Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception—an abstract idea comprising mental processes and mathematical concepts—without additional elements sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception.
Each claim has been evaluated as a whole under its broadest reasonable interpretation. The analysis also accounts for the disjunctive “or” limitations. Because an “or” limitation does not require both alternatives, the claims are evaluated according to what they actually require across their scope, without importing a physically controlling embodiment from the specification or from a nonrequired alternative.
Step 1: Statutory Categories
Claims 1 and 4–7 are system claims and fall within the machine category. Claims 8 and 11–14 are process claims. Claims 15 and 18–20 recite non-transitory computer-readable media and therefore fall within the manufacture category.
Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the subject-matter-eligibility analysis.
Step 2A, Prong One: Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
detecting a machine detection boundary and a crop detection boundary;
determining a distance between the detected boundaries;
determining or using a lateral error corresponding to that distance; and
controlling a control system or UI based on the lateral error.
These limitations recite a mental process because, under the pixel-distance alternative, a person can practically perform the underlying evaluation by visually examining an image, identifying the respective object boundaries, counting or comparing the pixels separating them, and evaluating the resulting lateral relationship. The fact that the claims place these operations on processing circuitry does not remove them from the mental-process grouping when the claimed evaluation itself can practically be performed by human observation and calculation. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claims also recite a mathematical concept because determining a distance between two spatial coordinates and deriving a corresponding lateral error require a mathematical relationship or calculation. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163–67 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The alternative recitation of “a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud” does not avoid the exception. Because the alternatives are disjunctive, the claims encompass the pixel-distance implementation and do not require point-cloud processing. Furthermore, the point-cloud alternative itself broadly recites determining a distance between data points without specifying an improved point-cloud structure, processing architecture, or distance-determination technique.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 further recite generating a UI notification based on the lateral error, with the notification indicating a steering-angle or speed adjustment. These limitations concern presenting the result of the preceding evaluation and do not require performing the indicated adjustment.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19 add receiving perception data from a vehicle-mounted sensor, specifying the sensor’s field of view or placement, and performing the boundary detection using values of the perception data. These limitations supply the data on which the abstract evaluation operates.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 further recite receiving location information, determining an intrusion distance, and generating a geospatial map from the location and distance. These limitations add collection of location data, another spatial calculation, and generation of informational map content.
Thus, claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: No Integration Into a Practical Application
The claims, considered as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1, 8, and 15
The final limitation of each independent claim requires controlling “a control system or a user interface (UI)” based on the lateral error. Because this limitation is disjunctive, the claims encompass controlling only the UI. They do not require changing the machine’s steering angle, speed, trajectory, propulsion, or any other physical operating state.
Controlling a generic UI to present or otherwise communicate the result of the boundary and distance analysis constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354.
The alternative of controlling a “control system” does not cure the deficiency. The independent claims do not identify what the control system controls or require it to cause a physical change in the machine. Merely directing that the result be used by an unspecified control system is no more than a generalized instruction to apply the abstract idea in a machine environment. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Although the specification may describe embodiments that steer or change the speed of the machine, those unclaimed operations cannot be imported into the independent claims. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are materially broader than the physically controlling embodiments.
Claims 4, 11, and 18
These claims require a notification “indicating an adjustment” of steering angle or speed. Indicating an adjustment is not the same as making the adjustment. The claims require only presentation of recommended or calculated control information.
Accordingly, the notification remains informational output following the abstract calculation. Neither alternative—indicating a steering adjustment or indicating a speed adjustment—requires physical control of the machine.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19
The perception-sensor limitations specify the source and acquisition of the data used in the abstract analysis. Obtaining image or perception data from a sensor before analyzing the data constitutes data-gathering activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355.
Attaching the sensor to the machine, directing its field of view toward a crop row, or placing it on the underside or toward the rear does not, as claimed, change how the sensor, processor, image data, or boundary-detection algorithm operates. Nor do the claims recite a particular image-processing technique that improves computer vision or perception-sensor operation. The limitations identify the data source and observation location but do not require using the result to physically control the machine.
The claims therefore differ from claims that recite a specific technological improvement to image processing, such as rules producing an improved technical result rather than merely using a computer to perform the result-oriented analysis. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313–16 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 7, 14, and 20
These claims receive geographic-location data, calculate the distance by which a support structure has entered a crop row, and generate a geospatial map. They do not require using the generated map to change a route, steer the machine, reduce its speed, avoid a mapped location, or perform another physical operation.
Generating a map from calculated and collected data is the creation of informational content. Limiting that information to the agricultural-machine environment is a field-of-use limitation and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §§2106.05(g)–(h); BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287–88 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 are directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A.
Step 2B: No Inventive Concept
The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims additionally recite generic processing circuitry, a generic control system, a generic UI, conventional perception sensors, conventional positioning systems, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These elements perform their ordinary functions:
processing circuitry performs the recited detection and calculations;
the UI outputs information;
the perception sensor acquires perception data;
the positioning system supplies location information;
the computer-readable medium stores instructions; and
the control system generically receives or uses the calculated result.
The record demonstrates that these elements and functions were well-understood, routine, and conventional in agricultural guidance systems before the effective filing date. For example:
Schleicher discloses processors, distance-measuring logic, steering-control logic, UI mechanisms, camera-based sensors, and a GPS receiver used in an agricultural-machine guidance system. Schleicher [0025], [0027]–[0028], [0039] and [0049].
Adamchuk discloses a vehicle-mounted camera, processors, crop-image segmentation, lateral-offset determination, and a display used for agricultural guidance. Adamchuk [0025]–[0028], [0041] and [0050].
Benson discloses conventional pixel-based agricultural image processing, detection of image transitions, and calculation of pixel-coordinate separation. Benson, col. 5, ll. 24–39.
Kellum discloses a conventional GPS unit and generation or updating of map data using crop-relative vehicle information. Kellum [0008], [0014]–[0016] and [0025].
These references are cited as factual evidence of conventionality, not as a substitution of the §102 or §103 analysis for the required §101 inquiry.
Nor does the ordered combination provide an inventive concept. The claims use conventional sensors to acquire data, generic circuitry to perform the abstract analysis, and a generic UI or map to present or store the result. Each element performs the same ordinary function it performs separately. Restricting these conventional operations to an agricultural machine and crop-row environment does not supply significantly more than the exception.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 do not recite an inventive concept and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Eligible Claims
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are not included in this rejection.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 require generating a control signal to control either:
the steering angle of the machine; or
the speed of the machine.
Both sides of the disjunctive limitation require physical control of machine operation. Thus, unlike the “control system or UI” alternatives of the independent claims, neither alternative permits merely displaying or storing the calculated result.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 more specifically require generating a control signal to control the machine’s speed based on the lateral error.
These limitations apply the calculated lateral error to a particular machine operation and produce a physical change in machine steering or speed. The exception is therefore integrated into a practical application, analogous to using a calculation to control an industrial process rather than merely reporting the calculation. See MPEP §2106.04(d); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981).
The §101 eligibility of claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 does not establish novelty or nonobviousness under §§102 and 103.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Schleicher et al. (US 2020/0100422 A1) in view of Adamchuk et al. (US 2017/0006759 A1), and further in view of Benson et al. (US 6,721,453 B1).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Schleicher et al. (US 2020/0100422 A1) in view of Adamchuk et al. (US 2017/0006759 A1), further in view of Benson et al. (US 6,721,453 B1), and further in view of Kellum (US 2013/0289817 A1).
This structure accounts for all pending claims:
Schleicher is the primary reference for the agricultural-machine guidance architecture, wheel-to-crop sensing, lateral-offset determination, steering and speed control, UI, perception sensors, and rear-camera configuration.
Adamchuk supplies the crop-image segmentation and crop-row localization teachings.
Benson supplies the pixel-coordinate transition and pixel-distance calculation teachings.
Kellum additionally supplies the GPS-associated storage and geospatial-map teachings required by claims 7, 14, and 20.
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
A system, comprising
See at least:
“FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing one example of portions of steerable agricultural machine 100 in more detail.” (Schleicher, [0023])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses an agricultural-machine system containing sensors, processors, distance-measuring logic, steering-control logic, steering mechanisms, propulsion components, and user-interface mechanisms.
a control system or a user interface (UI),
See at least:
“FIG. 2 shows that steering control system 132 can include signal conditioning logic 172, and automatic steering controller 174.” (Schleicher, [0025])
“Machine 100 can also include user interface logic 208 and user interface mechanisms 210.” (Schleicher, [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses both recited alternatives. Steering control system 132 is a control system, while user-interface logic 208 and user-interface mechanisms 210 constitute a UI.
and processing circuitry
See at least:
“Automatic steering controller 174 can include one or more processors 176, wheel selector logic 178, distance measuring logic 180, steering angle identifier logic 182, steering control signal generator logic 184, system enabling logic 186, and it can include a wide variety of other items 188.” (Schleicher, [0025])
Rationale: Processors 176 and the associated distance-measuring, steering-angle-identification, and control-signal-generation logic constitute processing circuitry.
configured to cause the system to
See at least:
“Automatic steering controller 174 can include one or more processors 176, wheel selector logic 178, distance measuring logic 180, steering angle identifier logic 182, steering control signal generator logic 184, system enabling logic 186.” (Schleicher, [0025])
Rationale: Schleicher assigns specific sensing, distance-measurement, steering-angle-identification, and control functions to its processors and associated logic. The processing circuitry is therefore configured to cause the system to perform the subsequently mapped functions.
detect a machine detection boundary
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors. This is indicated by block 270. The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured and image analysis can be performed to determine where a row is relative to the wheels.” (Schleicher, [0039])
“With a wide enough field of view, the camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels (and the other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels). Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher, [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher does not expressly use the term “machine detection boundary” or describe a particular wheel-edge-detection algorithm. Schleicher nevertheless captures an image containing the wheel and determines an image-based distance extending from the wheel to the crop row. A PHOSITA implementing that express teaching would have found it obvious to identify the crop-facing extent or edge of the imaged wheel as the wheel-side endpoint of the distance measurement. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation stated above, that detected wheel edge constitutes the machine detection boundary. This limitation is reached through a PHOSITA-obvious implementation of Schleicher, rather than an assertion of express disclosure or inherency.
the machine detection boundary being of a support structure of a machine,
See at least:
“Machine 100 includes a frame 112 with front wheels 114 and 116 steerably coupled to the frame 112 and supported by a front axle 118. It also includes rear wheels 120 and 122 steerably coupled to frame 112 and supported by a rear axle 124.” (Schleicher, [0013])
Rationale: Schleicher’s wheels are ground-engaging structures coupled to the machine frame that support and move the machine. Moreover, the applicant’s specification expressly identifies a wheel as an example of the claimed support structure. Accordingly, the wheel edge identified in Schleicher’s image is a boundary of a support structure of the machine.
determine a first distance between the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary,
See at least:
“Distance measuring logic 180 generates a distance metric indicative of a distance represented by the selected sensor signal. For instance, the sensor signal may be an analog signal representative of the distance between the selected wheel or set of wheels and the corresponding crop row.” (Schleicher, [0031])
“Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher, [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly determines an image-based distance between a wheel and an adjacent crop row. Schleicher does not expressly characterize the measurement endpoints as detection boundaries. In the combined system, however, the crop-facing edge of the wheel provides the machine-side endpoint and the wheel-facing edge of the segmented crop row provides the crop-side endpoint. Schleicher’s disclosed wheel-to-row distance therefore functionally becomes the first distance between the two detection boundaries.
and control the control system or the UI
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 then generates control signals to control the vehicle based upon the steering angles identified.” (Schleicher, [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher controls front steering mechanism 168 or rear steering mechanism 170 through steering control system 132. Those steering mechanisms form part of Schleicher’s control system. Because the claim is disjunctive, controlling the control-system alternative is sufficient.
based on a lateral error corresponding to the first distance.
See at least:
“The distance metric value that represents the sensed distance between wheel 114 and crop row 108 can be combined with a distance metric that represents the sensed distance between wheel 116 and crop row 102. For example, those two metrics can be subtracted from one another. The result of this combination will provide a value indicative of an offset of the set of wheels 114 and 116 in either direction.” (Schleicher, [0032])
“The distances between the left and right front wheels and the corresponding rows, may be combined (such as subtracted from one another) to obtain an offset value. This offset value will indicate whether the machine is tracking closer to one row than the other. The steering angle can be generated to move the vehicle back toward a more central position between the two rows.” (Schleicher, [0043])
Rationale: Schleicher’s offset value represents the lateral displacement of the machine from a centered position between crop rows and therefore constitutes a lateral error. The offset corresponds to the first distance because Schleicher calculates it from the wheel-to-row distance values. Schleicher then uses the offset to generate the corrective steering angle.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose:
and a crop detection boundary,
and the crop detection boundary being of a row of plant material,
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud,
Disclosure by Adamchuk
Adamchuk discloses or renders obvious:
and a crop detection boundary,
See at least:
“By taking a continuous video feed of the crops passing beneath the vehicle 10, the lateral offset of the crop row can be determined by segmenting the plants from the soil using a dynamic band-pass HSV filter. The location of the row can then be estimated based on the statistical distribution of plants in the direction of travel 11.” (Adamchuk, [0027])
Rationale: Adamchuk does not expressly use the term “crop detection boundary.” Adamchuk expressly segments plant material from soil and determines the spatial location of the resulting crop row. Segmentation produces a transition between the crop-classified region and the surrounding non-crop region. When Adamchuk’s segmentation is used to perform Schleicher’s wheel-to-row distance measurement, a PHOSITA would have selected the crop-region transition facing the imaged wheel as the crop-side measurement endpoint. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation stated above, that transition constitutes the crop detection boundary.
and the crop detection boundary being of a row of plant material,
See at least:
“Such information (data and/or images) of the field characteristics may include, but is not limited to, images of the segmentation of crops from weeds and the soil, stage of crop growth, and the lateral offset of the rows of crops.” (Adamchuk, [0026])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s segmented image region expressly represents crops arranged in crop rows. The spatial transition defining the extent of that segmented crop region is therefore a boundary of a row of plant material.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher and Adamchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher and Adamchuk before them, to implement Schleicher’s camera-based wheel-to-row distance determination using Adamchuk’s HSV-based segmentation to distinguish crop plants from soil and weeds and determine the spatial location of the crop row.
Schleicher expressly captures an image containing the wheels and crop rows and performs image analysis to determine the distance between them, but Schleicher does not describe the particular computer-vision operation used to distinguish the crop edge from surrounding soil and weeds. Adamchuk supplies a known and technically compatible agricultural-image-segmentation technique for identifying the crop region. Applying Adamchuk’s segmentation in Schleicher would predictably provide the wheel-facing transition of the crop row needed to perform Schleicher’s disclosed wheel-to-row measurement and would improve the reliability of crop-row localization under varying field conditions.
In the resulting system, Schleicher’s crop-facing wheel edge serves as the machine detection boundary, while the wheel-facing transition of the crop region segmented according to Adamchuk serves as the crop detection boundary. The combined system therefore detects both boundaries in the perception image before determining the distance between them.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher and Adamchuk
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud,
Disclosure by Benson
Benson discloses or renders obvious:
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud,
See at least:
“Image processor 32 determines the locations of the transitions in first scanline 48 between classes. Image processor 32 further identifies a set of data segments 64 in scanline 48, calculates the length of each segment 64, and determines a longest segment 66 containing a center point 68 corresponding to pixel 31 in this particular example.” (Benson, col. 5, ll. 24–31)
“In particular, the length of segments 64 are calculated according to the following formula:(l=(X_{ij}-X_{(i-1)j})),where (l) is the distance between the transitions, (x) is the column location of the transition, (j) is the row index and (i) is an index of transitions within the row.” (Benson, col. 5, ll. 31–39)
“Where (w) is the weight in the regression for a given transition, ImageWidth is the maximum width of the image in pixels, (X_j) is the previously calculated center point, (d) is the distance in pixels between the expected and actual transition.” (Benson, col. 6, ll. 18–23)
Rationale: Benson does not expressly disclose determining the distance between a machine boundary and a crop boundary. Benson’s express contribution is the image-coordinate measurement technique: it identifies agricultural-image transitions by their pixel-column locations and calculates the separation between transition locations. Benson’s segment length (l) is obtained by subtracting the column locations of two detected transitions, and Benson separately confirms that displacement between image-transition locations is expressed as a distance in pixels. When Benson’s known pixel-coordinate subtraction is applied to the crop-facing wheel edge supplied by Schleicher and the wheel-facing crop-row transition obtained using Adamchuk, the resulting first distance is a pixel distance. Because the claim recites the pixel-distance and point-cloud-distance alternatives disjunctively, the pixel-distance alternative is sufficient.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to calculate the separation between the crop-facing wheel edge and the wheel-facing crop-row edge using Benson’s pixel-transition-location and pixel-coordinate-subtraction technique.
Schleicher already captures an image containing the wheels and adjacent crop rows and requires image processing to determine the distance between them. Adamchuk provides a compatible technique for segmenting the crop region and identifying its spatial location. Benson provides a known technique for representing detected agricultural-image transitions by pixel-column locations and calculating the separation between those locations.
Applying Benson’s technique to the two image endpoints required by Schleicher would have been the predictable use of a known digital-image measurement technique in a similar agricultural machine-vision system. The combination would predictably express Schleicher’s disclosed wheel-to-row separation as a pixel distance and allow that distance to be supplied to Schleicher’s existing lateral-offset and steering-control logic.
Regarding Claim 2
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the system of claim 1, which is the basis for claim 2.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
wherein the system comprises the control system,
See at least:
“Steering control system 132 can include signal conditioning logic 172, and automatic steering controller 174. Automatic steering controller 174 can include one or more processors 176, wheel selector logic 178, distance measuring logic 180, steering angle identifier logic 182, steering control signal generator logic 184, system enabling logic 186, and it can include a wide variety of other items 188.” (Schleicher [0025])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses steering control system 132 as part of agricultural machine 100. The control system contains processors and control logic that determine the wheel-to-row relationship and control operation of the machine.
the control system including:
See at least:
“Steering control system 132 can include signal conditioning logic 172, and automatic steering controller 174.” (Schleicher [0025])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly identifies the components included in steering control system 132.
a steering mechanism
See at least:
“Thus, FIG. 2 also shows that each set of steerable wheel(s)/axle has a corresponding steering mechanism. For instance, the front steerable wheel(s)/axle 160 has a front steering mechanism 168 that can be used to steer the front steerable wheels or axle. The rear steerable wheel(s)/axle 162 have a corresponding rear steering mechanism 170 that can be used to steer the rear steerable wheels or axle.” (Schleicher [0024])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses front steering mechanism 168 and rear steering mechanism 170.
configured to control a steering angle of the machine,
See at least:
“Steering control system 132 can automatically generate or identify a steering angle for the front wheels 114 and 116, and a steering angle for the rear wheels 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0019])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses that the steering control system determines and applies steering angles to the agricultural machine’s steerable wheels. Controlling the wheel steering angles controls the steering angle and travel direction of the machine.
or a speed control mechanism
See at least:
“As shown in FIG. 2, machine 100 also illustratively includes propulsion system 206 that drives the travel of machine 100. Propulsion system 206, for instance, can include an engine and a transmission that drives rotation of wheels 114, 116, 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses propulsion system 206, including an engine and transmission. This is a speed-control mechanism because its operation determines the driven rotation and travel speed of the machine.
configured to control a speed of the machine;
See at least:
“It may generate a speed control signal 290 that is provided to propulsion system 206 to control the travel speed of the machine 100.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses providing a speed-control signal to the propulsion system to control the machine’s travel speed.
and the processing circuitry is configured to generate a control signal
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 then generates control signals to control the vehicle based upon the steering angles identified.” (Schleicher [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses processors 176 and steering-control-signal-generator logic 184 generating control signals. These components constitute processing circuitry under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
to control the steering angle or the speed
See at least:
“It illustratively generates a front steering control signal that is provided to front steering mechanism 168 in order to steer the front wheels.... It can also generate a rear steering control signal that is provided to rear steering mechanism 170 that is used to control steering of the rear wheels....” (Schleicher [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses control signals supplied to the steering mechanisms to implement the identified steering angles. Schleicher additionally discloses a speed-control signal supplied to propulsion system 206 in paragraph [0045]. Because the claim recites the steering-angle and speed alternatives disjunctively, Schleicher’s express steering-angle implementation is independently sufficient.
based on the lateral error.
See at least:
“For example, the distances between the left and right front wheels and the corresponding rows, may be combined (such as subtracted from one another) to obtain an offset value. This offset value will indicate whether the machine is tracking closer to one row than the other. The steering angle can be generated to move the vehicle back toward a more central position between the two rows.” (Schleicher [0043])
Rationale: Schleicher’s offset value functionally corresponds to the claimed lateral error: it represents the machine’s lateral displacement from a desired position between the crop rows. Schleicher expressly uses that offset to determine the corrective steering angle, after which the corresponding control signal is generated. Thus, the steering control signal is based on the lateral error through the disclosed offset-to-steering-angle-to-control-signal processing chain.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to implement Schleicher’s agricultural-machine control system using Adamchuk’s crop-image segmentation to identify the crop-side detection boundary and Benson’s pixel-coordinate transition and separation technique to determine the claimed pixel distance, while retaining Schleicher’s steering mechanism, propulsion system, and control-signal generation responsive to the resulting lateral offset. The references address complementary aspects of agricultural machine guidance, and their combination would have predictably provided image-based determination of the machine-to-crop relationship followed by Schleicher’s known steering or speed response.
Regarding Claim 3
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the system of claim 2, which is the basis for claim 3.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
wherein the control system comprises the speed control mechanism;
See at least:
“As shown in FIG. 2, machine 100 also illustratively includes propulsion system 206 that drives the travel of machine 100. Propulsion system 206, for instance, can include an engine and a transmission that drives rotation of wheels 114, 116, 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses propulsion system 206 within the disclosed machine-control architecture. The propulsion system constitutes the speed-control mechanism because it includes the engine and transmission responsible for driving the machine.
and the processing circuitry is configured to generate a control signal
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 can also generate other control signals when performing automated steering control. For instance, it may generate a speed control signal 290....” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses control-signal-generator logic generating speed-control signal 290. In conjunction with processors 176 disclosed in paragraph [0025], this constitutes processing circuitry configured to generate the recited control signal.
to control the speed
See at least:
“It may generate a speed control signal 290 that is provided to propulsion system 206 to control the travel speed of the machine 100.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly states that speed-control signal 290 controls the machine’s travel speed through propulsion system 206.
based on the lateral error.
See at least:
“Again, the speed of the machine 100 may be controlled to a higher or lower speed, based upon the particular steering control signals that are generated.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: This relationship is implicit and, alternatively, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. Schleicher determines an offset representing whether the machine is laterally closer to one crop row than another, uses that offset to determine the steering response, and generates steering-control signals from that response ( [0043]–[0044]). Paragraph [0045] then controls machine speed based on those steering-control signals. Accordingly, Schleicher functionally links speed control to the lateral offset through the steering-control signal generated from that offset. A PHOSITA would have recognized that reducing or otherwise adjusting travel speed as the required lateral correction increases predictably improves steering stability, response time, and crop protection. This is not an assertion that paragraph [0045] uses the words “lateral error”; it is a reasoned conclusion based on Schleicher’s disclosed control chain.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to implement Schleicher’s agricultural-machine guidance system using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance technique, and to use Schleicher’s speed-control signal to adjust machine speed in accordance with the steering response generated from the detected lateral offset. The modification would have predictably coordinated machine speed with the magnitude or nature of the required lateral correction, improving controllability and reducing the risk of the machine entering or damaging the crop row.
Regarding Claim 4
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the system of claim 1, which is the basis for claim 4.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
Wherein the system comprises the Ul
See at least:
“Machine 100 can also include user interface logic 208 and user interface mechanisms 210.... User interface mechanisms 210 can include output mechanisms, such as a display, a haptic output mechanism, an audio output mechanism, etc.” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Reading “Ul” as “UI” in view of claim 1, Schleicher expressly discloses user-interface logic 208 and user-interface mechanisms 210, including visual, haptic, and audio output mechanisms.
and the processing circuitry is configured to generate a control signal
See at least:
“User interface logic 208 can be used to generate outputs on the output mechanisms, and to sense inputs on the input mechanisms.” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses user-interface logic that generates outputs on user-interface output mechanisms. Implementing the disclosed output through an electronic display, haptic device, or audio device necessarily involves an output-control signal generated by the associated processing and interface circuitry.
to control the Ul
See at least:
“User interface logic 208 can be used to generate outputs on the output mechanisms....” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses controlling the user-interface output mechanisms through user-interface logic 208.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
to output a notification
based on the lateral error,
the notification indicating an adjustment of a steering angle of the machine or a speed of the machine
Disclosure by Adamchuk
Adamchuk discloses:
to output a notification
See at least:
“The display unit 50 can show the deviation 55 from the center line in real time, by measuring the lateral distance between the vehicle travel line 57 and center line 59.” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s displayed deviation is a visual notification communicating the machine’s lateral deviation to the operator.
based on the lateral error,
See at least:
“If the vehicle travel line 57 veers towards or is to the left/right of the dark lines of the leftmost and rightmost extremities 58, a course correction may be required to return the vehicle to within the accepted lateral offset range 56.” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: Adamchuk expressly bases the displayed information and course-correction indication on the vehicle’s lateral deviation from the accepted crop-row offset range. That deviation functionally corresponds to the claimed lateral error.
the notification indicating an adjustment of a steering angle of the machine or a speed of the machine
See at least:
“Upon receiving information about a deviation in the lateral offset of the rows of crops, for example, the motor 34 may react by rotating the central hub 15 of the steering wheel 13 clockwise or counter-clockwise a calculated angular amount required to appropriately correct the course of the vehicle 10.” (Adamchuk [0041])
“If the vehicle travel line 57 veers towards or is to the left/right of the dark lines of the leftmost and rightmost extremities 58, a course correction may be required....” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s display informs the operator that a course correction is required, while paragraph [0041] explains that the corresponding correction is accomplished by rotating the steering wheel through a calculated angular amount. A PHOSITA would therefore have understood the displayed course-correction indication as indicating an adjustment of the machine’s steering angle. The mapping does not rely merely on the word “correction”; the displayed deviation identifies the direction and need for the same steering-angle adjustment that Adamchuk’s control system performs.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to implement Schleicher’s user-interface output mechanisms to display Adamchuk’s real-time lateral-deviation and course-correction notification, using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance calculation to supply the image-derived lateral information. Schleicher expressly provides a display-capable user interface, while Adamchuk teaches presenting the operator with the lateral deviation and need for a steering correction. Using Schleicher’s known display for Adamchuk’s known guidance information would have been a predictable use of an available output mechanism to improve operator awareness and machine control.
Regarding Claim 5
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the system of claim 1, which is the basis for claim 5.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
further comprising:
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses that the agricultural machine further includes optical or camera-based row-distance sensors.
a perception sensor
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: An optical or camera-based sensor that observes the wheels and crop rows is a perception sensor because it senses the machine’s surrounding physical environment and produces optical information describing that environment.
configured to generate perception data,
See at least:
“The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured....” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses that the optical sensors capture optical data and images. Those images constitute perception data because they represent the observed machine and crop-row environment.
the perception sensor being attached to the machine,
See at least:
“When they are optical sensors, they may be mounted to a frame of machine 100.” (Schleicher [0041])
Rationale: A sensor mounted to the machine’s frame is attached to the machine.
and a field of view of the perception sensor including the row of plant material,
See at least:
“With a wide enough field of view, the camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels (and the other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels). Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher’s camera images include both the machine wheels and adjacent crop rows. Accordingly, the camera’s field of view necessarily includes the row of plant material whose position is used to determine the wheel-to-row distance.
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the machine detection boundary
See at least:
“With a wide enough field of view, the camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels.... Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher does not expressly use the term “machine detection boundary.” Nevertheless, detecting or localizing the crop-facing image extent of a depicted wheel would have been an obvious image-processing implementation because the distance identified in paragraph [0049] extends between the wheel and the adjacent crop row. A pixel-domain distance cannot be determined without selecting a machine-side image location corresponding to the wheel. The crop-facing wheel edge therefore provides the machine detection boundary. The application itself identifies a wheel as an example of the claimed support structure, so this interpretation is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not expressly disclose the following limitations using the claimed boundary terminology and crop-segmentation implementation:
and the crop detection boundary
based on values of the perception data.
Disclosure by Adamchuk
Adamchuk discloses:
and the crop detection boundary
See at least:
“By taking a continuous video feed of the crops passing beneath the vehicle 10, the lateral offset of the crop row can be determined by segmenting the plants from the soil using a dynamic band-pass HSV filter. The location of the row can then be estimated based on the statistical distribution of plants in the direction of travel 11.” (Adamchuk [0027])
Rationale: Adamchuk does not use the words “crop detection boundary,” but expressly segments crop plants from surrounding soil and determines the crop-row location. Once the plants are segmented from the soil, the transition between the plant-classified image region and the soil-classified image region defines a detected spatial edge or boundary of the crop row. Using that segmented crop edge as the crop-side endpoint for Schleicher’s wheel-to-row distance would have been a straightforward and predictable use of Adamchuk’s segmentation result.
based on values of the perception data.
See at least:
“The processor of the control system 26 runs an algorithm which analyses the visual feed data to, for example, segment the crops from the soil and weeds, and identify the lateral offset of the rows of crops.” (Adamchuk [0041])
Rationale: Adamchuk expressly performs the segmentation and lateral-offset determination from visual-feed data. Digital visual-feed data consist of image values representing the sensed scene. Thus, the detected crop-side boundary is based on values of the perception data. In the proposed combination, the same image values also provide the depicted wheel edge used as the machine-side boundary.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to process the perception data generated by Schleicher’s machine-mounted camera using Adamchuk’s crop-versus-soil segmentation to identify the crop-side boundary and Benson’s pixel-transition and pixel-separation techniques to represent the wheel-side and crop-side image locations and determine their separation. Schleicher expressly seeks the image-derived distance between a depicted wheel and an adjacent crop row; Adamchuk supplies a known agricultural computer-vision technique for locating the crop row from image data; and Benson supplies a known technique for locating image transitions and calculating their separation in pixels. The combination would predictably determine the desired machine-to-crop distance from the values of the camera-generated perception data.
Regarding Claim 6
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the system of claim 5, which is the basis for claim 6.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
wherein the field of view of the perception sensor is toward a rear of the machine.
See at least:
“In that scenario, a single camera may be mounted on the front of the machine and a single camera may be mounted on the rear of the machine to detect the desired distances.” (Schleicher [0041])
“With a wide enough field of view, the camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels (and the other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels). Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses a rear-mounted camera whose field of view captures both rear wheels for determining their distances from adjacent crop rows. Although Schleicher does not expressly use the directional phrase “toward a rear of the machine,” orienting the rear-mounted camera’s field of view toward the rear-wheel and adjacent-crop region would have been obvious to a PHOSITA because that is the scene the camera must observe to perform Schleicher’s stated rear-wheel-to-row measurement. Such orientation is a predictable camera-placement choice dictated by the subject to be imaged, rather than a new operating principle.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to orient Schleicher’s rear-mounted perception camera so that its field of view is directed toward the rear portion of the machine containing the rear wheels and adjacent crop rows, and to process the resulting image using Adamchuk’s crop-segmentation technique and Benson’s pixel-coordinate transition and separation technique. Schleicher expressly identifies the rear wheels and adjacent crop rows as the intended imaging subjects. Directing the camera toward those subjects would have been a routine and predictable orientation necessary to obtain the rear machine-to-crop image information used by the combined guidance system.
