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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Goups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/1/2025. Rejoinder will be evaluated at the time of a notice of allowance. Reminder that those claims will have to have the allowable subject matter at time of allowance.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn based on restriction/election requirement. Claims 1-15 are examined bellow. Claim 1 and 10 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and dependent claims 2-15 have been 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.
The 101 has been overcome with the claim amendments.
Conforms with 35 USC § 101
The presently examined claims were evaluated for a 101 Alice type rejection. The conclusion from going through the Alice/Mayo test is that the independent claims are integrated into a practical application (or cannot be performed merely with the human mind) and are therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP §2106, subsection III and MPEP §2106.04, subsection II(A).
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 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.
(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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20170090479 A1 Wilcox.
As to claim 1, Wilcox discloses a system for an agricultural machine [Wilcox: abstract], comprising:
at least one processor [Wilcox: a data processor 108]; and
a memory [Wilcox: The data storage device 106 can comprise one or more of electronic memory] that stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to [Wilcox: Fig. 1]:
acquire input data related to an agricultural operation [Wilcox: 0022 In some embodiments, the guidance criteria 118 can be configured to meet operator preferences and/or vary depending on the field operation being performed. For example, for planting operations, the guidance criteria 118 may include a pointing direction of a planting implement of the vehicle, whereas for spraying operations, the guidance criteria 118 may include a spray angle of a spraying implement of the vehicle.];
generate plan data indicative of a plurality of potential plans for the agricultural machine to perform the agricultural operation [Wilcox: Fig 2 #206]
evaluate plan data for each potential plan of the plurality of plans and generate score data [Wilcox: 0043 score=rank, Fig. 2 #216];
select a final plan from the plurality of potential plans based at least in part on the score data, wherein the final plan indicates at least a traversal path through a field [Wilcox: 0025 In other embodiments, the guidance module 122 automatically selects a first ranked potential guidance line on the list as the guidance line selected for controlling the path of the vehicle., Fig. 2 #216]; and
communicate final plan data indicative of the final plan to at least the agricultural machine [Wilcox: Fig. 2 #214] and
coordinate and monitor execution of the agricultural operation by the agricultural machine [Wilcox: monitoring/controlling 0031-0033 ].
PNG
media_image1.png
555
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wilcox Fig. 2
As to claim 2, Wilcox discloses wherein the input data includes prescription data, the prescription data includes information indicative of one or more of at least one product to be utilized in the agricultural operation, a respective area where the at least one product is utilized, or a respective amount of the at least one product to utilize [Wilcox: 0043]
As to claim 3, Wilcox discloses wherein the at least one product includes one or more of seed, a starter fertilizer, a high rate fertilizer, a micronutrient, a pesticide, an herbicide, a biological supplement [Wilcox: 0043]
As to claim 5, Wilcox discloses wherein the input data includes area data, the area data includes information indicative of attributes of a field where the agricultural operation is performed [Wilcox: 0018].
As to claim 6, Wilcox discloses wherein the attributes of the field include one or more of a size of the field, a shape of the field, or refill areas for the field [Wilcox: 0018].
As to claim 8, Wilcox discloses wherein the input data includes previous operation data, the previous operation data includes information indicative of prior agricultural operations performed at a similar location [Wilcox: 0021 “In some cases, the information stored in the guidance database 116 can be received from other vehicle(s) working in the field at the same time as the vehicle or from one or more vehicles that worked in the field during a prior period in time.”].
As to claim 9, Wilcox discloses wherein the input data further includes machine data, the machine data indicative of a configuration of the agricultural machine [Wilcox: 0029].
As to claim 12, Wilcox discloses wherein plan data is evaluated and the score is generated based on a set of considerations, the set of considerations include one or more of a number of refill zones, a distance to a refill zone, a correspondence between refill time and cycle times, a number of tendering operations, a total length of path [Wilcox: 0043], amount of time the agricultural machine is turning, or crossings of a path over paths of prior operations [Wilcox: 0043].
As to claim 13, Wilcox discloses wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to rank the plurality of potential plans based on respective scores [Wilcox: 0044].
As to claim 14, Wilcox discloses wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to select a potential plan from the plurality of potential plans with a highest rank as the final plan [Wilcox: 0024].
As to claim 15, Wilcox discloses wherein the agricultural machine provides path guidance to an operator based on the final plan data [Wilcox: 0025 “in some embodiments, the user interface 114 is further configured to receive a user input or otherwise enable the operator to select one of the potential guidance lines for controlling the path of the vehicle.”].
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcox in view of Osborne US 2022/0350307.
As to claim 4, Wilcox discloses treatments being considers but does not explicitly include the constraints of the equipment into the ranking. However, Osborne discloses wherein the input data includes data indicative of a tank configuration of the agricultural machine [Osborne: 0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the evaluation criteria of Wilcox to include implement/machine configurations of Osborne as it merely uses a known device in a known way (adding criteria to the planning) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of having a full picture on path planning.
As to claim 10, Wilcox discloses treatments being considers but does not explicitly include the constraints of the equipment into the ranking. However, Osborne discloses wherein plan data for a plan includes information indicative of one or more of, a set of tendering locations for tendering operations, corresponding tendering times for the tendering operations, a set of product types and product amounts for the tendering operations, a starting location for the agricultural operation, or a start time for the agricultural operation [Osborne: 0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the evaluation criteria of Wilcox to include implement/machine configurations of Osborne as it merely uses a known device in a known way (adding criteria to the planning) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of having a full picture on path planning.
As to claim 11, Wilcox discloses treatments being considers but does not explicitly include the constraints of the equipment into the ranking. However, Osborne discloses wherein plan data is evaluated to determine a set of characteristics for respective potential plans, the set of characteristics include one or more of tendering locations relative to identified tendering zones, product amounts relative to machine attributes [Osborne: 0036 e.g., flowrate based on configuration], or a number of tendering operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the evaluation criteria of Wilcox to include implement/machine configurations of Osborne as it merely uses a known device in a known way (adding criteria to the planning) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of having a full picture on path planning.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne in view of US 20220034859 A1 Rupp.
As to claim 7, Wilcox discloses a selection process for agricultural operations, but does not disclose accounting for material refill. However, Rupp wherein the input data includes tender data, the tender data include information indicative of an estimated cycle time for a tender operation [Rupp: 0125]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the evaluation criteria of Wilcox to include tender operations of Rupp as it merely uses a known device in a known way (adding criteria to the planning) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of having a full picture on path planning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10191492 B2 An autonomous travel work vehicle, which is provided with a position calculation means that measures the device body position by means of a satellite positioning system, a steering actuator that operates a steering device, an engine rotation control means, a transmission means, and a control device that controls each of same, is caused to autonomously travel, along a set travel path stored in the control device, by an accompanying travel work vehicle that works while accompanying the travel of the autonomous travel work vehicle by means of attended operation and that is mounted with a remote operation device that can operate the autonomous travel work vehicle, and the control device halts autonomous travel when a signal disruption from the satellites, a large deviation from the set travel path, an abnormal sensor value, fuel exhaustion, or the like is detected.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights