscopic sensors, compasses, magnetic sensors, inclinometers, and the like, as well as combinations including at least one of the foregoing”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jones, Ogura and Wilson does not explicitly teach the dual-type navigational system of claim 15 further comprising memory that stores dates and times related to the agricultural event. However, Tatge discloses a farming data collection and exchange system and teaches the dual-type navigational system of claim 15 further comprising memory that stores dates and times related to the agricultural event (¶[0036] and [0059] “information indicating the date, time and location of each farming operation”, i.e., for the farming implement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones as modified by Ogura as modified by Wilson to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising memory that stores dates and times related to the agricultural event, as taught by Tatge, to provide to enable the farmer to use this information to determine and compare what resources were used, where, and with what settings. (Tatge at ¶[0003])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20140324291 A1) in view of Ogura et al. (US 20170177002 A1) in view of Wilson (US 7357087 B2) in view of Tatge et al. (US 20180129987 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Ma et al. (CN 107560613 B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jones, Ogura, Wilson and Tatge does not explicitly teach the method of claim 8, wherein the inertial measurement unit comprises a 9-axis inertial measurement unit sensor to acquire the supplemental information. However, Ma discloses a robot tracking system and teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the inertial measurement unit comprises a 9-axis inertial measurement unit sensor to acquire the supplemental information (pages 3-8 “nine-axis inertial sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for a vehicle of Jones as modified by Ogura as modified by Wilson as modified by Tatge to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising enhancing the location information using a satellite-based radio navigation system associated with the agricultural implement to include planted information to mitigate later compaction of a planted zone, as taught by Ma, to provide combining and processing data from a three axis accelerometer, three-axis gyroscope, and three-axis magnetometer to produce a triaxial acceleration value, triaxial angular velocity value and triaxial magnetic field intensity value in real time. (Ma at page 3, paragraphs 5 and 6)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gattis et al. (US 20180203126 A1) is pertinent because it relates to a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) based control system for positioning a working component relative to a work surface.
Guyette et al. (US 20160366815 A1) is pertinent because it relates to a system and method for positioning and heading for guidance or logging agricultural input placement amounts and locations.
McClure et al. (US 9002566 B2) is pertinent because it relates to visual, GNSS and INS (gyro) system for autosteering control.
Peake et al. (US 20130191017 A1) is pertinent because it is an automatic vehicle position control system, such as a satellite-based agricultural implement steering system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights