Notice of Pre-A/A or A/A Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 10, 17, 19, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant argues: “Gresch does not describe calculating a stopping distance of the agricultural machine… Gresch does not describe calculating a stopping distance of the agricultural machine.” Note that this is arguing the amendments.
Examiner respectfully disagrees but to further prosecution has added a new reference that specifically teaches stopping distance. See 35 USC§ 103 below for clarification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRESCH [US 20170339822], in view of DESAI [US 20200319655] , further with MYERS et al. [US 20210131065].
Regarding claim 1
GRESH discloses:
A computerized system for controlling a speed of an agricultural machine, the computerized system comprising: [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0027 (discusses the control device in detail)].
a vehicle system comprising:
the agricultural machine configured to perform an agricultural field operation; and (see at least GRESH, ¶ 0003 (shows use of "Self-propelled tractors are used for a variety of purposes in agriculture,”)];
an implement [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0020 (shows specifics of implements)].
a controller configured to: (see at least GRESH, ¶ 0027 (indicates a controller); ¶ 0033 (expands on the use of controllers)];
determine a mass of the vehicle system at a point in time, [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0005 (indicates determining empty weight (mass), note that if determining any weight and can achieve this data at any time, the limitation is indicated); 0012 (indicates determining data that includes weight (mass))];
wherein the container comprises the mass that dynamically changes, wherein the implement comprises a draft load that dynamically changes; [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0012 (considers the control of vehicle while loading that vehicle, thus considering load); 0015 (further information on control and driving state based many factors, which can include mass when loaded or unloaded)];
calculate a stopping distance of the agricultural machine based on one or more of a braking capacity for the agricultural machine using the determined mass of the vehicle system and the draft load of the implement; [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0012; ¶ 0018 (discusses distance controls for vehicle); ¶ 0020)
determine a maximum speed for the agricultural machine based on the calculated stopping distance; and [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0012; ¶ 0018; Note Gresh indicates control based on distance)];
control the speed of the agricultural machine [see at least GRESH, ¶
0004 (discusses “arrangements for automatic control of travel speed and steering movements of agricultural working machines”) to be below the maximum speed and/or (see at least GRESH, ¶ 0018)
to provide a recommended speed to an operator. [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0028 (shows control of speed including with and without an operator); 0039 (more on speed control and monitoring)].
GRESH does not specifically disclose, but DESAI teaches:
one or more of a container and (see at least DESAI, ¶ 0006 (discusses “an agricultural product storage tank includes maintaining, via a processor, a speed of an autonomous grain cart of a plurality of autonomous grain carts”)].
operably connected to the agricultural machine; [see at least DESAI, ¶ 0026 (discusses FIG. 3 which is showing operably connected); ¶ 0030 ("The controller 52 is communicatively coupled to a communication device 60 that enables the controller 52 to send and receive information over a communication network, such as a wireless communication network.”)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sole agricultural machine with speed regulation for determining braking distance based on load within GRESCH to include separate autonomously driven agricultural vehicles like a grain cart within DESAI to yield an efficient grain collection system where the weight of the collection vehicle is offset to a series of carts to improve crop productivity as disclosed in DESAI, ¶ 0019. Providing a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Neither GRESH or DESAI specifically teach stopping distance but MYERS does teach this concept [see at least MYERS, ¶ 0004 (“calculate a stopping distance”); 0006 (“calculated stopping distance”); 0007 (discusses use of stopping distance in control of the vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sole agricultural machine with speed regulation for determining braking distance based on load within GRESCH to include separate autonomously driven agricultural vehicles like a grain cart within DESAI to yield an efficient grain collection system where the weight of the collection vehicle is offset to a series of carts to improve crop productivity as disclosed in DESAI, ¶ 0019 further with using the stopping distance calculations of MYERS to make the use of large agricultural equipment and provide a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Regarding claim 2:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
the agricultural machine is one or more of a tractor, a harvester, a combine, a sprayer, an air seeder, and a planter; and [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0003 (discusses types of agricultural equipment); ; ¶ 0022 (discusses tractors and other agricultural equipment); 0023 ("FIG. 1 shows a self-propelled agricultural working machine”)];
a commodity cart, a commodity tank, an onboard container, and a fuel tank.
