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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “ based on the field data associated with the at least one section …for selecting the second treatment device associated with the at least one section of the agricultural field.”- is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example the language in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could make a decision, observation, and calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements- “A computer-implemented method for providing selection data for treatment devices on an agricultural field”, “obtaining field data for at least one section of the agricultural field at least from the first treatment device” and “providing selection data” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by outputting data and information. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein the treatment devices include at least a first treatment device and a second treatment device for treating the agricultural field,” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “selecting a suitable second treatment device for treating the at least one section of the agricultural field based on the field data obtained from the first treatment device.” which is a mental abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements- “wherein providing selection data includes” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by outputting data and information. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “matching an operation identifier associated with the second treatment device with a field condition determined from field data.” which is a mental abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements- “wherein providing selection data includes” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by outputting data and information. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 1. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein matching includes operation identifiers of a subset of treatment devices for treating the agricultural field” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “selecting a second treatment device based on a cost function relating to a distance to the section or an operation identifier.” which is a mental abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements- “wherein providing selection data includes” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by outputting data and information. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “selecting a second treatment device based on a section status as determined from field data provided by the first treatment device” which is a mental abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements- “wherein providing selection data includes” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by outputting data and information. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 1. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein the selection data is based on a mission schedule, wherein the mission schedule includes an allocation and/or availability of the second treatment device and/or other treatment devices for treating the agricultural field” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 1. Additionally the claim recites- “the mission schedule includes initial operation data, which includes a starting position, an initial trajectory or initial instructions for trajectory determination” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 1. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein providing selection data includes dynamic adjustment of the number of first treatment device(s), second treatment device(s) and/or further treatment device(s) used for treating the agricultural field during treatment” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determining selection data based on the at least one field condition (113) for the section” which is a mental abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements- “wherein providing selection data includes” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by outputting data and information. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein at least one field condition (113) for the section is derived from field data” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites additional elements- wherein field data is obtained for the section and selection data is provided for the same section.” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by outputting data and information. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “ based on the field data associated with the at least one section for selecting the second treatment device associated with the at least one section of the agricultural field.”- is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example the language in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could make a decision, observation, and calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements- “obtain field data for at least one section of the agricultural field at least from the first treatment device”, “providing selection data for treatment devices on an agricultural field is presented”, and “provide selection data” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by outputting data and information. Additionally the claim recites- “the system comprising: at least a first treatment device and a second treatment device for treating the agricultural field” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). The claim also recites elements- : “A system for” , “monitoring or obtaining unit configured to”, “an a providing unit configured to” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “A system for” , “monitoring or obtaining unit configured to”, “an a providing unit configured to”, which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 12. The additional element of “wherein the first treatment device is configured to perform a first treatment operation and the second treatment device is configured to perform a second treatment operation”, which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f) -considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C for similar reason as claim 12.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C for similar reason as claim 13.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C for similar reason as claim 13.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C for similar reason as claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (US20220183209, herein Robinson).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson teaches A computer-implemented method for providing selection data for treatment devices on an agricultural field ([0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide, [0175] The task allocation system is firstly configured to set an initial task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9, and transmit route and/or task instructions to each respective robot. Secondly, the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task), wherein the treatment devices include at least a first treatment device and a second treatment device for treating the agricultural field ([0175] a team of robots 8, 9 simultaneously undertaking a particular task (e.g. monitoring and/or tending). The task allocation system is firstly configured to set an initial task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9, and transmit route and/or task instructions to each respective robot, [0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide), the method comprising: obtaining field data for at least one section of the agricultural field at least from the first treatment device ([0154] The sensor set of the monitoring module 7 can measure parameters such as: sound, images, elevation, air pressure, location, temperature, air quality, soil composition, gas composition, soil volatile organic component composition, nutrient levels, moisture, and many others); and based on the field data associated with the at least one section providing selection data for selecting the second treatment device associated with the at least one section of the agricultural field ([0174] this enables the route taken by each robot 8, 9 across a farm plot 2 a, 2 b, 2 c to be controlled dynamically by a task allocation system. If it is determined that the length of the route, or number of tasks performed by the robot is likely to be less (or more) than originally predicted before the robot 8, 9 depletes one of its resources, then its instructions can be altered, [0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently).
Regarding claim 2, Robinson teaches The method according claim 1, wherein providing selection data includes selecting a suitable second treatment device for treating the at least one section of the agricultural field based on the field data obtained from the first treatment device ([0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently, [0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein providing selection data includes matching an operation identifier associated with the second treatment device with a field condition determined from field data ([0135] In response to monitoring, whether by monitoring robot 8 or monitoring module 7, the server 4 may determine an optimal time to deploy one or more tending robots 9, [0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently, [0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide). .
Regarding claim 4, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 3, wherein matching includes operation identifiers of a subset of treatment devices for treating the agricultural field ([0135] In response to monitoring, whether by monitoring robot 8 or monitoring module 7, the server 4 may determine an optimal time to deploy one or more tending robots 9, [0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently, [0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide).
Regarding claim 6, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein providing selection data includes selecting a second treatment device based on a section status as determined from field data provided by the first treatment device ([0135] In response to monitoring, whether by monitoring robot 8 or monitoring module 7, the server 4 may determine an optimal time to deploy one or more tending robots 9, [0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently, [0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the selection data is based on a mission schedule, wherein the mission schedule includes an allocation and/or availability of the second treatment device and/or other treatment devices for treating the agricultural field ([0016] The operating instructions comprise an operating schedule that specifies a time or period over which farming robots are to perform operations such as tending and monitoring, [0041] If multiple farming robots cannot simultaneously utilise a common servicing station, then the operating instructions for each of those multiple farming robots can be modified such that routing schedules govern sequential rather than simultaneous use of the servicing station) .
Regarding claim 8, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 7, wherein the mission schedule includes initial operation data, which includes a starting position, an initial trajectory or initial instructions for trajectory determination ([0175] The task allocation system is firstly configured to set an initial task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9, and transmit route and/or task instructions to each respective robot. Secondly, the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently, [0016] The operating instructions comprise an operating schedule that specifies a time or period over which farming robots are to perform operations such as tending and monitoring).
Regarding claim 9, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein providing selection data includes dynamic adjustment of the number of first treatment device(s), second treatment device(s) and/or further treatment device(s) used for treating the agricultural field during treatment ([0174] Task progress information can be transmitted back to the server from the farming robots 8, 9. Advantageously, this enables the route taken by each robot 8, 9 across a farm plot 2 a, 2 b, 2 c to be controlled dynamically by a task allocation system. If it is determined that the length of the route, or number of tasks performed by the robot is likely to be less (or more) than originally predicted before the robot 8, 9 depletes one of its resources, then its instructions can be altered).
Regarding claim 10, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one field condition (113) for the section is derived from field data, wherein providing selection data includes determining selection data based on the at least one field condition (113) for the section ([0249] The lighting module 76 is positioned adjacent to the camera module 75, and pointed downward in the same direction as the camera module 75 thereby to illuminate the ground within the field of view of the camera in low-light conditions. Advantageously, this allows the monitoring robot 8 to reliably traverse a farm plot, even at night, to acquire farm plot sensor data and avoiding obstacles, [0133] An example of first-order farm plot data could be a set of image data files, with the derived second-order farm plot data being exemplified by text representing objects identified in those image data files. Such second-order farm plot data can be generated via image recognition processing by the locally-located computing device of the first-order farm plot data. Ideally, such a computing device may be located at the robot base module 6).
Regarding claim 11, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein field data is obtained for the section and selection data is provided for the same section ([0249] The lighting module 76 is positioned adjacent to the camera module 75, and pointed downward in the same direction as the camera module 75 thereby to illuminate the ground within the field of view of the camera in low-light conditions. Advantageously, this allows the monitoring robot 8 to reliably traverse a farm plot, even at night, to acquire farm plot sensor data and avoiding obstacles, [0133] An example of first-order farm plot data could be a set of image data files, with the derived second-order farm plot data being exemplified by text representing objects identified in those image data files. Such second-order farm plot data can be generated via image recognition processing by the locally-located computing device of the first-order farm plot data. Ideally, such a computing device may be located at the robot base module 6, [0175] a team of robots 8, 9 simultaneously undertaking a particular task (e.g. monitoring and/or tending). The task allocation system is firstly configured to set an initial task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9, and transmit route and/or task instructions to each respective robot).
Regarding claim 12, Robinson teaches A system for providing selection data for treatment devices on an agricultural field is presented ([0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide, [0175] The task allocation system is firstly configured to set an initial task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9, and transmit route and/or task instructions to each respective robot. Secondly, the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task), the system comprising: at least a first treatment device and a second treatment device for treating the agricultural field ([0175] a team of robots 8, 9 simultaneously undertaking a particular task (e.g. monitoring and/or tending). The task allocation system is firstly configured to set an initial task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9, and transmit route and/or task instructions to each respective robot, [0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide); a monitoring or obtaining unit configured to obtain field data for at least one section of the agricultural field at least from the first treatment device ([0154] The sensor set of the monitoring module 7 can measure parameters such as: sound, images, elevation, air pressure, location, temperature, air quality, soil composition, gas composition, soil volatile organic component composition, nutrient levels, moisture, and many others); and a providing unit configured to provide selection data based on the field data associated with the at least one section for selecting the second treatment device associated with the at least one section of the agricultural field ([0174] this enables the route taken by each robot 8, 9 across a farm plot 2 a, 2 b, 2 c to be controlled dynamically by a task allocation system. If it is determined that the length of the route, or number of tasks performed by the robot is likely to be less (or more) than originally predicted before the robot 8, 9 depletes one of its resources, then its instructions can be altered, [0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently).
Regarding claim 13, Robinson teaches The system according to claim 12, wherein the first treatment device is configured to perform a first treatment operation and the second treatment device is configured to perform a second treatment operation ([0075] perform tending tasks on the farm plot using its tending tools. Preferably, tending tasks include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, fungicide, herbicide or pesticide, [0014] there may be a plurality of tending robots and/or a plurality of monitoring robots ) .
Regarding claim 14, Robinson teaches A system for operating treatment devices on an agricultural field, the system comprising: at least a first treatment device and a second treatment device for treating the agricultural field ([0075] perform tending tasks on the farm plot using its tending tools. Preferably, tending tasks include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, fungicide, herbicide or pesticide, [0014] there may be a plurality of tending robots and/or a plurality of monitoring robots ); optionally a cloud environment and/or a ground station ([0018] The servicing station may be arranged to provide automatic servicing to farming robots. For example, the servicing station may be configured and arranged for replenishing their energy sources, transferring data, refilling consumables, switching tools and/or switching task configurations); and one or more computing device(s) configured to provide selection data for treatment devices on an agricultural field, wherein the computing device(s) include instructions, which when executed on the one ore more computing device(s) execute the following steps ([0133] The server 4, in the present embodiment, takes the form of a remotely-located computing system, which may be implemented, for example, via cloud-computing resources. However, in alternatives, the server may be implemented, at least in part, via a computing device situated on the farm plot, [0087] a processor for controlling the operation of the other components of the farming robot, ideally governed by operating instructions loaded onto the memory ): obtaining field data for at least one section of the agricultural field at least from the first treatment device ([0154] The sensor set of the monitoring module 7 can measure parameters such as: sound, images, elevation, air pressure, location, temperature, air quality, soil composition, gas composition, soil volatile organic component composition, nutrient levels, moisture, and many others); and based on the field data associated with the at least one section providing selection data for selecting the second treatment device associated with the at least one section of the agricultural field ([0174] this enables the route taken by each robot 8, 9 across a farm plot 2 a, 2 b, 2 c to be controlled dynamically by a task allocation system. If it is determined that the length of the route, or number of tasks performed by the robot is likely to be less (or more) than originally predicted before the robot 8, 9 depletes one of its resources, then its instructions can be altered, [0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently).
Regarding claim 15, Robinson teaches Use of a treatment device (102, 103, 104, 106, 107) or a treatment product in a system according to claim 12 ([0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently, [0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide).
Regarding claim 16, Robinson teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon, which, when executed on one or more computing device(s), cause the one or more computing device(s) to carry out the method according to claim 1 ([0086] a memory configured to store farm sensor data, operating instructions, and other data necessary for the performance of the functions of the farming robot, [0087] a processor for controlling the operation of the other components of the farming robot, ideally governed by operating instructions loaded onto the memory).
Regarding claim 17, Robinson teaches Use of a treatment device (102, 103, 104, 106, 107) or a treatment product in a method according to claim 1 ([0175] the task allocation system receives periodic updates from those robots 8, 9 about the progress they have made in following a route or completing a task. Thirdly, the task allocation system applies adjustments to the task and/or routing program for each robot 8, 9 and retransmits program updates to the relevant robots 8, 9, altering their original route and/or task instructions so that a goal performed by the group of robots can be performed more efficiently, [0012] Ideally tending tasks that can be performed by the tending robot include at least one of: seed-planting, weeding, and applying crop treatments such as fertiliser, herbicide, fungicide or pesticide).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US20220183209, herein Robinson), in view of Baroudi et al. (US20180326583, herein Baroudi).
Regarding claim 5, Robinson teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein providing selection data includes selecting a second treatment device based on a … function relating to a distance to the section or an operation identifier ([0229] Consumable usage over time can be predicted as a function of the number of consumable-utilising tasks that the tending robot 9 is scheduled to perform, or otherwise estimated as a function of time and dynamic rate of usage of a consumable. The prediction can be carried out by a task allocation system as discussed above, which can also dynamically control the tending robot 9 to follow an optimal route in response to consumable usage) .
Robinson does not teach cost function
Baroudi teaches cost function ([0128] a scalar value computed using the cost function and represents a robot's cost to execute the task)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robinson’s teaching of autonomous farming devices where consumable usage over time is predicted as a function with Baroudi’s teaching of using a cost function to represent a robots cost to execute a task. The combined teaching provides an expected result of autonomous farming devices using a cost and consumable usage function for predictions. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the accuracy of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Al-Shaboti (US20200009729) discloses task assignment method for robot network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE T FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1pm - 9pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/YVONNE TRANG FOLLANSBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117