DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note that in view of applicant’s amendments, the previously indicated claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments concerning the rejection(s) of the independent claims 1, 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in particular that the prior art reference US 20210003416 A1 (Wilson) fails to fairly render the claimed invention(s) obvious, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
To elaborate, albeit utilizing different wording/phrasing to describe the same (or a substantially similar) concept/functionality, Wilson at least suggests having (or optionally including) the claimed functionality via context, such that Wilson provides that the path system (12) is further configured to populate the boundaries (18) with additional points so as to render a best-fit line (19) so as to smooth the boundaries, reduce the distance between plotted boundary points, and allow the path system to plot guidance paths within the defined boundaries, and such that various tolerances/thresholds can be set accordingly based on user preference(s) to account for row width(s)/spacing, defined boundary tolerances and the like (see Fig. 3E-3F in conjunction with paragraphs, [0071], [0093]-[0095], [0099]-[0104]) [e.g., “the path system 12 is configured to populate the boundary 18 with additional points to render a best-fit line (shown generally at 19) so as to smooth the boundaries 18, reduce the distance between the plotted boundary points and allow the path system 12 to plot guidance paths within the defined boundaries 18”].
Furthermore, while applicant argues that the best-fit line(s) described in Wilson are different from the claimed best fit path(s)/subsequent paths, this does not appear to be the case, and at best, for the sake of argument that the best-fit line(s) described in Wilson are at least to some extent different from the claimed (or intended) best fit path(s)/subsequent paths, the difference would at best merely be with respect to utilizing the best-fit line(s) described in Wilson as desired for a particular application [e.g., with respect to the particular degree and/or extent that the non-straight or curved path(s) per Wilson is/are sequentially straightened], and such that there would be no exercise of inventive skill involved in arriving at the claimed invention(s) [e.g., utilizing the best-fit line(s) described in Wilson to achieve a desired degree and/or extent of the disclosed smoothing of field boundaries, reduced distance(s) between boundaries, maximized and/or optimized field coverage, minimized skips and/or overlaps between rows, precise path position(s), heading(s), and/or offset(s), etc.] (see Fig. 3E-3F in conjunction with paragraphs, [0071], [0093]-[0095], [0099]-[0104]) [e.g., further noting that applicant should consider ALL of the previously cited paragraphs, not just paragraph [0093] in a vacuum]; [e.g., merely opting to utilize different wording/phrasing to describe the same (or a substantially similar) concept/functionality pertaining to generating one or more desired or specific best-fit guidance paths is not sufficient in terms of overcoming the prior art of record, especially in consideration that Wilson provides that the initial path may be curved/non-straight or of any shape desired].
For the same (or substantially similar) reasons, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that there is a non-obvious functional distinction between the respective thresholds claimed as compared to the thresholds that are at least suggested and/or that are clearly encompassed features/aspects in view of the context per Wilson [e.g., again, merely opting to utilize different wording/phrasing to describe the same (or a substantially similar) concept/functionality/capability pertaining to generating one or more desired or specific best-fit guidance paths is not sufficient in terms of overcoming the prior art of record, especially when considering that the initial path per Wilson via which best-fit guidance may be applied is (or can be) non-straight/curved (or any desired shape)]; [e.g., the claimed invention(s) is/are at best merely with respect to utilizing the invention(s)/functionality per Wilson as desired for a particular application, and to the extent that the invention(s) per Wilson is/are clearly capable of being utilized in the manner(s) claimed]; [e.g., aside from differences in the exact wording/phrasing utilized, there is/are no meaningful nor apparent distinction(s) between the respective best fit paths and/or guidance paths (or skips, overlaps, offsets, distances, etc., between the paths) that can be generated and/or achieved by the respective inventions];
[e.g., as previously discussed per the non-final Office action, Wilson explicitly provides that the paths (or guidance paths), can be of any shape, including paths that are curved (or non-straight) or any other shape from a starting point to an ending point, and when Wilson further provides that boundaries, overlapping, spacing, etc. of the paths can be smoothed and/or accordingly optimized via using a best-fit line, it logically follows that each subsequent path after the initial non-straight path will become straighter while still maintaining the desired degree and/or extent of coverage of the field]; [e.g., continuing to apply a best-fit line to a curved (or non-straight) path while ensuring that the first and subsequent paths are parallel implies and/or at least suggests that the adjacent or subsequent paths will be sequentially straightened]; [e.g., applying a best-fit line (as per Wilson) is essentially a process of straightening by drawing a straight line that best represents the trend of a set of data points]; [e.g., opting and continuing to mow a curved path according to a best-fit line necessarily affects the amount of crowding, overlapping, gapping, etc. between passes, and as such, contrary to applicant’s assertion(s), the concept(s)/functionality described per at least the previously cited excerpts per Wilson are the same (or substantially similar), aside from the particular wording/phrasing being used to describe the concept(s)/functionality].