(see at least GRESH, ¶ 0003; ¶ 0022; ¶ 0023)
GRESH does not disclose, but DESAI teaches:
wherein the container is one or more of a grain cart, a grain tank, a grain wagon, a tank, (see at least DESAI, ¶ 0003 (discusses agricultural carts and vehicles); 0020 (discusses FIG. 1)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the driving regulation system implements for harvesting and spraying fields within GRESH with containers for collecting harvested food such as grain as within DESAI to effectively yield a farming system wherein grain can be collected into containers. Providing a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Regarding claim 3:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches limitations within claim 1. GRESH does not disclose but DESAI does teach
the container is configured to receive harvested crop from the agricultural machine and transport the harvested crop during the agricultural field operation. [see at least DESAI, ¶ 0033 ("FIG. 5 is a diagram of a system 70 for continuously conveying grain using multiple grain carts of FIG. 3 with the combine 10 of FIG. 1, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the driving regulation system implements for harvesting and spraying fields within GRESH with autonomous containers for collecting and relocating harvested crops from an agricultural vehicle within DESAI to yield efficient farming system wherein grain can be collected separately to improve crop productivity by avoiding downtime from unloading grain from the primary vehicle. Providing a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Regarding claim 4:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
the stopping distance comprises a pre-programmed stopping distance based on the agricultural field operation being performed. [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0012 (discusses calculations for stopping a vehicle); 0037; 0040 ("(b) Vehicle-specific data regarding physical properties of the working machine.”)].
Neither GRESH or DESAI specifically teach stopping distance but MYERS does teach this concept [see at least MYERS, ¶ 0004 (“calculate a stopping distance”); 0006 (“calculated stopping distance”); 0007 (discusses use of stopping distance in control of the vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sole agricultural machine with speed regulation for determining braking distance based on load within GRESCH to include separate autonomously driven agricultural vehicles like a grain cart within DESAI to yield an efficient grain collection system where the weight of the collection vehicle is offset to a series of carts to improve crop productivity as disclosed in DESAI, ¶ 0019 further with using the stopping distance calculations of MYERS to make the use of large agricultural equipment and provide a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Regarding claim 5:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
the mass comprises a weight, the weight being a combination of the agricultural machine and the container, the container comprising contents of the container. (see at least GRESH, ¶ 0020, "The vehicle-specific data can relate to one or more of the following features of the working machine: mass, dimensions, mass distribution and position of the center of gravity in relation to the interface. This takes into account a payload of the implement, which can be situated in a tank for a spraying material or a container for seed or fertilizer.")
Regarding claim 6:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 5 and GRESH further discloses:
the weight of the contents comprises a measured volume of the container and a density of the contents. (see at least GRESH, ¶ 0020 (indicates " following features of the working machine: mass, dimensions, mass distribution and position of the center of gravity in relation to the interface.”); 0035 (more on the topic of use of weight (mass) data)]
Regarding claim 7:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1.
Neither GRESH or DESAI specifically teach the stopping distance comprises calculating an effective stopping distance but MYERS does teach this concept [see at least MYERS, ¶ 0004 (“calculate a stopping distance”); 0006 (“calculated stopping distance”); 0007 (discusses use of stopping distance in control of the vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sole agricultural machine with speed regulation for determining braking distance based on load within GRESCH to include separate autonomously driven agricultural vehicles like a grain cart within DESAI to yield an efficient grain collection system where the weight of the collection vehicle is offset to a series of carts to improve crop productivity as disclosed in DESAI, ¶ 0019 further with using the stopping distance calculations of MYERS to make the use of large agricultural equipment and provide a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Regarding claim 8:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
the controller is configured to adjust a maximum speed for the agricultural machine in response to a change in the determined mass of the vehicle system. [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0018 (indicates using vehicle specific data to control the agricultural vehicle); 0045 (" the control device 48 can control the speed”)].
Regarding claim 9:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
a perception system comprising at least one sensor with perception data, the perception data dynamically changing based on environment. [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0017 (discusses using vehicle data to calculate control of the vehicle based on "The environment signals”); 0029 ("The working machine 10 is provided with a number of sensors for detecting the environment.”)]
Regarding claim 10:
GRESH in view of DESAI discloses the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
the implement comprises a ground engaging position and a non-ground engaging position, [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0003 (indicates implements including for cultivation, harvesting and other actions); 0044 (discusses the control of position of implements and mail vehicle)];
the controller configured to adjust a maximum speed for the agricultural machine in response to a change in a position of the implement; [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0005 (“travel speed”); 0008 ("where the control device is programmed to output steering signals or speed signals for control of the working machine based on the evaluated driving state."); ¶ 0014 ("monitoring and/or controlling the driving state of a self-propelled agricultural working machine”)];
wherein the controller configured to adjust the maximum speed to be a faster speed when the implement is in the ground engaging position; and aiding in stopping the agricultural machine. [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0015 ("the arrangement can monitor and/or optionally control the driving state of the working machine”)].