Regarding Claim 8,
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher teaches:
A method, comprising
See at least:
“FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating one example of the operation of machine 100 in performing automated steering control.” (Schleicher, [0034])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches a method for sensing wheel-to-row distances, generating distance values, identifying offset and steering-angle information, and automatically controlling an agricultural machine.
detecting a machine detection boundary
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors. This is indicated by block 270. The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured and image analysis can be performed to determine where a row is relative to the wheels.” (Schleicher, [0039])
“The camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels (and the other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels). Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher, [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher does not expressly identify a “machine detection boundary.” It nevertheless teaches capturing the wheel in the image and determining a distance extending from the imaged wheel to the crop row. A PHOSITA implementing that image-distance operation would have found it obvious to identify the crop-facing edge of the wheel as the wheel-side measurement endpoint. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that detected edge constitutes the machine detection boundary.
the machine detection boundary being of a support structure of a machine,
See at least:
“Machine 100 includes a frame 112 with front wheels 114 and 116 steerably coupled to the frame 112 and supported by a front axle 118. It also includes rear wheels 120 and 122 steerably coupled to frame 112 and supported by a rear axle 124.” (Schleicher, [0013])
Rationale: Schleicher’s wheel is a ground-engaging structure that supports and moves the machine. The applicant’s specification also expressly identifies a wheel as a support structure. Accordingly, the detected wheel edge is a boundary of a support structure of the machine.
determining a first distance between the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary,
See at least:
“Distance measuring logic 180 generates a distance metric indicative of a distance represented by the selected sensor signal. For instance, the sensor signal may be an analog signal representative of the distance between the selected wheel or set of wheels and the corresponding crop row.” (Schleicher, [0031])
“Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher, [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches determining an image-based wheel-to-crop-row distance. Once the crop-facing wheel edge and wheel-facing crop-row edge are identified according to the combined teachings, Schleicher’s wheel-to-row measurement functionally determines the first distance between the two detection boundaries.
and controlling a control system or a user interface (UI)
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 then generates control signals to control the vehicle based upon the steering angles identified.” (Schleicher, [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches controlling the machine’s steering mechanism through steering control system 132. Because the limitation is disjunctive, the control-system alternative is sufficient.
based on a lateral error corresponding to the first distance.
See at least:
“The distance metric value that represents the sensed distance between wheel 114 and crop row 108 can be combined with a distance metric that represents the sensed distance between wheel 116 and crop row 102. For example, those two metrics can be subtracted from one another. The result of this combination will provide a value indicative of an offset of the set of wheels 114 and 116 in either direction.” (Schleicher, [0032])
“This offset value will indicate whether the machine is tracking closer to one row than the other. The steering angle can be generated to move the vehicle back toward a more central position between the two rows.” (Schleicher, [0043])
Rationale: Schleicher’s offset represents lateral displacement from the centered travel position and therefore constitutes a lateral error. It corresponds to the first distance because it is calculated from the wheel-to-row distance metrics and is used to determine corrective steering.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly teach:
and a crop detection boundary,
and the crop detection boundary being of a row of plant material:
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud;
Disclosure by Adamchuk
Adamchuk teaches or renders obvious:
and a crop detection boundary,
See at least:
“By taking a continuous video feed of the crops passing beneath the vehicle 10, the lateral offset of the crop row can be determined by segmenting the plants from the soil using a dynamic band-pass HSV filter. The location of the row can then be estimated based on the statistical distribution of plants in the direction of travel 11.” (Adamchuk, [0027])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s segmentation separates a crop-classified image region from the surrounding soil-classified region. A PHOSITA applying that segmentation to Schleicher’s wheel-to-row measurement would have used the crop-region transition facing the wheel as the crop-side endpoint. That transition functionally constitutes the crop detection boundary.
and the crop detection boundary being of a row of plant material:
See at least:
“Such information (data and/or images) of the field characteristics may include, but is not limited to, images of the segmentation of crops from weeds and the soil, stage of crop growth, and the lateral offset of the rows of crops.” (Adamchuk, [0026])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s segmented region expressly represents crops arranged in rows. The spatial transition defining that region is therefore a boundary of a row of plant material.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher and Adamchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher and Adamchuk before them, to use Adamchuk’s HSV crop-segmentation and row-location technique when performing Schleicher’s image-based wheel-to-crop-row measurement.
Schleicher captures an image containing both the wheel and crop row and determines their relative distance but does not describe a particular routine for distinguishing the crop edge. Adamchuk supplies a compatible agricultural-image-segmentation technique that separates crop plants from soil and weeds. Applying Adamchuk’s segmentation would predictably identify the wheel-facing crop-row transition necessary for Schleicher’s measurement and improve crop-row localization reliability.
In the resulting method, the crop-facing wheel edge identified from Schleicher’s image is the machine detection boundary, and the wheel-facing transition of the crop region segmented according to Adamchuk is the crop detection boundary. The combined method therefore detects both boundaries before determining the distance between them.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher and Adamchuk
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud;
Disclosure by Benson
Benson teaches or renders obvious:
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud;
See at least:
“Image processor 32 determines the locations of the transitions in first scanline 48 between classes.” (Benson, col. 5, ll. 24–26)
“In particular, the length of segments 64 are calculated according to the following formula:(l=(X_{ij}-X_{(i-1)j})),where (l) is the distance between the transitions, (x) is the column location of the transition.” (Benson, col. 5, ll. 31–39)
“(d) is the distance in pixels between the expected and actual transition.” (Benson, col. 6, ll. 18–23)
Rationale: Benson teaches locating agricultural-image transitions in pixel columns and calculating the separation between transition locations through pixel-coordinate subtraction. Applying that known measurement technique to the detected wheel edge and crop-row edge of the Schleicher-Adamchuk method produces the first distance as a pixel distance. Because the claim recites alternatives, the point-cloud-distance alternative need not also be established.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to determine the separation between the detected wheel edge and crop-row edge by subtracting their respective pixel-column positions according to Benson’s agricultural-image transition-measurement technique.
The modification applies a known pixel-coordinate measurement technique to the two image endpoints already required by Schleicher and Adamchuk. It would predictably produce a pixel-distance value suitable for use by Schleicher’s existing lateral-offset and steering-control process.
Regarding Claim 9
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the method of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher teaches:
wherein the control system includes
See at least:
“Steering control system 132 can include signal conditioning logic 172, and automatic steering controller 174.” (Schleicher [0025])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches a control system containing the components used to perform automated control.
a steering mechanism
See at least:
“The front steerable wheel(s)/axle 160 has a front steering mechanism 168.... The rear steerable wheel(s)/axle 162 have a corresponding rear steering mechanism 170....” (Schleicher [0024])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches front and rear steering mechanisms.
configured to control a steering angle of the machine,
See at least:
“Steering control system 132 can automatically generate or identify a steering angle for the front wheels 114 and 116, and a steering angle for the rear wheels 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0019])
Rationale: Schleicher’s steering mechanisms implement identified wheel angles that determine the machine’s steering direction.
or a speed control mechanism
See at least:
“Propulsion system 206, for instance, can include an engine and a transmission that drives rotation of wheels 114, 116, 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Propulsion system 206 is a speed-control mechanism because its engine and transmission control the driven travel of the machine.
configured to control a speed of the machine;
See at least:
“It may generate a speed control signal 290 that is provided to propulsion system 206 to control the travel speed of the machine 100.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches controlling machine speed through propulsion system 206.
and the controlling controls the control system
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 then generates control signals to control the vehicle based upon the steering angles identified.” (Schleicher [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches performing control through steering control system 132 and its steering-control-signal-generator logic.
based on the lateral error
See at least:
“This offset value will indicate whether the machine is tracking closer to one row than the other. The steering angle can be generated to move the vehicle back toward a more central position between the two rows.” (Schleicher [0043])
Rationale: Schleicher’s steering control is based on the lateral offset from the desired central position, which functionally constitutes the lateral error.
including generating a control signal
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 then generates control signals to control the vehicle....” (Schleicher [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly generates control signals.
to control the steering angle or the speed.
See at least:
“It illustratively generates a front steering control signal that is provided to front steering mechanism 168 in order to steer the front wheels....” (Schleicher [0044])
Rationale: The control signal controls the steering mechanism according to the steering angle derived from the lateral offset. Schleicher also teaches a speed-control signal in paragraph [0045]. Because the claim is disjunctive, the express steering-angle implementation is independently sufficient.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to use Schleicher’s steering or speed-control mechanism and associated control-signal generation to respond to the lateral error obtained using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance technique. The combination retains Schleicher’s disclosed control architecture while improving the image-based determination that supplies its lateral-offset input, producing the predictable result of steering or controlling the speed of the machine according to its measured lateral relationship with the crop row.
Regarding Claim 10
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the method of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher teaches:
wherein the control system includes the speed control mechanism;
See at least:
“Propulsion system 206, for instance, can include an engine and a transmission that drives rotation of wheels 114, 116, 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher’s propulsion system is the speed-control mechanism responsible for controlling driven travel of the machine.
and the controlling controls the control system
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 can also generate other control signals when performing automated steering control.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches controlling machine operation through the automatic steering controller and its signal-generator logic.
based on the lateral error
See at least:
“Again, the speed of the machine 100 may be controlled to a higher or lower speed, based upon the particular steering control signals that are generated.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: This relationship is implicit and alternatively would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. Schleicher derives the steering response and steering-control signals from the lateral offset identified in paragraph [0043], and then controls speed based on those steering-control signals. The speed control is therefore functionally based on the lateral error through the disclosed offset-to-steering-response-to-speed-control chain. A PHOSITA also would have recognized that adjusting speed according to the required lateral correction predictably improves steering stability and provides additional time to prevent crop contact.
including generating a control signal
See at least:
“It may generate a speed control signal 290....” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches generating speed-control signal 290.
to control the speed.
See at least:
“It may generate a speed control signal 290 that is provided to propulsion system 206 to control the travel speed of the machine 100.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches that speed-control signal 290 controls the machine’s travel speed.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to use Schleicher’s speed-control signal to control the machine’s speed according to the steering response produced from the lateral error determined using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance measurement. Coordinating speed with the required lateral correction would have predictably improved machine controllability and reduced the likelihood of crop damage during significant corrective maneuvers.
Regarding Claim 11
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the method of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher teaches:
wherein the controlling controls the UI
See at least:
“User interface logic 208 can be used to generate outputs on the output mechanisms....” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches controlling display, haptic, or audio output mechanisms through user-interface logic 208.
including generating a control signal
See at least:
“User interface logic 208 can be used to generate outputs on the output mechanisms....” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Generating an electronic output on Schleicher’s display, haptic mechanism, or audio mechanism necessarily requires the user-interface logic to generate an output-control signal. This is implicit in the disclosed electronic output functionality.
to cause the Ul
See at least:
“Machine 100 can also include user interface logic 208 and user interface mechanisms 210....” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: “UI,” consistent with the express antecedent “user interface (UI)” in Claim 8. Schleicher teaches causing its UI mechanisms to generate outputs.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly teach:
to output a notification
based on the lateral error,
the notification indicating an adjustment of a steering angle of the machine or a speed of the machine.
Disclosure by Adamchuk
Adamchuk teaches:
to output a notification
See at least:
“The display unit 50 can show the deviation 55 from the center line in real time, by measuring the lateral distance between the vehicle travel line 57 and center line 59.” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: Displaying the real-time lateral deviation visually notifies the operator of the machine’s position relative to the desired course.
based on the lateral error,
See at least:
“If the vehicle travel line 57 veers towards or is to the left/right of the dark lines of the leftmost and rightmost extremities 58, a course correction may be required....” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: The displayed course-correction information is based on the vehicle’s lateral deviation from the accepted offset range. That deviation functionally constitutes the lateral error.
the notification indicating an adjustment of a steering angle of the machine or a speed of the machine.
See at least:
“Upon receiving information about a deviation in the lateral offset of the rows of crops, for example, the motor 34 may react by rotating the central hub 15 of the steering wheel 13 clockwise or counter-clockwise a calculated angular amount required to appropriately correct the course of the vehicle 10.” (Adamchuk [0041])
“If the vehicle travel line 57 veers towards or is to the left/right of the dark lines of the leftmost and rightmost extremities 58, a course correction may be required....” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s display indicates that a course correction is required, and paragraph [0041] explains that the correction is implemented by rotating the steering wheel through a calculated angular amount. A PHOSITA would therefore have understood the notification as indicating a steering-angle adjustment, not merely displaying unrelated positional information.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to use Schleicher’s UI output mechanisms to display Adamchuk’s real-time lateral-deviation and course-correction notification based on the lateral error obtained using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance technique. Schleicher supplies the display-capable interface, Adamchuk teaches the specific operator guidance to be displayed, and Benson supplies the pixel-distance technique used in establishing the underlying lateral relationship. The combination would predictably improve operator awareness and permit timely steering correction.
Regarding Claim 12
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the method of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Teaching by Schleicher
Schleicher teaches:
further comprising:
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches further operations performed using optical or camera-based perception sensors.
receiving perception data
See at least:
“The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured....” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches capturing optical data and images representing the locations of the machine wheels and crop rows. Those images constitute perception data because they represent the environment observed by the sensor.
from a perception sensor
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher’s camera-based sensor is a perception sensor because it optically observes the machine and its surrounding crop-row environment and generates image data describing that environment.
a field of view of the perception sensor
See at least:
“With a wide enough field of view, the camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels (and the other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels).” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches that the camera has a field of view selected to image relevant portions of the machine.
including the row of plant material.
See at least:
“Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: The camera image must include the adjacent crop rows because Schleicher processes that image to identify distances between the depicted wheels and crop rows. Thus, the camera’s field of view includes a row of plant material.
wherein the detecting includes detecting the machine detection boundary
See at least:
“With a wide enough field of view, the camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels.... Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher does not expressly use the words “machine detection boundary.” Nevertheless, determining an image-derived distance from a depicted wheel requires selecting a machine-side image location corresponding to the wheel. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to detect the crop-facing edge of the wheel because that edge defines the relevant endpoint for the shortest wheel-to-crop distance. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that detected wheel edge is the machine detection boundary.
and the crop detection boundary
See at least:
“The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured and image analysis can be performed to determine where a row is relative to the wheels.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher does not expressly use the words “crop detection boundary.” However, determining where the crop row is relative to a wheel requires locating the crop within the image. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use the crop-facing edge of the detected crop region as the crop-side distance endpoint because that edge identifies where the crop row begins relative to the wheel.
based on values of the perception data.
See at least:
“The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured and image analysis can be performed....” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher’s detection and relative-position determination are performed by analyzing the captured image data. Digital image data consist of pixel values representing the sensed scene. Accordingly, detection of the wheel-side and crop-side image locations is based on values of the perception data. This relationship is express as to use of the image data and implicit as to its conventional pixel-value representation.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly teach:
attached to an underside of the machine.
Teaching by Adamchuk
Adamchuk teaches or renders obvious:
attached to an underside of the machine.
See at least:
“If it is desired to collect information on field characteristics such as stage of crop growth or the lateral offset of the rows of crops, the video camera of the optical imaging device 22 can be mounted to the vehicle 10 and/or positioned relative thereto such as to be in line with a crop row, in order to obtain a video stream of the crops passing beneath the vehicle 10....” (Adamchuk [0026])
Rationale: Adamchuk expressly mounts the camera to the agricultural vehicle and positions it to obtain a video stream of crops passing beneath the vehicle. Adamchuk does not expressly state that the camera housing is attached to the underside. Nevertheless, attaching the downward-looking camera to the underside would have been an obvious placement because it provides a direct and substantially unobstructed view of the crop row passing beneath the vehicle, reduces obstruction by the vehicle body, and places the camera closer to the wheel-and-crop region being measured. This is a predictable selection from the finite conventional mounting locations available for a vehicle-mounted camera intended to image objects beneath the vehicle.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to mount Schleicher’s camera-based perception sensor on the underside of the agricultural machine and orient it to capture the crop row passing beneath the machine, as suggested by Adamchuk, while processing the resulting perception-data values using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance technique. Schleicher seeks an image containing the machine wheels and adjacent crop rows; Adamchuk teaches positioning a vehicle-mounted camera to view crops passing beneath the vehicle; and Benson supplies a known pixel-domain technique for identifying image transitions and their separation. The underside placement would predictably provide the field of view needed to detect the machine-side and crop-side image boundaries while reducing obstruction of the relevant wheel-to-crop scene.
Regarding Claim 13
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the method of Claim 12, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Teaching by Schleicher
Schleicher teaches:
wherein the field of view of the perception sensor is toward a rear of the machine.
See at least:
“In that scenario, a single camera may be mounted on the front of the machine and a single camera may be mounted on the rear of the machine to detect the desired distances.” (Schleicher [0041])
“With a wide enough field of view, the camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels (and the other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels).” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches a rear-mounted camera whose imaging function is to capture the rear wheels for determining their distances from adjacent crop rows. Schleicher does not expressly use the directional phrase “toward a rear of the machine.” Nevertheless, orienting the camera’s field of view toward the rear portion containing the rear wheels and adjacent crop rows would have been obvious because that is the scene Schleicher requires the camera to capture. Such orientation is dictated by the intended imaging subject and produces the predictable rear-wheel-to-crop view.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to orient the underside-mounted perception sensor established for Claim 12 toward the rear portion of the machine so that its field of view captures the rear wheels and adjacent crop row, as expressly contemplated by Schleicher, and to process the captured data using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance calculation. The rearward orientation would have predictably allowed the control system to detect and correct rear-machine encroachment into the crop row, particularly where the rear of the machine shifts laterally relative to the front.
Regarding Claim 19
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 19.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
wherein the method further comprises:
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher discloses additional processor-performed operations involving camera-generated perception data.
receiving perception data
See at least:
“The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured....” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses capturing and processing optical image data. The processing circuitry necessarily receives that image data for image analysis.
from a perception sensor
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher’s camera-based sensor is a perception sensor because it observes the machine and surrounding crop-row environment and generates image data representing that environment.
a field of view of the perception sensor
See at least:
“With a wide enough field of view, the camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels (and the other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels).” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly describes the camera’s field of view and the machine structures captured within it.
being toward a rear of the machine,
See at least:
“A single camera may be mounted on the front of the machine and a single camera may be mounted on the rear of the machine to detect the desired distances.” (Schleicher [0041])
“The other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels.” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches a camera associated with the rear of the machine and configured to image both rear wheels. Although Schleicher does not use the exact directional phrase, orienting that camera’s field of view toward the rear-wheel region would have been obvious because the rear wheels and adjacent crop rows are the intended imaging subjects.
the field of view including the row of plant material,
See at least:
“Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: The rear-camera image necessarily includes the adjacent crop rows because Schleicher uses that image to identify distances between the rear wheels and those crop rows.
and the detecting including detecting the machine detection boundary
See at least:
“The other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels. Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher does not expressly identify a “machine detection boundary.” However, image-based measurement from a depicted rear wheel requires localization of a rear-wheel image position. A PHOSITA would have used the crop-facing edge of the rear wheel because it is the relevant machine-side endpoint for determining the wheel-to-crop distance. That detected edge is the claimed machine detection boundary under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
and the crop detection boundary
See at least:
“Images can be captured and image analysis can be performed to determine where a row is relative to the wheels.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher’s determination of where a crop row is relative to a wheel requires locating the crop row within the image. It would have been obvious to identify the crop-facing transition or edge of the crop region as the crop-side measurement endpoint.
based on values of the perception data.
See at least:
“The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured and image analysis can be performed....” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher performs the location and distance analysis from the captured optical image data. Digital images conventionally consist of pixel values; accordingly, the boundary detection is based on values of the perception data. This is express as to use of image data and implicit as to the conventional pixel-value representation.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose:
attached to an underside of the machine.
Disclosure by Adamchuk
Adamchuk discloses or renders obvious:
attached to an underside of the machine.
See at least:
“The video camera of the optical imaging device 22 can be mounted to the vehicle 10 and/or positioned relative thereto such as to be in line with a crop row, in order to obtain a video stream of the crops passing beneath the vehicle 10....” (Adamchuk [0026])
Rationale: Adamchuk expressly mounts the camera to the agricultural vehicle and positions it to image crops passing beneath the vehicle. Although Adamchuk does not expressly state “underside,” attaching the rearward-looking camera to the underside would have been an obvious mounting choice because it provides a direct view of the rear support structure and crop row beneath or immediately adjacent to the vehicle, avoids obstruction by the vehicle body, and places the sensor close to the region whose boundary separation is being measured. This would have been a predictable placement of a known vehicle-mounted camera for its intended imaging function.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to store and execute instructions that receive perception data from a camera mounted on the underside and oriented toward the rear of Schleicher’s agricultural machine, as suggested by Adamchuk’s teaching of positioning a vehicle-mounted camera to image crops passing beneath the vehicle, and to process the resulting image values using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate transition and distance techniques. Schleicher expressly seeks rear-wheel-to-crop distances from a rear-camera image. The underside, rearward orientation would predictably provide an unobstructed view of the rear wheel boundary and adjacent crop boundary, allowing the stored instructions to detect both boundaries and determine their spatial relationship for rear-machine guidance.
Regarding Claim 15,
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses or renders obvious:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method,
See at least:
“The systems, components and/or logic can be comprised of hardware items (such as processors and associated memory, or other processing components) that perform the functions associated with those systems, components and/or logic. In addition, the systems, components and/or logic can be comprised of software that is loaded into a memory and is subsequently executed by a processor or server, or other computing component.” (Schleicher, [0052])
“In one embodiment, the processors and servers include computer processors with associated memory and timing circuitry.” (Schleicher, [0053])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses software loaded into processor-associated memory and subsequently executed by a processor to perform the disclosed functions. Schleicher does not expressly characterize the memory as a “non-transitory computer-readable medium.” Nevertheless, storing Schleicher’s executable software in conventional non-transitory processor-accessible memory would have been an ordinary and predictable implementation of Schleicher’s stored-program system. This portion of the mapping is based on PHOSITA obviousness rather than express disclosure.
the method comprising:
See at least:
“FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating one example of the operation of machine 100 in performing automated steering control.” (Schleicher, [0034])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches an ordered processor-performed method involving sensing, distance-value generation, offset and steering-angle determination, and automatic vehicle control.
detecting a machine detection boundary
See at least:
“The row distance sensors 164 and 166 can also be optical sensors, or camera-based sensors. This is indicated by block 270. The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels.” (Schleicher, [0039])
“The camera can capture an image that shows both front wheels (and the other camera can capture an image that shows both rear wheels). Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher, [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher does not expressly identify a machine detection boundary. A PHOSITA implementing Schleicher’s image-based wheel-to-row distance operation would have found it obvious to identify the crop-facing edge of the wheel as the wheel-side measurement endpoint. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that detected edge constitutes the machine detection boundary.
the machine detection boundary being of a support structure of a machine,
See at least:
“Machine 100 includes a frame 112 with front wheels 114 and 116 steerably coupled to the frame 112 and supported by a front axle 118. It also includes rear wheels 120 and 122 steerably coupled to frame 112 and supported by a rear axle 124.” (Schleicher, [0013])
Rationale: Schleicher’s wheel is a ground-engaging structure that supports and moves the machine. The applicant’s specification also expressly identifies a wheel as an example of the claimed support structure. The detected wheel edge therefore is a boundary of a support structure of the machine.
determining a first distance between the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary,
See at least:
“Distance measuring logic 180 generates a distance metric indicative of a distance represented by the selected sensor signal. For instance, the sensor signal may be an analog signal representative of the distance between the selected wheel or set of wheels and the corresponding crop row.” (Schleicher, [0031])
“Image processing is performed to identify the desired distances between the wheels and adjacent crop rows.” (Schleicher, [0049])
Rationale: Schleicher’s processor-executed image-processing logic determines the distance from an imaged wheel to an adjacent crop row. When the crop-facing wheel edge and wheel-facing crop-row edge are identified according to the combined teachings, Schleicher’s operation functionally determines the claimed first distance between the two boundaries.
and controlling a control system or a user interface (UI)
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 then generates control signals to control the vehicle based upon the steering angles identified.” (Schleicher, [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher’s processing logic controls the steering mechanisms through steering control system 132. The control-system alternative satisfies the disjunctive limitation.
based on a lateral error corresponding to the first distance.
See at least:
“The distance metric value that represents the sensed distance between wheel 114 and crop row 108 can be combined with a distance metric that represents the sensed distance between wheel 116 and crop row 102. For example, those two metrics can be subtracted from one another. The result of this combination will provide a value indicative of an offset of the set of wheels 114 and 116 in either direction.” (Schleicher, [0032])
“This offset value will indicate whether the machine is tracking closer to one row than the other.” (Schleicher, [0043])
Rationale: Schleicher’s processor calculates an offset representing the machine’s lateral displacement relative to the crop rows. That offset constitutes a lateral error corresponding to the measured wheel-to-row distance and is used to determine corrective steering.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose:
and a crop detection boundary,
and the crop detection boundary being of a row of plant material:
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud;
Disclosure by Adamchuk
Adamchuk discloses or renders obvious:
and a crop detection boundary,
See at least:
“By taking a continuous video feed of the crops passing beneath the vehicle 10, the lateral offset of the crop row can be determined by segmenting the plants from the soil using a dynamic band-pass HSV filter. The location of the row can then be estimated based on the statistical distribution of plants in the direction of travel 11.” (Adamchuk, [0027])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s processor-executed segmentation separates the crop region from the surrounding soil region and determines the crop row’s spatial location. A PHOSITA applying that process to Schleicher’s wheel-to-row measurement would have used the crop-region transition facing the wheel as the crop-side measurement endpoint. That transition functionally constitutes the crop detection boundary.
and the crop detection boundary being of a row of plant material:
See at least:
“Such information (data and/or images) of the field characteristics may include, but is not limited to, images of the segmentation of crops from weeds and the soil, stage of crop growth, and the lateral offset of the rows of crops.” (Adamchuk, [0026])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s segmented region expressly represents crop plants arranged in rows. The spatial transition defining that region is therefore a boundary of a row of plant material.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher and Adamchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher and Adamchuk before them, to include Adamchuk’s HSV crop-segmentation and row-location operations in Schleicher’s stored image-processing instructions.
Schleicher and Adamchuk disclose compatible processor-controlled agricultural-guidance systems. Schleicher captures the wheel and crop row in an image and determines the distance between them, while Adamchuk supplies a known technique for separating the crop region from soil and weeds. Incorporating Adamchuk’s segmentation would predictably identify the crop-side transition required for Schleicher’s wheel-to-row distance measurement.
In the resulting processor-performed method, the crop-facing wheel edge identified from Schleicher’s image is the machine detection boundary, and the wheel-facing transition of the crop region segmented according to Adamchuk is the crop detection boundary.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher and Adamchuk
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud;
Disclosure by Benson
Benson discloses or renders obvious:
the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud;
See at least:
“Image processor 32 determines the locations of the transitions in first scanline 48 between classes.” (Benson, col. 5, ll. 24–26)
“In particular, the length of segments 64 are calculated according to the following formula:(l=(X_{ij}-X_{(i-1)j})),where (l) is the distance between the transitions, (x) is the column location of the transition.” (Benson, col. 5, ll. 31–39)
“(d) is the distance in pixels between the expected and actual transition.” (Benson, col. 6, ll. 18–23)
Rationale: Benson teaches processor-executed image operations that identify transition locations in pixel coordinates and calculate their separation. Incorporating those operations into the Schleicher-Adamchuk software would cause the processor to determine the distance between the detected wheel edge and crop-row edge as a pixel distance. Because the claim recites alternatives, the point-cloud-distance alternative need not also be shown.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to include in Schleicher’s stored image-processing instructions Adamchuk’s crop-segmentation operation and Benson’s pixel-transition-coordinate subtraction so that the processor determines the distance between the detected wheel boundary and crop-row boundary in pixels.
The combination uses known software operations according to their established functions. Schleicher supplies the wheel-to-row measurement and control framework, Adamchuk supplies crop-region segmentation, and Benson supplies pixel-coordinate transition measurement. Combining these operations would require no change to their respective principles of operation and would predictably allow Schleicher’s processor to calculate and use the first distance directly in the image-coordinate system.
Regarding Claim 16
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
wherein the control system includes
See at least:
“Steering control system 132 can include signal conditioning logic 172, and automatic steering controller 174.” (Schleicher [0025])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses a control system containing automatic-control components.
a steering mechanism
See at least:
“The front steerable wheel(s)/axle 160 has a front steering mechanism 168.... The rear steerable wheel(s)/axle 162 have a corresponding rear steering mechanism 170....” (Schleicher [0024])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses front and rear steering mechanisms.
configured to control a steering angle of the machine,
See at least:
“Steering control system 132 can automatically generate or identify a steering angle for the front wheels 114 and 116, and a steering angle for the rear wheels 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0019])
Rationale: The steering mechanisms implement the steering angles identified for the machine’s steerable wheels.
or a speed control mechanism
See at least:
“Propulsion system 206, for instance, can include an engine and a transmission that drives rotation of wheels 114, 116, 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher’s propulsion system constitutes the speed-control mechanism.
configured to control a speed of the machine;
See at least:
“It may generate a speed control signal 290 that is provided to propulsion system 206 to control the travel speed of the machine 100.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly controls the machine’s travel speed through propulsion system 206.
and the controlling controls the control system
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 then generates control signals to control the vehicle....” (Schleicher [0044])
Rationale: Execution of Schleicher’s disclosed logic controls the steering control system and corresponding machine mechanisms.
based on the lateral error
See at least:
“This offset value will indicate whether the machine is tracking closer to one row than the other. The steering angle can be generated to move the vehicle back toward a more central position between the two rows.” (Schleicher [0043])
Rationale: Schleicher bases the corrective control on the machine’s lateral offset from the desired position.
including generating a control signal
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 then generates control signals to control the vehicle....” (Schleicher [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly generates control signals.
to control the steering angle or the speed.
See at least:
“It illustratively generates a front steering control signal that is provided to front steering mechanism 168 in order to steer the front wheels....” (Schleicher [0044])
Rationale: Schleicher’s control signal implements the steering angle derived from the lateral offset. Paragraph [0045] additionally teaches a speed-control signal. The express steering alternative is sufficient for the disjunctive limitation.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to store and execute instructions implementing Schleicher’s steering or speed-control-signal generation using the lateral error obtained through Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance technique. The resulting stored-control implementation would have predictably caused the known control system to adjust steering or speed according to the detected machine-to-crop relationship.
Regarding Claim 17
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 16, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
wherein the control system includes the speed control mechanism;
See at least:
“Propulsion system 206, for instance, can include an engine and a transmission that drives rotation of wheels 114, 116, 120 and 122.” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: The disclosed engine-and-transmission propulsion system is the speed-control mechanism.
and the controlling controls the control system
See at least:
“Steering control signal generator logic 184 can also generate other control signals when performing automated steering control.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher’s processor-executed signal-generator logic controls machine operation through the control system.
based on the lateral error
See at least:
“Again, the speed of the machine 100 may be controlled to a higher or lower speed, based upon the particular steering control signals that are generated.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: This relationship is implicit and alternatively PHOSITA-obvious. Schleicher derives the steering response from the lateral offset in paragraph [0043], generates steering-control signals from that response in paragraph [0044], and controls speed based on those signals in paragraph [0045]. Speed control is therefore functionally based on the lateral error through the disclosed control chain. Adjusting speed according to the required lateral correction also would predictably improve stability and crop avoidance.
including generating a control signal
See at least:
“It may generate a speed control signal 290....” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly generates speed-control signal 290.
to control the speed.
See at least:
“It may generate a speed control signal 290 that is provided to propulsion system 206 to control the travel speed of the machine 100.” (Schleicher [0045])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly uses speed-control signal 290 to control the machine’s travel speed.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to store and execute instructions that generate Schleicher’s speed-control signal according to the steering response derived from the lateral error determined using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance technique. The combination would predictably coordinate machine speed with the required lateral correction, improving real-time control and reducing the likelihood of crop contact.
Regarding Claim 18
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
wherein the controlling controls the UI
See at least:
“User interface logic 208 can be used to generate outputs on the output mechanisms....” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses processor-controlled UI output mechanisms.
including generating a control signal
See at least:
“User interface logic 208 can be used to generate outputs on the output mechanisms....” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Generating an electronic output on the disclosed display, haptic mechanism, or audio mechanism necessarily involves generating an output-control signal. This functionality is implicit in Schleicher’s disclosed electronic UI architecture.
to cause the Ul
See at least:
“Machine 100 can also include user interface logic 208 and user interface mechanisms 210....” (Schleicher [0028])
Rationale: Reading “UI,” Schleicher discloses causing UI mechanisms 210 to produce outputs.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose:
to output a notification
based on the lateral error,
the notification indicating an adjustment of a steering angle of the machine or a speed of the machine.
Disclosure by Adamchuk
Adamchuk discloses:
to output a notification
See at least:
“The display unit 50 can show the deviation 55 from the center line in real time, by measuring the lateral distance between the vehicle travel line 57 and center line 59.” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s displayed lateral deviation constitutes a visual notification to the operator.
based on the lateral error,
See at least:
“If the vehicle travel line 57 veers towards or is to the left/right of the dark lines of the leftmost and rightmost extremities 58, a course correction may be required....” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: The notification is based on the detected lateral deviation from the accepted offset range, which functionally constitutes the lateral error.
the notification indicating an adjustment of a steering angle of the machine or a speed of the machine.
See at least:
“Upon receiving information about a deviation in the lateral offset of the rows of crops, for example, the motor 34 may react by rotating the central hub 15 of the steering wheel 13 clockwise or counter-clockwise a calculated angular amount required to appropriately correct the course of the vehicle 10.” (Adamchuk [0041])
“If the vehicle travel line 57 veers towards or is to the left/right of the dark lines of the leftmost and rightmost extremities 58, a course correction may be required....” (Adamchuk [0050])
Rationale: Adamchuk’s displayed course-correction indication communicates the need for the same steering-angle adjustment that paragraph [0041] performs through a calculated rotation of the steering wheel. The notification therefore functionally indicates an adjustment of the machine’s steering angle.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson before them, to store and execute instructions causing Schleicher’s UI to display Adamchuk’s real-time lateral-deviation and steering-correction notification based on the lateral error obtained using Adamchuk’s crop segmentation and Benson’s pixel-coordinate distance technique. Schleicher provides the processor-controlled UI, Adamchuk provides the operator-facing notification and its functional relationship to steering correction, and Benson provides the image-coordinate technique supporting the underlying pixel-distance determination. The combination would predictably improve operator awareness and facilitate timely corrective steering.
Regarding Claim 7
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
further comprising:
See at least:
“Sensors 130 can include a geographical position sensor 200 (such as a GPS receiver or other geographical position sensor) that senses a geographic position of machine 100.” (Schleicher [0027])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses that agricultural machine 100 further includes a geographic-position sensor.
a positioning system,
See at least:
“Sensors 130 can include a geographical position sensor 200 (such as a GPS receiver or other geographical position sensor) that senses a geographic position of machine 100.” (Schleicher [0027])
Rationale: Schleicher’s geographic-position sensor 200, including the expressly identified GPS receiver, is a positioning system because it determines the geographic position of machine 100.
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to
See at least:
“Automatic steering controller 174 can include one or more processors 176....” (Schleicher [0025])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly discloses processors 176 within automatic steering controller 174. These processors constitute processing circuitry configured to process sensor information and control the machine.
receive location information of the machine
See at least:
“Sensors 130 illustratively generate corresponding sensor signals that sense the corresponding sensed variables and provide those sensor signals to steering control system 132 as well.” (Schleicher [0022])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches that sensors 130 provide their sensor signals to steering control system 132. Because geographic-position sensor 200 is one of sensors 130, the control system receives the sensor signal representing the geographic position of machine 100.
from the positioning system,
See at least:
“Sensors 130 can include a geographical position sensor 200 (such as a GPS receiver or other geographical position sensor) that senses a geographic position of machine 100.” (Schleicher [0027])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly identifies geographic-position sensor 200 as the source of the machine-position information received by the control system.
determine a second distance
See at least:
“The optical sensors can be used to capture optical data indicative of the location of the rows relative to the wheels. For instance, images can be captured and image analysis can be performed to determine where a row is relative to the wheels.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly determines the relative distance or position between the machine wheels and crop rows. Once the detected wheel boundary reaches and passes the detected crop boundary, using the same boundary coordinates to determine the amount of boundary crossing would have been an obvious extension of Schleicher’s existing distance calculation. The calculation changes only the sign or spatial relationship of the same two detected endpoints; it does not require a different sensing principle.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose:
by which the support structure has entered into the row of plant material
based on the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary,
and generate a geo-spatial map
based on the location information and the second distance.
Examiner Note: Adamchuk and Benson are already relied upon to establish the incorporated limitations of Claim 1. Neither is separately relied upon as expressly disclosing the remaining geospatial-mapping limitations of Claim 7.
Disclosure by Kellum
Kellum discloses or renders obvious:
by which the support structure has entered into the row of plant material
See at least:
“If the vehicle is equipped with sensor on either side and one sensor indicates heavy push against the crop, while the other sensor detects no push, the steering system will steer away from the heavily pushed side and towards the non-pushed side....” (Kellum [0007])
Rationale: Kellum expressly detects the condition in which one side of the vehicle is pushing heavily into the crop and controls the vehicle away from that side. Kellum therefore recognizes both the occurrence and operational significance of machine intrusion into a crop row. Kellum does not expressly calculate the intrusion as a boundary-to-boundary distance. However, in the existing Schleicher-Adamchuk-Benson image implementation, the machine boundary and crop boundary are already represented by spatial coordinates and their separation is already calculated. Once the machine boundary crosses the crop boundary, calculating the penetration amount from the same coordinates would have been obvious to a PHOSITA as a signed-distance or overlap calculation. The predictable result would quantify the condition that Kellum detects qualitatively as the vehicle pushing into the crop.
based on the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary,
See at least:
“As the vehicle’s position relative to the crop changes over time, the edge of the crop row or tree line can be determined.” (Kellum [0006])
Rationale: Kellum expressly determines a crop-row edge and monitors the vehicle’s position relative to that edge. In the proposed combination, Schleicher supplies the imaged wheel representing the machine-side support structure, Adamchuk supplies the detected crop-side edge, and Benson supplies the coordinate-distance calculation. A PHOSITA would have determined the penetration distance by subtracting the crop-boundary coordinate from the machine-boundary coordinate after the machine boundary passes into the crop region. This directly uses both claimed boundaries and provides the functional measure of how far the support structure has entered the crop row.
and generate a geo-spatial map
See at least:
“The information or data generated and determined can be stored. This data can be transmitted to a remote unit, which can combine it with current map data in order to update the map itself.” (Kellum [0008])
Rationale: Kellum expressly generates or updates a map using information determined by the vehicle guidance system. Because Kellum also receives a GPS-derived vehicle-position signal, the updated map associates detected crop-position or lateral-offset information with geographic vehicle locations and is therefore a geo-spatial map.
based on the location information and the second distance.
See at least:
“The output of algorithm ECU 40 is also preferably transmitted wirelessly to a remote unit 50 for monitoring, analysis and/or storage. For example, the information can be combine[d] with map data for future vehicle use.” (Kellum [0015])
Rationale: Kellum’s algorithm output includes the crop-position-derived lateral offset, while the system separately generates the vehicle-position signal using GPS (Kellum [0014] and [0016]). Kellum transmits the resulting information for combination with map data. In the proposed combination, the output stored at each geographic position would be the quantified intrusion distance determined from the machine and crop boundaries. Using that distance instead of, or in addition to, Kellum’s lateral-offset value would have been a predictable use of another spatial relationship already produced by the combined guidance system. The resulting map would identify both where the machine intrusion occurred and how far the support structure entered the crop row.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, Benson, and Kellum
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, Benson, and Kellum before them, to supplement the Schleicher-Adamchuk-Benson image-guidance system by using Schleicher’s geographic-position information and Kellum’s teaching of storing crop-relative vehicle information in association with map data, and to record at each geographic position the distance by which the detected machine boundary extends beyond the detected crop boundary. Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson already provide the machine-side boundary, crop-side boundary, and coordinate-distance calculation. Kellum recognizes heavy vehicle contact with a crop row as a condition requiring correction and teaches combining crop-relative vehicle information with current map data for future use. Calculating the boundary overlap after the machine boundary crosses the crop boundary would have been a predictable application of the existing coordinate-distance calculation, while associating that overlap with the GPS position would predictably identify locations where crop intrusion occurred. The combination would have improved monitoring, crop-damage assessment, route planning, and future control of the agricultural machine.
Regarding Claim 14
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the method of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher teaches:
further comprising:
See at least:
“Sensors 130 can include a geographical position sensor 200 (such as a GPS receiver or other geographical position sensor) that senses a geographic position of machine 100.” (Schleicher [0027])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches an additional positioning operation performed using geographic-position sensor 200.
receiving location information of the machine
See at least:
“Sensors 130 illustratively generate corresponding sensor signals that sense the corresponding sensed variables and provide those sensor signals to steering control system 132 as well.” (Schleicher [0022])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches providing the signals generated by sensors 130 to steering control system 132. Because geographic-position sensor 200 is included among sensors 130, the control system receives location information representing the position of machine 100.
from a positioning system;
See at least:
“Sensors 130 can include a geographical position sensor 200 (such as a GPS receiver or other geographical position sensor) that senses a geographic position of machine 100.” (Schleicher [0027])
Rationale: Schleicher expressly teaches that the geographic-position information originates from geographic-position sensor 200, which may be a GPS receiver.
determining a second distance
See at least:
“Images can be captured and image analysis can be performed to determine where a row is relative to the wheels.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher teaches determining the spatial relationship between a wheel and crop row. After the detected wheel boundary crosses the detected crop boundary, determining the amount of that crossing would have been an obvious continuation of the same boundary-distance calculation. The calculation uses the same endpoints and produces a quantitative measure of the crossed or overlapping spatial relationship.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly teach:
by which the support structure has entered into the row of plant material
based on the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary:
and generating a geo-spatial map
based on the location information and the second distance.
Examiner Note: Adamchuk and Benson are already relied upon to establish the incorporated limitations of Claim 8. Neither is separately relied upon as expressly teaching the remaining geospatial-mapping limitations of Claim 14.
Teaching by Kellum
Kellum teaches or renders obvious:
by which the support structure has entered into the row of plant material
See at least:
“If the vehicle is equipped with sensor on either side and one sensor indicates heavy push against the crop, while the other sensor detects no push, the steering system will steer away from the heavily pushed side....” (Kellum [0007])
Rationale: Kellum expressly teaches detecting that a side of the vehicle is pushing heavily into the crop and responding by steering away. Although Kellum does not express that intrusion as a numerical boundary-overlap distance, quantifying the detected intrusion would have been obvious when Kellum’s teaching is applied to the existing boundary-coordinate system. Subtracting the crop-boundary coordinate from the machine-boundary coordinate after crossing gives the amount of entry using the same predictable coordinate arithmetic already used for the first distance.
based on the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary:
See at least:
“As the vehicle’s position relative to the crop changes over time, the edge of the crop row or tree line can be determined.” (Kellum [0006])
Rationale: Kellum expressly determines the crop-row edge and the vehicle’s changing position relative to that edge. In the proposed image-based combination, the crop-facing wheel edge supplies the machine detection boundary and the segmented crop edge supplies the crop detection boundary. Their coordinate difference after crossing directly provides the penetration distance.
and generating a geo-spatial map
See at least:
“The information or data generated and determined can be stored. This data can be transmitted to a remote unit, which can combine it with current map data in order to update the map itself.” (Kellum [0008])
Rationale: Kellum expressly teaches updating map data using information determined by the agricultural guidance system. The map is geospatial because Kellum obtains the vehicle’s geographic position from a conventional GPS unit.
based on the location information and the second distance.
