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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chavasse (US 20230354747 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chavasse teaches an automated crop harvester [1] comprising:
a) a frame [24];
b) a drive system ([10], pulls the harvester; see paragraph [0060], lines 1-6) supporting the frame for movement of the frame along a ground surface [450] in a harvesting direction [420]; and
c) a plurality of robot arms ([38]; three arms operating in three crop rows, see paragraph [0065], lines 1-4 and Fig. 2) mounted to the frame and spaced laterally apart from each other generally perpendicular to the harvesting direction (see Fig. 2) for harvesting crops in corresponding crop rows [5], each robot arm having end-of-arm tooling [22] automatically movable laterally relative to the frame (see paragraph [0088], lines 1-6) into alignment with respective crops [12] projecting from the ground surface for cutting and collecting the crops (see paragraph [0096], lines 2-18).
Regarding claim 14, Chavasse teaches wherein each arm [38] has at least one rotary joint [26] operable to move the end-of-arm tooling [22] laterally relative to the frame [24] for lateral alignment with respective crops ([12]; enables rotation relative to the frame, see paragraph [0088], lines 2-6), and at least one linear actuator [610] operable to translate the end-of-arm tooling vertically relative to the frame (through use of guide rails [44 and 46], see Fig. 6 and paragraph [0085], lines 21-26) for vertical alignment with the crops.
Regarding claim 15, Chavasse teaches wherein the robot arms [38] are arranged in a parallel configuration (configuration in which each arm faces the frame in a straight line, each arm parallel to the one next to it, see Fig. 2), in which the work envelopes of the robot arms are spaced laterally apart (see Fig. 2) for harvesting crops in corresponding crop rows [5] extending parallel with the harvesting direction [420], and wherein the relative positioning of the robot arms is reconfigurable (reconfigurable through the use of the guide rails [44 and 46], actuators [610], and rotary joint [26]; see paragraph [0085], lines 21-26 and paragraph [0088], lines 2-6) to a series configuration (configuration in which middle arm remains in the same position while side arms move until their tooling faces the middle arm, creating a tooling-to-tooling connection for harvesting within the middle arm’s crop row) in which the work envelopes of at least one pair of adjacent robot arms (three arms operating, side arms envelope the work of the middle arm) are generally in lateral alignment for harvesting crops from a common crop row (middle arm’s crop row).
Examiner’s Note: due to the robot arms being reconfigurable through the use of the guide rails, actuators, and rotary joint, each arm is movable to any position within the frame to harvest the crop material, allowing for a parallel, series, or another configuration.
Regarding claim 16, Chavasse teaches wherein the frame [34] is adjustable for reconfiguration (reconfigurable through the use of the guide rails [44 and 46], actuators [610], and rotary joint [26]; see paragraph [0085], lines 21-26 and paragraph [0088], lines 2-6) of the robot arms [38] between the parallel (configuration in which each arm faces frame in a straight line, each arm parallel to the one next to it, see Fig. 2) and series configurations (configuration in which middle arm remains in the same position while side arms move until their tooling faces the middle arm, creating a tooling to tooling connection for harvesting within the middle arm’s crop row).
Regarding claim 17, Chavasse teaches a control system [1000] including a crop detection system (see paragraph [0098], lines 1-7) having one or more crop sensors [40] operable to detect positioning of crops (see paragraph [0085], lines 13-20) projecting from the ground surface [450] relative to the harvester [1], and a control unit (a processor; see paragraph [0085], lines 15-27) operable to control operation of the robot arms [38] based on the positioning of the crops [12] to move the end-of-arm tooling [22] into alignment with the crops (see paragraph [0073], lines 1-5 and [0085], lines 13-27).
Regarding claim 18, Chavasse teaches wherein the crop detection system (see paragraph [0098], lines 1-7) comprises a vision system (system of [40] and control unit’s processor, see paragraph [0085], lines 15-27) including one or more imaging sensors (sensor [40] is an imaging sensor, see paragraph [0082], lines 1-3) operable to generate image data for determining the positioning of the crops (see paragraph [0085], lines 13-20).