Regarding claim 11:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
the dynamically changing mass changes at a faster speed and a slower speed, [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0045, "In another embodiment, the control device 48 can control the speed and/or the steering angle during road driving, like known systems from the automotive field which, upon input by the user via the user interface 70 or some other operating element, hold the travel speed or the distance from the preceding vehicle constant and at a value specifiable or fixedly programmed by the operator, and in the case of automatic steering, automatically follow the course of the road. The control device 48 takes into account the above-mentioned parameters (a) to (e), and optionally a maximum travel speed input by the operator. The control device adapts the speed or distance regulation based on the mass, the position of the center of gravity and the attachment point of an implement 34 as well as the position of the interface at which the implement 34 is attached to the working machine 10. The control device 48 is primarily involved with avoiding dangerous situations and attaches second priority to attempts to maintain a constant travel speed or distance from the preceding vehicle. Thus, if a change of speed should become necessary within a foreseeable time, e.g. when approaching a very slow preceding vehicle or a very tight curve, the control device 48 will decelerate earlier and slower if there is a high center of gravity of the combination of working machine 10 and implement 34 than for a lower center of gravity, in order to guarantee driving stability and safety. It is possible to proceed analogously if the implement 34 is a trailer, baler or the like and is equipped with wheels and a towbar coupled to the trailer hitch of the working machine 10, wherein the consideration of the position of the interface is unnecessary if the interface in question (trailer hitch) is not height-adjustable in relation to the working machine 1O.")
wherein the controller is configured to use a base weight of the vehicle system as the determined mass, [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0032, "If the result of step 102 is positive, step 106 follows, in which it is queried whether data on the implement 34 is available via a bus system 94. Such a bus system 94, designed in particular according to the ISO 11783 standard, connects an implement controller 92 to a virtual terminal 96 of the working machine 10, which terminal can be coupled to the user interface 70 or is independent thereof, so that it is possible to control the implement 34 via the user interface 70 by issuing user inputs provided via the user-interface 70, the virtual terminal 96 and the bus system 94 to the implement controller 92, which in turn activates actuators of the device 34. Sensor data from the implement 34 is transmitted analogously to the user-interface 70. The control device 48 is also connected to the bus system 94. The implement controller 92 comprises a memory in which data for implement 34 is stored, which can also comprise physical data for the implement 34 such as dimensions, empty weight, position of the center of gravity, or otherwise. A sensor 98 can be connected to the implement controller 92 and communicate the filter level of the tank 46 thereto.")].
wherein the base weight is one of [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0018, "The vehicle-specific data can relate to one or more of the following features of the working machine: dimensions, mass, geometry of the steering, mass distribution, position of the center of gravity, width of the tires, diameter of the tires, engine configuration, permissible maximum speed of the working machine with attached implement, properties of any existing suspension of the working machine and/or the implement, the ballasting of the working machine (i.e. the mass of the ballast weight and the installation location thereof) and properties of the working machine's brakes."; ¶ 0040, "(b) Vehicle-specific data regarding physical properties of the working machine. This relates to physical data for the working machine such as weight of the working machine 10, position of the center of gravity, fill level of the hydraulic fluid and/or fuel tanks, position and mass of a ballast weight, engine power and torque curve for the internal combustion engine 72, data regarding the drivetrain, presence or absence of a front-wheel-drive, data regarding acceleration and/or braking and/or steering behavior. This data is fixedly prescribed for the respective working machine 10 or is detected by means of a suitable sensor or input into the control device 48 by the user via the user interface 70 and stored in the control device 48.")].
a user defined value, a factory defined value, or a value received at a start-up of the agricultural machine when the dynamically changing mass changes at a slower speed. [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0038, "In monitoring the driving state of the working machine 10, the control device 48 uses the following:"; ¶ 0040, "(b) Vehicle-specific data regarding physical properties of the working machine. This relates to physical data for the working machine such as weight of the working machine 10, position of the center of gravity, fill level of the hydraulic fluid and/or fuel tanks, position and mass of a ballast weight, engine power and torque curve for the internal combustion engine 72, data regarding the drivetrain, presence or absence of a front-wheel-drive, data regarding acceleration and/or braking and/or steering behavior. This data is fixedly prescribed for the respective working machine 10 or is detected by means of a suitable sensor or input into the control device 48 by the user via the user interface 70 and stored in the control device 48.")].
Regarding claim 12:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1.