The above discussion(s) similarly address(es) applicant’s remarks concerning the respective dependent claims [e.g., the remarks that the dependent claims are allowable based on dependency from the respective independent claims]. See detailed rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20210003416 A1 (Wilson).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) teaches an automatic steering system (10, 12, 4) [and related methods for automatically steering the agricultural vehicle and generating agricultural guidance] (see Fig. 1A-1B in conjunction with paragraphs [0002], [0004]) comprising:
(a) an agricultural vehicle (1) configured to traverse an area [e.g., a field] (see Fig. 1A-1B in conjunction with paragraph [0006]);
(b) a processor (100) configured to generate guidance paths [e.g., 8, 8-1, 8-2, etc.] from a first non-straight path (see Fig. 1B, 2, 3F, 4C in conjunction with paragraphs [0063], [0068]-[0072], [0102], [0104]) [e.g., observe Fig. 2, noting the recitations “an A-B line (box 208) is plotted or generated” and “while the term “A-B line” is used herein to refer to a user defined starting path inputted into the system, the path data comprises offset, heading, and/or position information for the path, and can be of any shape, including paths that are straight, curved, or any other shape from a starting point (A) to an ending point (B)”]; [e.g., the disclosed curved or otherwise non-straight starting path equating and/or corresponding to the claimed first non-straight path]; [e.g., see at least two guidance paths 8-1 and 8-2 per Fig. 4C, and note the recitation “the system 10 guidance path system 12 is configured to adjust A-B guidance paths 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7, 8-8, 8-9 on each subsequent path in order to optimize the paths such that the first guidance path 8-1 path and last guidance path 8-9 path are parallel to their respective boundaries”] and
(c) the automatic steering system configured to command the agricultural vehicle to traverse the guidance paths (see Fig. 1A-1B, 2, 3F, 4C in conjunction with paragraphs [0006], [0083]-[0084]).
Wilson fails to explicitly (or expressly) teach wherein subsequent paths (or guidance paths) are (or can be) best fit paths adjacent to the first non-straight path and the best fit paths create (or can create) less than a threshold amount of non-covered area between adjacent paths.
However, Wilson at least suggests having (or optionally including) the aforementioned functionality via context, such that Wilson provides that the path system (12) is further configured to populate the boundaries (18) with additional points so as to render a best-fit line (19) so as to smooth the boundaries, reduce the distance between plotted boundary points, and allow the path system to plot guidance paths within the defined boundaries, and such that various tolerances/thresholds can be set accordingly based on user preference(s) to account for row width(s)/spacing, defined boundary tolerances and the like (see Fig. 3E-3F in conjunction with paragraphs, [0071], [0093]-[0095], [0099]-[0104]) [e.g., “the path system 12 is configured to populate the boundary 18 with additional points to render a best-fit line (shown generally at 19) so as to smooth the boundaries 18, reduce the distance between the plotted boundary points and allow the path system 12 to plot guidance paths within the defined boundaries 18”].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly have the system(s) per Wilson further configured to guide the agricultural vehicle along one or more subsequent paths according to a best-fit line, so as to accordingly smooth field boundaries, reduce the distance between plotted boundary points, and/or allow the system(s) to plot guidance paths within defined boundaries as desired (or required) for the particular application(s) (see Fig. 3E-3F in conjunction with paragraphs, [0071], [0093]-[0095], [0099]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 10 (only), firstly noting that the discussion/rationale above is similarly applicable to the subject matter of the independent claim 10, Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further teaches and/or suggests wherein adjacent or subsequent paths are (or can be) sequentially straightened, and such that a threshold gap distance with a non-covered area is (or can be) defined (see Fig. 4C in conjunction with paragraphs [0069], [0093], [0102], [0104]) [e.g., observe the threshold(s) defined at (or by) 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C, again noting that the initial/starting path can be curved or non-straight]; [e.g., note the context concerning the optional rendering of a best-fit line for the guidance paths per paragraph [0093] in conjunction with the example boundary offsets 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C]; [e.g., compare 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C of Wilson to applicant’s corresponding thresholds defined at 216, 214 per Fig. 2]; [e.g., continuing to apply a best-fit line while ensuring that the first and subsequent paths are parallel implies and/or at least suggests that the adjacent or subsequent paths will be sequentially straightened]; [e.g., applying a best-fit line (as per Wilson) is essentially a process of straightening by drawing a straight line that best represents the trend of a set of data points].
Regarding claim 19 (only), firstly noting that the discussion/rationale above is similarly applicable to the subject matter of the independent claim 19, Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further teaches and/or suggests wherein a second (or subsequent) path may have less than a threshold amount of crowding and less than a threshold amount of gap between the second path and a first non-straight path [e.g., observe the thresholds defined at (or by) 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C, again noting that the initial/starting path can be curved or non-straight], and wherein the paths may be iteratively mapped until a straight path is mapped (see Fig. 4C in conjunction with paragraphs [0067], [0069]-[0070], [0087], [0093], [0102], [0104]) [e.g., note the context concerning the optional rendering of a best-fit line for the guidance paths per paragraph [0093] in conjunction with the example boundary offsets 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C]; [e.g., compare 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C of Wilson to applicant’s corresponding thresholds defined at 216, 214 per Fig. 2]; [e.g., continuing to apply a best-fit line while ensuring that the first and subsequent paths are parallel implies and/or at least suggests that the adjacent or subsequent paths will be sequentially straightened]; [e.g., applying a best-fit line (as per Wilson) is essentially a process of straightening by drawing a straight line that best represents the trend of a set of data points]; [e.g., “the system 10 implements iterative logic to plot and/or retrieve one or more guidance paths throughout the polygonal field map as dictated by the logic of the operations system 2 and the various user boundary and/or region inputs and/or path calculations performed in accordance with the known field data parameters of the field map shape, regions and/or boundaries established or retrieved at box 202”]; [e.g., “the path system 12 can in certain implementations generate initial guidance paths 8 for display on the display 14 that can be iteratively adjusted via the various adjustments discussed herein for plotting of the guidance paths (generally at 8) eventually plotted and used by the tractor/operator on the basis of a number of factors including the non-limiting examples of overlaps and skips between swaths including the quantity and/or area of any such skips or overlaps”].
Regarding claim 2, Wilson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further teaches a display (14, 22) configured to display the guidance paths (see Fig. 1B, 3A in conjunction with paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further teaches a GNSS unit (15) (see Fig. 1B in conjunction with paragraphs [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Wilson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further teaches (at least implicitly) and/or suggests wherein the processor is configured (or configurable) to generate or implement the best fit paths based on a least square method algorithm (see paragraph [0093]) [e.g., as is readily understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, “best-fit” and “least squares” both refer to the line that minimizes the sum of squared errors between the line and data points]. Also refer to discussion regarding claims 1, 10 and 19.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 20, Wilson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further teaches wherein endpoints of individual (or non-straight) guidance path(s) is/are user defined (see paragraph [0069]). Also refer to discussion regarding claims 1, 10 and 19.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Wilson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further suggests wherein the best fit (or adjacent) paths have (or can have) less than a threshold amount of crowding of adjacent paths (see Fig. 4C in conjunction with paragraphs [0069], [0093], [0102]) [e.g., note the context concerning the optional rendering of a best-fit line for the guidance paths per paragraph [0093] in conjunction with the example boundary offsets 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C]; [e.g., compare 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C of Wilson to applicant’s corresponding thresholds defined at 216, 214 per Fig. 2]. Also refer to discussion regarding claims 1, 10 and 19.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 16, Wilson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further suggests wherein the threshold amount of crowding and a threshold amount of non-covered area (or a threshold gap distance) is/are user defined (see Fig. 4C in conjunction with paragraphs [0069], [0093]-[0095], [0102]) [e.g., note the context concerning the optional rendering of a best-fit line for the guidance paths per paragraph [0093] in conjunction with the example boundary offsets 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C]; [e.g., compare 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C of Wilson to applicant’s corresponding thresholds defined at 216, 214 per Fig. 2 and/or the described maximization of skips and/or overlaps, etc.]. Also refer to discussion regarding claims 1, 10 and 19.
Regarding claims 8, 15 and 17, Wilson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further suggests wherein the threshold amount of crowding and the threshold amount of non-covered area (or the threshold gap distance) is/are (or can be) defined by a machine learning algorithm (see Fig. 4C in conjunction with paragraphs [0069], [0093]-[0095], [0102]) [e.g., note the context concerning the optional rendering of a best-fit line for the guidance paths per paragraph [0093] in conjunction with the example boundary offsets 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C]; [e.g., “certain implementations utilize machine learning and/or other artificial intelligence techniques or algorithms to provide users with suggested paths 8 via the path system 12”]; [e.g., compare 9A, 9B per Fig. 4C of Wilson to applicant’s corresponding thresholds defined at 216, 214 per Fig. 2]. Also refer to discussion regarding claims 1, 10 and 19.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Wilson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson (Figures 1A-4E) further teaches wherein the guidance paths include heading [e.g., G1, G2] and position information (see Fig. 4C in conjunction with paragraphs [0055], [0069], [0093], [0096] [0102]) [e.g., “The system thus provides the ability to automate the plotting and adjustment of offset, heading, and/or position so as to automate and more accurately plot the location and direction of rows in a field and maximize efficiency and ease”]; [e.g., “It is appreciated that the positions of the paths 8-1, 8-2 and headings G1 and G2 are also plotted and can be adjusted”]. Also refer to discussion regarding claims 1, 10 and 19.
Pertinent Prior Art
While not relied upon per the detailed rejection above, the examiner notes the following prior art reference to further support the examiner’s assertion(s) that “as is readily understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, “best-fit” and “least squares” both refer to the line that minimizes the sum of squared errors between the line and data points”:
US 6338023 B1 (Bourgeois) [e.g., see at least column 5, lines 32-46, noting the recitation “The algorithm for the SL approach finds the best-fit line (least squares) to the previous lines' swath edge, with the constraint being that the fit must be parallel to the previous track line”].
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747