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(s) 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavasse (US 20230354747 A1) in view of Herman et al. (US 11134617 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Chavasse discloses the harvester as applied above, as well as a storage receptable [16] supported by the frame ([24]; supports storage receptable through conveyor [14], see paragraph [0111], lines 3-7) but fails to disclose a crop suction system mounted to the frame and in fluid communication with each end-of-arm tooling, the suction system operable to generate a suction force at each end-of-arm tooling to suction crops cut by the end-of-arm tooling and transport the crops to a storage receptacle supported by the frame.
Herman et al. discloses a similar robot arm [100] comprising a crop suction system (system of [401 and 402], see Col. 4, lines 17-19) mounted to the frame ([206, see Fig. 14) and in fluid communication with each end-of-arm tooling [101], the suction system operable to generate a suction force (see Col. 4, lines 21-28) at each end-of-arm tooling to suction crops cut by the end-of-arm tooling and transport the crops (see Col. 4, lines 25-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the robot arm of Chavasse with the robot arm of Herman et al. since both are devices used to cut and collect crop material while suspended through a connection to a frame for movement, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, when the crop suction system of Herman et al. is provided to the automated crop harvester of Chavasse, the crop suction system of Herman et al. transports the crops to the storage receptable of Chavasse.
Regarding claim 19, Chavasse teaches an automated crop harvester [1] comprising:
a) a frame [24];
b) a drive system ([10], pulls the harvester; see paragraph [0060], lines 1-6) supporting the frame for movement of the frame along a ground surface [450] in a harvesting direction [420]; and
c) a plurality of robot arms ([38]; three arms operating in three crop rows, see paragraph [0065], lines 1-4 and Fig. 2) mounted to the frame for harvesting crops, each robot arm having end-of-arm tooling [22] movable relative to the frame for alignment with and harvesting of respective crops (see paragraph [0088], lines 1-6);
and a storage receptable [16] supported by the frame (supports storage receptable through conveyor [14], see paragraph [0111], lines 3-7).
But fails to disclose a crop suction system mounted to the frame and configured to suction crops harvested by the end-of-arm tooling and transport the crops through suction toward one or more storage receptacles supported by the frame.
Herman et al. discloses a similar robot arm [100] comprising a crop suction system (system of [401 and 402], see Col. 4, lines 17-19) mounted to the frame ([206, see Fig. 14) and configured to suction crops harvested by the end-of-arm tooling [101] and transport the crops through suction (see Col. 4, lines 25-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the robot arm of Chavasse with the robot arm of Herman et al. since both are devices used to cut and collect crop material while suspended through a connection to a frame for movement, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, when the crop suction system of Herman et al. is provided to the automated crop harvester of Chavasse, the crop suction system of Herman et al. transports the crops to the storage receptable of Chavasse.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavasse (US 20230354747 A1) and Herman et al. (US 11134617 B2) as applied to claims 2 and 19 above, and further in view of Schultz et al. (US 11407123 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Herman et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each end-of-arm tooling [101] comprises a suction head [103] through which the crops are suctioned for transport toward the storage receptacle (see Col. 3, lines 54-66 and Col. 4, lines 16-26), but fails to disclose the suction head having a suction port coupled to the suction system.
Schultz et al. discloses a similar robot arm [110] comprising of a suction head ([406], see Col. 7, lines 30-33) having a suction port ([407], see Fig. 4) coupled to the suction system (system of [401, 406, 407, and 420]; see Col. 7, lines 2-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the suction port of Schultz et al. on the robot arm of Chavasse and Herman et al. in order to help establish an internal airflow connection between the robot arm and the telescoping member used to extend the arm to reach the target material (see Schultz et al. Col. 6, lines 1-11 and Col. 7, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 4, Herman et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the suction head [103] includes a housing (exterior of [103]) having an interior (interior of housing of [103]) extending along a vertical axis (see below) between a lower end (see below) and an upper end ([103] is a telescoping member, but the lower and upper end’s would remain the same; see below) of the interior, the housing having a crop inlet (bottom of tooling [101] opens to the interior of the housing; see below) extending vertically along and open to the interior for loading crops into the interior (see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
295
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But Herman et al. fails to disclose the suction port open to the interior of the housing and spaced apart from the crop inlet for suctioning crops received in the interior.
However, Schultz et al. discloses a suction port ([407], see Fig. 4) open to the interior of the housing (allows for the internal airflow [420] to connect the arm [110] and the telescoping member [210]; therefore, is open to the interior, see Col. 7, lines 2-12) and spaced apart from the crop inlet (bottom of suction head [406], see Col. 7, lines 30-33; see Fig. 4) for suctioning crops (through creation of airflow passage [420], see Col. 7, lines 2-12).
It can be seen then that when the suction port of Schultz et al. is provided to the robot arm of Chavasse and Herman et al. that the suction port is open to the interior of the housing of Herman et al. and spaced from the crop inlet for suctioning crops through the interior as is disclosed by Schultz et al. (see Col. 7, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 5, Herman et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the end-of-arm tooling [101] includes a cutter [102] at the lower end of the interior (interior of housing of [103]) in alignment with the crop inlet (bottom of tooling [101] opens to the interior of the housing; see above) for cutting the crops from the ground surface for loading into the interior (see Col. 2, lines 64-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-2) through the crop inlet (see Col. 4, lines 16-27 and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Herman et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the suction system (system of [401 and 402], see Col. 4, lines 17-19) comprises at least one suction drive [401] for generating the suction force (see Col. 4, lines 17-19), and a conduit system (material transport system of [103 and 402], see Fig. 1) coupling and providing fluid communication between the suction drive and the suction port of each end-of-arm tooling [101] for conveying the crops through the conduit system (see Col. 3, lines 60-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-2 and 17-19).
Regarding claim 9, Herman et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses
wherein the conduit system (material transport system of [103 and 402], see Fig. 1) comprises one or more collection chambers (interior chamber of [402]) for collecting crops being conveyed through the conduit system (see Col. 4, lines 16-26), each collection chamber having a chamber inlet (inlet connection between [103] and [402], see Fig. 1) coupled to one or more suction ports through an upstream conduit assembly (see below; upstream part of conduit [402]) of the conduit system and a chamber outlet (see below) coupled to the suction drive ([401]; coupled through [402], see Col. 4, lines 17-19) through a downstream conduit assembly (see below; downstream part of conduit [402]) of the conduit system.
PNG
media_image3.png
645
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Chavasse, of the above resultant combination, further discloses respective storage receptables [16], but fails to disclose wherein each collection chamber is provided in a hopper having a discharge mechanism operable to selectively discharge crops from the collection chamber for deposit into a respective storage receptacle under the hopper.
However, Herman et al. discloses wherein each collection chamber (interior chamber of [402]) is provided in a hopper ([402] is a hopper due to being a container that discharges material at its end) having a discharge mechanism (chamber outlet is the discharge mechanism; allows for the discharge of materials, see above and see Col. 4, lines 26-31) operable to selectively discharge crops from the collection chamber for deposit (see Col. 4, lines 26-31).
It can be seen then that when Herman et al.’s robotic arm is provided to the frame of Chavasse that the discharge mechanism discharges into a respective storage receptable of Chavasse as disclosed by Herman et al. (see above and Col. 4, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 20, Herman et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each end-of-arm tooling [101] comprises a cutter [102] for cutting the crops from the ground surface and a suction head [103] above the cutter (see Fig. 1), the suction head through which crops cut by the end-of-arm tooling are suctioned for transport toward the one or more storage receptacles (see Col. 4, lines 21-31).
But Herman et al. fails to disclose a suction port coupled to the suction system.
Schultz et al. discloses a similar robot arm [110] comprising of a suction head ([406], see Col. 7, lines 30-33) having a suction port ([407], see Fig. 4) coupled to the suction system (system of [401, 406, 407, and 420]; see Col. 7, lines 2-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the suction port of Schultz et al. on the robot arm of Chavasse and Herman et al. in order to help establish an internal airflow connection between the robot arm and the telescoping member used to extend the arm to reach the target material (see Schultz et al. Col. 6, lines 1-11 and Col. 7, lines 2-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference NL 2027790 B1 discloses a similar robotic arm [1] with a crop suction system [3 and 5] and end-of-arm tooling [7].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671