GRESH further discloses based on one or more conditions of a terrain [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0004 (“map of the field”); 0017 (indicates "environment signals”); note which includes the environment of a field (terrain)].
Neither GRESH or DESAI specifically teach the stopping distance of the agricultural machine is further based on one or more conditions of a terrain but MYERS does teach this limitation [see at least MYERS, ¶ 0004 (“calculate a stopping distance”); 0006 (“calculated stopping distance”); 0007 (discusses use of stopping distance in control of the vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sole agricultural machine with speed regulation for determining braking distance based on load within GRESCH to include separate autonomously driven agricultural vehicles like a grain cart within DESAI to yield an efficient grain collection system where the weight of the collection vehicle is offset to a series of carts to improve crop productivity as disclosed in DESAI, ¶ 0019 further with using the stopping distance calculations of MYERS to make the use of large agricultural equipment and provide a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Regarding claim 13:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
further based on one or more conditions of one or more components of the vehicle system. [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0012 (discusses components of the vehicle system being used to determine condition of the vehicle)];
Neither GRESH or DESAI specifically teach the stopping distance of the agricultural machine further based on one or more conditions of one or more components of the vehicle system but MYERS does teach this concept [see at least MYERS, ¶ 0004 (“calculate a stopping distance”); 0006 (“calculated stopping distance”); 0007 (discusses use of stopping distance in control of the vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sole agricultural machine with speed regulation for determining braking distance based on load within GRESCH to include separate autonomously driven agricultural vehicles like a grain cart within DESAI to yield an efficient grain collection system where the weight of the collection vehicle is offset to a series of carts to improve crop productivity as disclosed in DESAI, ¶ 0019 further with using the stopping distance calculations of MYERS to make the use of large agricultural equipment and provide a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Regarding claim 14:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
the maximum speed for the agricultural machine is based on one or more harvesting tasks being performed. [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0028 (discusses speed);
0037; 0039 (more on calculations on speed and control)].
Regarding claim 15:
GRESH in view of DESAI discloses the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH further discloses:
the controller is configured to provide an alert to an operator that the controlled speed of the agricultural machine is approaching the maximum speed, wherein the alert may be one or more of an audible alert and a visual indicator [see at least GRESH, ¶ 0026 (electronic control device)].
MYERS more specifically teaches an alert [see at least MYERS ¶ 0007 (“alert”); 0012 (“operator alert “); 0035 (“generate an alert”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sole agricultural machine with speed regulation for determining braking distance based on load within GRESCH to include separate autonomously driven agricultural vehicles like a grain cart within DESAI to yield an efficient grain collection system where the weight of the collection vehicle is offset to a series of carts to improve crop productivity as disclosed in DESAI, ¶ 0019 further with using the stopping distance calculations and operator alerts of MYERS to make the use of large agricultural equipment and provide a more effective, efficient, and safer work environment.
Regarding claim 16:
GRESH in view of DESAI and MYERS discloses/teaches the limitations within claim 1 and GRESH does not disclose, but DESAI teaches:
the agricultural machine is an autonomous vehicle. [see at least DESAI, ¶ 0019 ("It may be desirable to use an autonomous system that can replace inefficiencies in current crop production processes…It should be noted that although the concepts described herein are related to delivery of agricultural product from an agricultural vehicle using autonomous grain carts, the present disclosure is not limited as such, but may relate to other vehicles, such as construction vehicles, military vehicles, storage vehicles, industrial vehicles, mining vehicles, and so forth.")].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sole agricultural machine with speed regulation for determining braking distance based on load within GRESCH to be an autonomously driven agricultural vehicle such as a grain cart within DESAI to yield an efficient grain collection system where autonomous vehicles can minimize the labor necessary and error involved to run equipment as disclosed in DESAI, ¶ 0031.
Regarding claim 17:
With regards to claim 17, this independent claim is the autonomous agricultural system claim to computerized agricultural machine claim 1 and is substantially similar to claim 1 with the addition of claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
With regards to claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to claim 2 with the addition of claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
With regards to claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to claim 10 with the addition of parts of claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
With regards to claim 20, this independent claim is the autonomous agricultural system claim to computerized agricultural machine claim 1 and is substantially similar to claim 1 with the addition of claims 2, 5, 6 and 9 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Niewiadomski et al [US 20200391744]
[Field of disclosure] “a system for assisting in a vehicle-trailer hitching operation. In particular, the present disclosure relates to a system for guiding a vehicle to connect a trailer coupler.” [0004; 0072; 0074] indicates calculation of stopping distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights