DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-16 were previously pending. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 have been amended. Claim 13 has been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 14-16 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below 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. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller” in claims 1-12 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “controller” in claims 1-12 and 14 is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Controller: [0083] The controller 180 may include a plurality of ECUs. The plurality of ECUs include, for example, the ECU 181 for speed control, the ECU 182 for steering control, the ECU 183 for implement control, the ECU 184 for self-driving control, the ECU 185 for path generation, and the ECU 186 for map generation.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “generate a first path along which the agricultural machine is to travel while performing agricultural work in any of the fields, based on information input by a user, the first path being generated on the corresponding field on the map, generate a second path connecting the plurality of fields, based on the work plan, the second path being generated on the road on the map, and connect the first path and the second path to each other after generating the first path and the second path” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. The first path is claimed as corresponding to any of the fields, but it is unclear if the first path is requiring separate unconnected paths in separate fields, or a single path in one of the fields. How can a single path be composed of multiple unconnected paths? It is also unclear if the second path directly connects to one field, two fields, or more than two fields. In later claims the second path is claimed as connecting to an entrance of a first field, connecting between fields, and connecting from an exit of a last field. In light of this and that only a single second path is being claimed it is unclear if the second path requires connection to a single field or multiple fields. This makes it difficult to ascertain the broadest reasonable interpretation. Is a single first path and a single second path being claimed? Or are there more than one first paths and second paths? The metes and bounds of the claim language are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to be referring to a single first path in one of the fields and a single second path connecting to the single first path in the field.
Claim 3 recites “wherein: the map includes information on a plurality of waiting areas for the agricultural machine to wait while the agricultural machine does not perform the agricultural work, the storage stores data indicating a correspondence between the plurality of waiting areas and the plurality of fields, and the processor is configured or programmed to generate, as the second path, a path from one of the waiting areas to a field where the agricultural work is performed firstly during a predetermined time period, paths connecting fields where the agricultural work is performed during the time period, and a path from a field where the agricultural work is lastly performed during the time period to the waiting area or another waiting area, based on the data and the work plan” and it is unclear to the examiner what is being conveyed by this limitation. First, the claim mentions “a field” and “a path” in multiple instances and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitations should be clearly labeled differently if they are intended to be different (for example, initial/intermediate/final fields and initial/intermediate/final paths). Second, how can the second path (i.e., a single path) be composed of these separate unconnected path portions? If so, how can all of these separate unconnected path portions be connected to the first path as required in claim 1? Even further, what would be the order of generating and connecting each of the path portions of the second path and the first path (since claim 1 requires that the first path and second path are connected after they are generated)? Finally, if the path from one of the waiting areas to a field is firstly performed during a predetermined time period, how is the work in the other fields also performed during the same period? The metes and bounds of the claim language are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to read --wherein: the map includes information on a plurality of waiting areas for the agricultural machine to wait while the agricultural machine does not perform the agricultural work, the storage stores data indicating a correspondence between the plurality of waiting areas and the plurality of fields, and the processor is configured or programmed to generate, as the second path, a path from one of the waiting areas to a field where the agricultural work is performed firstly during a predetermined time period, paths connecting fields where the agricultural work is performed during the time period, [[and]] or a path from a field where the agricultural work is lastly performed during the time period to the waiting area or another waiting area, based on the data and the work plan--.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the map includes positional information on a waiting area for the agricultural machine to wait while the agricultural machine does not perform agricultural work; and the processor is configured or programmed to generate a path from the waiting area to a field among the plurality of fields where agricultural work is firstly performed, based on the work plan” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. Is this the same as the second path or different from the second path? The metes and bounds of the claim language are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to read --wherein the map includes positional information on a waiting area for the agricultural machine to wait while the agricultural machine does not perform agricultural work; and the processor is configured or programmed to generate [[a]] the second path from the waiting area to a field among the plurality of fields where agricultural work is firstly performed, based on the work plan--.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the second path at least at an entrance of each of the plurality of fields in addition to on the road” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. How can the second path (i.e., a single path) be composed of these separate unconnected path portions? If so, how can all of these separate unconnected path portions be connected to the first path as required in claim 1? Even further, what would be the order of generating and connecting each of the path portions of the second path and the first path (since claim 1 requires that the first path and second path are connected after they are generated)? The metes and bounds of the claim language are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to read --wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the second path at least at an entrance of the corresponding field in addition to on the road --.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the second path at least at an exit of each of the plurality of fields in addition to on the road” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. How can the second path (i.e., a single path) be composed of these separate unconnected path portions? If so, how can all of these separate unconnected path portions be connected to the first path as required in claim 1? Even further, what would be the order of generating and connecting each of the path portions of the second path and the first path (since claim 1 requires that the first path and second path are connected after they are generated)? The metes and bounds of the claim language are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to read --wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the second path at least at an exit of the corresponding field in addition to on the road --.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine, based on the work plan, a region of each of the plurality of fields where the agricultural work has been performed, and generate the third path in a region of each of the plurality of fields that is other than the region where the agricultural work has been performed” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation in the claim. It is clear from the specification that the third path is at an entrance to the corresponding field and so the work in the corresponding field has not yet been performed. Furthermore, how can the third path (i.e., a single path) be composed of these separate unconnected path portions? The metes and bounds of the claim language are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to read --wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine, based on the work plan, a region of the corresponding field where the agricultural work will be performed, and generate the third path in a region of the corresponding field that is other than the region where the agricultural work will be performed--.
Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore is similarly rejected/interpreted.
Claim 9 recites “a controller” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear if this is the same controller or a different controller as the one introduced in claim 1. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted as the controller.
Claim 10 recites the term “difficult” and this is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted such that information indicates whether the road is able to be passed or not.
Claims 15-16 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore is similarly rejected/interpreted.
Claims 2-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase (US 2022/0264784 A1) in view of Nagashima (JP 2013-230088 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon) and Uoya (US 2018/0209799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwase discloses a control system for an agricultural machine that performs self-driving (see at least Fig. 2, [0035] - a terminal electronic control unit 52 has a travel path generation unit 52 that generates a target travel path P for causing a tractor 1 to automatically travel), the control system comprising: a storage to store a map including positional information of a plurality of fields and a road around the plurality of fields (see at least Fig. 2, [0062] - field information related to the fields each including the shape and the position of the field and the position of the entrance and exit in the field, and outside-field information related to a region outside the fields including the shape and the position of the outside-field region and a farm road connecting between the field and the field, and stores the above information in the terminal storage unit 55), and a work plan including information representing an order of tasks of agricultural work to be performed by the agricultural machine, fields where the tasks are to be performed (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0064-0068] – select operation regions S1 to S3 (fields)… selecting in what operation order of the operation regions S1 to S3 operation is to be performed); a processor configured or programmed to generate a path for the agricultural machine on the map (see at least Fig. 2, [0036] – travel path generation unit 54) and a controller configured or programmed to cause the agricultural machine to travel along the path generated by the processor (see at least Fig. 2, [0028, 0037] – on-board ECU 18 can cause the tractor 1 to automatically travel along the target travel path P); wherein the processor is configured or programmed to: generate a first path along which the agricultural machine is to travel while performing agricultural work in any of the fields, based on information input by a user, the first path being generated on the corresponding field on the map (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0065-0072] – a user can select the operation region S where operation is to be performed… and travel path generation unit 54 generations operation paths P1 within regions S), generate a second path connecting the plurality of fields, based on the work plan, the second path being generated on the road on the map (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0068-0072] – according to the order of operation regions S1 to S3 with operation paths P1 and movement paths P2, the travel path generation unit 54 generates the movement paths P2 on farm road N), and connect the first path and the second path to each other after generating the first path and the second path (see at least Figs. 5, 14-15, [0068-0072, 0094-0096] – movement paths P2 on farm road N connect to operation paths P1 in operation regions S… if the entry direction C3 of the tractor 1 is different from the possible entry direction C1 at the entrance/exit B, the entry and exit direction is corrected).
Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose the work plan including date and time when each task is to be performed.
Nagashima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a work plan including information representing an order of tasks of agricultural work to be performed by the agricultural machine, fields where the tasks are to be performed, and date and time when each task is to be performed (see at least [0026] – The farm work plan generation unit 512 generates long-term and short-term production plans for crops, farm work plans for each farm, and the like. The agricultural work plan includes various agricultural tasks such as the date and time of plowing, the seeds to be cultivated, the date and time of weed removal, the date and time of spraying pesticides, the date and time of spreading fertilizer, the date and time of watering, the date and time of harvesting crops, the date and time of applying pollen, the date and time of applying pest repellent and rain protection, and post-harvest processing such as threshing and washing of crops. The plan is set up including the farm where the agricultural work will be performed and the points and work areas where the agricultural work will be performed within the farm. This plan is input and updated as needed by an operator at the management center 50 via the input device 504 and output device 503 using dedicated software for schedule management. In addition, the farm work plan generation unit 512 may automatically prompt the operator to input or change the plan to support the operator's work. In addition, if some automatic program for planning has been created, the farm work plan generation unit 512 may be configured to automatically generate part of the farm work plan in accordance with the automatic program.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Nagashima into the invention of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to improve and automate agricultural production efficiency (Nagashima – [0026, 0233, 0228]). In order to facilitate autonomous operation of the agricultural machine, it is necessary to set/identify all of the details of the work plan otherwise the agricultural machine cannot operate to perform the desired tasks at the desired locations and time autonomously. This modification could be implemented to yield predictable results.
Uoya, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: connect the first path and the second path to each other after generating the first path and the second path (see at least Fig. 1, [0016, 0021-0024] – the straight route is designated by the symbol SL, the U-turn route is designated by the symbol TL, the inside travel route is designated by the symbol IL, the round travel route is designated by the symbol CL, the entry route is designated by the symbol ML1, and the exit route is designated by the symbol ML2… straight line determination unit 622 determines reference straight lines that extend in parallel with a reference side of the field and fill the central area at predetermined intervals… the inside route determination unit 623 sets the reference straight lines in the central area to the straight route, and connects each straight route with the U-turn route to generate the continuous inside travel route… then, the entry and exit route determination unit 624 determines the entry route, which enters from the farm road to the field through the entrance and connects with the inside travel route, and the exit route, which connects with the round travel route and exits to the farm road from the field through the entrance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Uoya into the invention of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of smoothly connecting the entrance with the travel route by an entry route, which avoids large steering angles of the work vehicle that can devastate the worked ground (Uoya – [0024, 0043]). Selecting the order in which the segments of the route are generated requires only routine skill in the art because it is a mere rearrangement of the order in which are generated. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since Iwase teaches correcting the entry/exit path after generating the road path and the field path, this would reasonably be considered or suggest connecting first and second paths after they are generated. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since Uoya teaches generating each of the paths separately and then connecting them, this would reasonably be considered or suggest connecting various paths after they are generated. Implementing this modification would yield predictable results, as it would not negatively impact the function of the agricultural operations. Doing so would also allow for minor adjustments or corrections to be made to the route connecting the road to the field once the vehicle reaches the entry/exit of the field based on the actual shape/configuration of the entry/exit to ensure safe entry and exit.
Regarding claim 2, Iwase discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to: operate in an in-field path generation mode to generate the first path (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0036] – travel path generation unit 54 generates an operation path P1 within region S) and an out-of-field path generation mode to generate the second path (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0036] – travel path generation unit 54 generates a movement path P2 connecting operation regions S along the road N); generate the first path in the in-field path generation mode in accordance with a first path generation algorithm (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0069] – the travel path generation unit 54 generates the operation path P1 as a reciprocal path for reciprocating along the operation direction included in the input information and performing operation, but for example, the operation paths P1 can be a circling path for circling in accordance with the shape of the periphery of the operation region S, and the shape of the path can be changed as appropriate); and generate the second path in the out-of-field path generation mode in accordance with a second path generation algorithm different from the first path generation algorithm (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0070] – the travel path generation unit 54 generates, as the movement path P2, for example, a path obtained by combining a plurality of linear paths to connect an end edge of the operation path P1 in the operation region S where operation is to be first performed to a start edge of the operation path P1 in the operation region S where operation is to be next performed through a farm road N and the like outside the operation regions S).
Regarding claim 3, Iwase discloses the processor is configured or programmed to generate, as the second path, a path to a field where the agricultural work is performed firstly during a predetermined time period, paths connecting fields where the agricultural work is performed during the time period, and a path from a field where the agricultural work is lastly performed during the time period, based on the data and the work plan (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0068-0072] – according to the order of operation regions S1 to S3 with operation paths P1 and movement paths P2, the travel path generation unit 54 generates the movement paths P2 on farm road N).
Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the map includes information on a plurality of waiting areas for the agricultural machine to wait while the agricultural machine does not perform the agricultural work, the storage stores data indicating a correspondence between the plurality of waiting areas and the plurality of fields, and the processor is configured or programmed to generate, as the second path, a path from one of the waiting areas to a field where the agricultural work is performed firstly during a predetermined time period, and a path from a field where the agricultural work is lastly performed during the time period to the waiting area or another waiting area, based on the data and the work plan.
Nagashima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein: the map includes information on a plurality of waiting areas for the agricultural machine to wait while the agricultural machine does not perform the agricultural work (see at least Figs. 10, 13, 16, [0074, 0077, 0093, 0107, 0110-0111] – each farmland 950 is provided with at least one warehouse 9… automatic agricultural machinery 25 is stored in a warehouse 9 and departs from the warehouse 9 to move to each farm according to the movement route data 211… also provided is a center warehouse 959), the storage stores data indicating a correspondence between the plurality of waiting areas and the plurality of fields (see at least Figs. 10, 13, 16, [0074, 0077, 0093, 0107] – each farmland 950 is provided with at least one warehouse 9… automatic agricultural machinery 25 is stored in a warehouse 9 and departs from the warehouse 9 to move to each farm according to the movement route data 211… also provided is a center warehouse 959), and the processor is configured or programmed to generate, as the second path, a path from one of the waiting areas to a field where the agricultural work is performed firstly during a predetermined time period (see at least Figs. 10, 13, 16, [0074, 0077, 0093, 0107] – each farmland 950 is provided with at least one warehouse 9… automatic agricultural machinery 25 is stored in a warehouse 9 and departs from the warehouse 9 to move to each farm according to the movement route data 211), and a path from a field where the agricultural work is lastly performed during the time period to the waiting area or another waiting area, based on the data and the work plan (see at least Figs. 10, 13, 16, [0039, 0074, 0077, 0093, 0110-0011] – when not in use, the automatic agricultural machine 25 is stored in the warehouse 9 or other storage facility… withdraws the automatic agricultural machinery 25 currently in use and evacuates them to a designated warehouse 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Nagashima into the invention of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing locations to safely and securely store the agricultural machines when they are not in use to protect them from weather and theft.
Regarding claim 4, Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the map includes positional information on a waiting area for the agricultural machine to wait while the agricultural machine does not perform agricultural work; and the processor is configured or programmed to generate a path from the waiting area to a field among the plurality of fields where agricultural work is firstly performed, based on the work plan.
Nagashima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the map includes positional information on a waiting area for the agricultural machine to wait while the agricultural machine does not perform agricultural work (see at least Figs. 10, 13, 16, [0074, 0077, 0093, 0107, 0110-0111] – each farmland 950 is provided with at least one warehouse 9… automatic agricultural machinery 25 is stored in a warehouse 9 and departs from the warehouse 9 to move to each farm according to the movement route data 211… also provided is a center warehouse 959); and the processor is configured or programmed to generate a path from the waiting area to a field among the plurality of fields where agricultural work is firstly performed, based on the work plan (see at least Figs. 10, 13, 16, [0026, 0074, 0077, 0093, 0107] – agricultural work plan… each farmland 950 is provided with at least one warehouse 9… automatic agricultural machinery 25 is stored in a warehouse 9 and departs from the warehouse 9 to move to each farm according to the movement route data 211).
The motivation to combine Iwase and Nagashima is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Iwase discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the second path at least at an entrance of each of the plurality of fields in addition to on the road (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0068-0072] – portion of movement path P2 along the direction of farm road N).
Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose generate a third path connecting the second path generated at the entrance and a beginning point of the first path to each other.
Uoya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: generate a third path connecting the second path generated at the entrance and a beginning point of the first path to each other (see at least Fig. 1, [0016] – entry route ML1 as shown).
The motivation to combine Iwase and Ouya is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Iwase discloses wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the second path at least at an exit of each of the plurality of fields in addition to on the road (see at least Figs. 5, 14, [0068-0072] – portion of movement path P2 along the direction of farm road N).
Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose generate a fourth path connecting the second path generated at the exit and an ending point of the first path to each other.
Uoya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: generate a fourth path connecting the second path generated at the exit and an ending point of the first path to each other (see at least Fig. 1, [0026] – exit route ML2 as shown).
The motivation to combine Iwase and Ouya is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine, based on the work plan, a region of each of the plurality of fields where the agricultural work has been performed, and generate the third path in a region of each of the plurality of fields field that is other than the region where the agricultural work has been performed.
Uoya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine, based on the work plan, a region of each of the plurality of fields where the agricultural work has been performed, and generate the third path in a region of each of the plurality of fields field that is other than the region where the agricultural work has been performed (see at least Fig. 1, [0016, 0020, 0022] – entry route ML1 as shown in the outer peripheral area of the field… work plan).
The motivation to combine Iwase and Ouya is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine, based on the work plan, a region of each of the plurality of fields where the agricultural work has been performed, and generate the fourth path is generated in a region of each of the plurality of fields field that is other than the region where the agricultural work has been performed.
Uoya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine, based on the work plan, a region of each of the plurality of fields where the agricultural work has been performed, and generate the fourth path is generated in a region of each of the plurality of fields field that is other than the region where the agricultural work has been performed (see at least Fig. 1, [0016, 0020, 0024] – exit route ML2 as shown in the outer peripheral area of the field… field work is performed in the central area… work plan).
The motivation to combine Iwase and Ouya is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Iwase discloses an agricultural machine, comprising: the control system of claim 1; and a sensor to sense an environment around the agricultural machine (see at least Fig. 2, [0080] – LiDAR sensors 101, 102, sonar units 103, 105, cameras 105, 106 for detecting obstacles).
Regarding claims 15-16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 15-16 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 15-16 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Nagashima, Uoya, and Fischer (US 2009/0079839 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein while the agricultural machine is traveling along the second path generated by the processor, the processor is configured or programmed to repeat an operation of generating a local path which is defined by a plurality of waypoints along a portion of the second path and along which an obstacle is avoidable, based on sensing data acquired by a sensor included in the agricultural machine, and output information representing the local path to a controller controlling the travel of the agricultural machine.
Fischer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein while the machine is traveling along the second path generated by the processor, the processor is configured or programmed to repeat an operation of generating a local path which is defined by a plurality of waypoints along a portion of the second path and along which an obstacle is avoidable, based on sensing data acquired by a sensor included in the machine, and output information representing the local path to a controller controlling the travel of the machine (see at least [0124, 0142-0146, 0152] - vehicle control system 100 is configured to drive vehicle 102 to successive waypoints while trying to stay on the preferred path as much as possible while still avoiding any obstacles that may present themselves… the route may be defined in terms of a series of waypoints that define a path along the ground, a path boundary, and/or speed constraints for each section of the path. In an exemplary embodiment, path planning module 200 provides reactive path corrections to this nominal path to account for current conditions, such as vehicle dynamic limits, obstacles (positive obstacles such as large rocks, trees, etc. and negative obstacles such as road edges, drop-offs, and cliffs), terrain grade, and so forth… path planning module 200 performs a path analysis each time a waypoint is reached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Fischer into the invention of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reevaluating the path when the vehicle encounters a situation that prevents the vehicle from continuing on the original path so that the vehicle does not get into an unsafe condition (Fischer – [0146, 0152]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Nagashima, Uoya, and Morwood (US 2019/0302783 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured or programmed to recognize at least one of a structural body around the agricultural machine, a state of the road on which the agricultural machine is traveling, or a state of plants around the agricultural machine, based on sensing data acquired by a sensor included in the agricultural machine, reflect at least one of the recognized structural body or the recognized stat on the map, and based on the at least one of the recognized structural body or the recognized state, add, on a road on the map, attribute information indicating that the road is difficult to pass along.
Morwood, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor is configured or programmed to recognize at least one of a structural body around the agricultural machine, a state of the road on which the agricultural machine is traveling, or a state of plants around the agricultural machine, based on sensing data acquired by a sensor included in the agricultural machine, reflect at least one of the recognized structural body or the recognized stat on the map, and based on the at least one of the recognized structural body or the recognized state, add, on a road on the map, attribute information indicating that the road is difficult to pass along (see at least [0035] - The received map may not include every obstacle that is present in the work area, or obstacles may move in the work area. Thus, the sensor assembly scans the path ahead of the work vehicle for obstacles that may be present in the work area. The sensor assembly sends a signal to the controller which may determine an obstacle is present in the work area that is not present in the map, or the obstacle is not where the map shows the obstacle. The controller may then update the map to include the new or moved obstacle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Morwood into the invention of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing an updated map with sufficient details to allow for autonomous operation (Morwood – [0002, 0035]). Updating the map with obstacles provides the most accuracy to enable safe autonomous traveling.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Nagashima, Uoya, and Edwards (US 2021/0164790 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured or programmed to recognize at least one of a state of the road on which the agricultural machine is traveling and a state of plants around the agricultural machine based on sensing data acquired by a sensor included in the agricultural machine, reflect the recognized state on the map, and when the recognized state fulfills a predetermined condition, change the second path.
Edwards, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor is configured or programmed to recognize at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) a state of the road on which the machine is traveling and a state of plants around the machine based on sensing data acquired by a sensor included in the machine, reflect the recognized state on the map (see at least [0014-0020] - various detected roads and/or the various detected road impediments may be categorized into various categories and used to update the map data associated with the area 100), and when the recognized state fulfills a predetermined condition, change the second path (see at least [0020-0023, 0033] – determine whether the road is not drivable… vehicle 302 may be autonomous and driven by self-maneuvering and navigating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Edwards into the invention of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing for safer and more efficient driving by updating information regarding roads (Edwards – [0011]). Updating the map and navigation according to obstacles provides the most accuracy to enable safe autonomous traveling.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Nagashima, Uoya, Hayashi (US 2009/0005976 A1) and Laur (US 2017/0074667 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Iwase does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured or programmed to: generate a plurality of maps in accordance with seasons each including different attribute information on growing state of plants or on whether or not it is possible to pass along roads, store the maps in the storage, extract a map, corresponding to a season when the agricultural machine is to perform the agricultural work, from the plurality of maps, and generate the first path and the second based on the extracted map.
Hayashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: generate a plurality of maps in accordance with seasons each including different attribute information on growing state of plants or on whether or not it is possible to pass along roads, store the maps in the storage, extract a map, corresponding to a season when the machine is to operate, from the plurality of maps (see at least [0022, 0063-0069, 0072] – a plurality of guide map data used for a plurality of guide maps… different guide map according to the season at the time when the vehicle passes through a guide point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hayashi into the invention of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a guide map which is easy for the driver to compare with a forward view which the driver is actually seeing, thereby improving the visibility of the guide map so the driver can easily select the traveling direction in which he or she desires to travel toward his or her destination (Hayashi – [0002, 0038]). Generating multiple maps for use in navigating or display according to the season would yield predictable results.
Laur, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the processor is configured or programmed to extract a map, corresponding to a season when the machine is to perform the work, and generate the first path and the second based on the extracted map (see at least [0002, 0009, 0013] - The system 10 described herein overcomes the problems of seasonal closures of roadways or selected travel-lanes of a roadway described above by considering during what calendar dates that a roadway or travel-lane of a roadway are expected to be closed… In this example the entirety of the roadway 30 is closed during the predetermined-event, e.g. winter-time when seasonally-reoccurring weather conditions that make the roadway 20 unsafe for travel or impassable are expected. This scenario is common in mountainous areas where high-elevation mountain passes are closed during the winter-time and alternate longer routes at lower elevations should be selected by the system 10.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Laur into the invention of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing indicating seasonal travel-lane closures or seasonal roadway closures for an automated vehicle (Laur – [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669