See at least:
“The output of algorithm ECU 40 is also preferably transmitted wirelessly to a remote unit 50 for monitoring, analysis and/or storage. For example, the information can be combine[d] with map data for future vehicle use.” (Kellum [0015])
Rationale: Kellum teaches combining vehicle-position and crop-relative guidance information with map data. Substituting or supplementing Kellum’s crop-relative offset with the quantified boundary-overlap distance would have predictably record both the geographic location and magnitude of each crop-entry event. The map therefore would be generated from the received location information and the second distance.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, Benson, and Kellum
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, Benson, and Kellum before them, to receive Schleicher’s GPS-derived machine-location information, determine from the Schleicher-Adamchuk-Benson boundary coordinates the distance by which the machine-side boundary extends into the crop-side region, and store that penetration distance with the corresponding location in Kellum’s updated map. Kellum expressly recognizes heavy vehicle intrusion into a crop row and teaches combining crop-relative guidance information with map data. Applying that mapping technique to the boundary-overlap distance already available from the combined image-processing system would have predictably generated a geographic record of crop-entry locations and magnitudes, improving subsequent route guidance, corrective control, and identification of locations where crop damage may have occurred.
Regarding Claim 20
The combination of Schleicher, Adamchuk, and Benson establishes the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 20.
Disclosure by Schleicher
Schleicher discloses:
wherein the method further comprises:
See at least:
“Sensors 130 can include a geographical position sensor 200 (such as a GPS receiver or other geographical position sensor) that senses a geographic position of machine 100.” (Schleicher [0027])
Rationale: Schleicher discloses additional processor-performed operations involving machine-position information obtained from a geographic-position sensor.
receiving location information of the machine
See at least:
“Sensors 130 illustratively generate corresponding sensor signals that sense the corresponding sensed variables and provide those sensor signals to steering control system 132 as well.” (Schleicher [0022])
Rationale: Schleicher discloses providing signals from sensors 130, including geographic-position sensor 200, to steering control system 132. The executed control method therefore receives machine-location information.
from a positioning system;
See at least:
“Sensors 130 can include a geographical position sensor 200 (such as a GPS receiver or other geographical position sensor) that senses a geographic position of machine 100.” (Schleicher [0027])
Rationale: The received machine-location information originates from Schleicher’s geographic-position sensor or GPS receiver.
determining a second distance
See at least:
“Images can be captured and image analysis can be performed to determine where a row is relative to the wheels.” (Schleicher [0039])
Rationale: Schleicher discloses processor-performed image analysis for determining the spatial relationship between a machine wheel and crop row. Determining the magnitude of boundary crossing after the wheel boundary passes the crop boundary would have been an obvious use of the same boundary coordinates and distance arithmetic.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Schleicher
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose:
by which the support structure has entered into the row of plant material
based on the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary;
and generating a geo-spatial map
based on the location information and the second distance.
Examiner Note: Adamchuk and Benson are already relied upon to establish the incorporated limitations of Claim 15. Neither is separately relied upon as expressly disclosing the remaining geospatial-mapping limitations of Claim 20.
Disclosure by Kellum
Kellum discloses or renders obvious:
by which the support structure has entered into the row of plant material
See at least:
“If the vehicle is equipped with sensor on either side and one sensor indicates heavy push against the crop, while the other sensor detects no push, the steering system will steer away from the heavily pushed side....” (Kellum [0007])
Rationale: Kellum expressly detects that a vehicle side is pushing heavily into a crop row. In the existing image-coordinate system, representing this condition numerically as the distance by which the machine boundary has crossed the crop boundary would have been obvious coordinate processing. The result quantifies the same crop-entry condition that Kellum detects and corrects.
based on the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary;
See at least:
“As the vehicle’s position relative to the crop changes over time, the edge of the crop row or tree line can be determined.” (Kellum [0006])
Rationale: Kellum expressly determines a crop edge and the vehicle’s relative position. In the combined system, the corresponding image locations are the detected crop-facing wheel boundary and the detected crop-row boundary. Their coordinate difference after crossing yields the amount of machine entry into the crop row.
and generating a geo-spatial map
See at least:
“The information or data generated and determined can be stored. This data can be transmitted to a remote unit, which can combine it with current map data in order to update the map itself.” (Kellum [0008])
Rationale: Kellum expressly discloses generating updated map data from information determined by the guidance system. Association with Kellum’s GPS-derived vehicle-position signal makes the resulting map geospatial.
based on the location information and the second distance.
See at least:
“The output of algorithm ECU 40 is also preferably transmitted wirelessly to a remote unit 50 for monitoring, analysis and/or storage. For example, the information can be combine[d] with map data for future vehicle use.” (Kellum [0015])
Rationale: Kellum teaches transmitting crop-relative algorithm output for combination with map data and also obtaining the vehicle’s GPS position. It would have been obvious to store the calculated penetration distance at the corresponding vehicle position because that distance is a crop-relative spatial output of the same general type as Kellum’s lateral-offset information. Executing stored instructions to perform that association would predictably generate a map identifying the location and magnitude of machine entry into crop rows.
Motivation to Combine Schleicher, Adamchuk, Benson, and Kellum
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Schleicher, Adamchuk, Benson, and Kellum before them, to store and execute instructions that receive Schleicher’s GPS-derived machine location, calculate from the Schleicher-Adamchuk-Benson boundary coordinates the distance by which the machine boundary extends into the crop region, and associate that penetration distance with the corresponding geographic location using Kellum’s map-updating technique. The references address technically compatible aspects of agricultural guidance: Schleicher supplies machine positioning and control, Adamchuk supplies crop-region segmentation, Benson supplies coordinate-distance calculation, and Kellum supplies storage and mapping of crop-relative vehicle information. Their combination would predictably generate a reusable geographic record of crop-entry events for future guidance, monitoring, and crop-damage avoidance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/20/2026 in response have been fully considered. The arguments are persuasive only to the limited extent that the amendment to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 prevents Schleicher, standing alone, from anticipating the presently amended claims. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–6, 8–11, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. §102 based solely on Schleicher is withdrawn.
The arguments do not establish patentability of the amended claims. The amendment introduced express image-coordinate and point-cloud measurement alternatives that were not required by the original claims and were not expressly disclosed by Schleicher. The amendment therefore required additional search and consideration. The presently applied obviousness rejections rely on Adamchuk and Benson for the newly emphasized computer-vision and pixel-distance features and, where applicable, Kellum for the geospatial-mapping features.
Nature and Effect of the Amendment
Original independent claim 1 recited:
“determine a lateral error represented by a first distance between the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary.”
Original independent claims 8 and 15 contained corresponding language.
As amended, the independent claims instead require:
“determine a first distance between the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary, the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud,”
and:
“control the control system or the UI based on a lateral error corresponding to the first distance.”
The amendment substantively changes the claimed relationship in two respects.
First, the original claims broadly required a lateral error represented by a distance between the machine and crop boundaries. The amended claims separately require determination of the first distance and then require a lateral error corresponding to that first distance.
Second, and more significantly for the prior-art analysis, the amended claims now expressly restrict the first distance to one of two measurement domains:
a pixel distance; or
a distance between points of a point cloud.
The original claims did not require either image-coordinate measurement or point-cloud-coordinate measurement. They were broad enough to encompass a physical, calibrated, or otherwise sensed wheel-to-crop distance used as a lateral offset. Schleicher’s disclosure of sensing wheel-to-row distances and generating corrective steering from an offset therefore supported the original anticipation rejection.
The amended claims require additional evidence concerning how the distance is represented and calculated. Schleicher discloses camera images and image processing but does not expressly state that the wheel-to-crop distance is maintained or calculated as a pixel distance or as a distance between point-cloud points. Benson was therefore newly necessary to address the express pixel-distance alternative. Adamchuk supplies the complementary agricultural computer-vision teaching for segmenting crop plants from soil and identifying the crop-side image region. Kellum addresses the additional geospatial-map limitations of claims 7, 14, and 20.
Thus, the new references were not introduced merely to restate the former anticipation rejection. They became necessary because Applicant amended the independent claims to introduce a measurement-domain limitation not previously required. A new ground necessitated by an amendment may properly be made final.
Response to the 101 Arguments
Applicant’s Argument That the Claims Do Not Recite a Mathematical Concept
Applicant argues that the claims do not expressly recite a formula, equation, or mathematical relationship and therefore do not recite a mathematical concept.
This argument is not persuasive. A claim need not reproduce a written equation to recite a mathematical calculation. The amended independent claims expressly require determining a distance between two spatial locations and determining or using a lateral error corresponding to that distance. Under the pixel-distance alternative, the claimed operation includes identifying two image locations and determining their separation in pixel coordinates. Under the point-cloud alternative, the operation includes determining the spatial separation between two data points. Both are mathematical distance calculations even though the claims do not specify a particular equation.
The absence of an expressly written formula does not remove a claimed calculation from the mathematical-concept grouping. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163–67 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Applicant’s Argument That the Distance Cannot Be Practically Determined in the Human Mind
Applicant argues that determining a pixel distance or a distance between point-cloud points cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The argument does not adequately account for the disjunctive claim language. The claims require:
“a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud.”
Because the alternatives are joined by “or,” the claims do not require point-cloud processing. They encompass the pixel-distance alternative. A person can practically inspect an image, identify the apparent wheel and crop edges, and count or compare the number of pixels separating those edges, with or without pen and paper. Automating that observation and calculation using generic processing circuitry does not, by itself, remove the underlying evaluation from the mental-process grouping. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Moreover, even assuming that a particular point cloud is too large or complex to process mentally, the claims still broadly recite the mathematical determination of a distance between data points without specifying an improved point-cloud representation, processing architecture, or distance-calculation technique. The claimed result is stated functionally rather than through a specific technological means for improving point-cloud processing.
Applicant’s Alleged Technological Improvement
Applicant argues that the claims improve conventional guidance systems by more accurately detecting whether a machine support structure contacted or ran over a crop. Applicant relies on specification paragraphs [0017], [0040], and [0050], including disclosure of determining that a support structure entered a crop row when a distance is zero or below a threshold.
The argument is not commensurate with the scope of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
The independent claims do not require:
determining that the support structure entered the crop row;
determining that the distance is zero or below a threshold;
detecting that the machine contacted or ran over a crop;
determining crop damage;
using an underside or rearward-facing sensor;
improving the accuracy of a sensor or image-processing operation; or
physically correcting the machine’s steering, speed, or trajectory.
Those features may appear in the specification or certain dependent claims, but they cannot be imported into the independent claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
The independent claims instead permit the processing circuitry to control only a UI based on the lateral error. Under that expressly recited alternative, the claim may terminate with presentation of information and need not cause a physical change in the machine. The additional “control system” alternative likewise does not identify what the control system controls or require any change in machine operation.
Accordingly, the claims do not require the technological result on which Applicant relies. They broadly encompass data acquisition or observation, boundary identification, distance calculation, and informational output. Mere presentation of the result does not integrate the abstract analysis into a practical application. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354.
Applicant’s reliance on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is therefore misplaced. The claims in McRO recited a specific set of rules that constrained how the technological result was produced. The present independent claims do not recite a particular segmentation algorithm, pixel-processing rule, point-cloud processing technique, or improved computer operation. They recite the desired results of detecting boundaries and determining a distance using generic processing circuitry.
Independent Claims 8 and 15
Applicant correctly states that claims 8 and 15 must be separately evaluated. They have been separately considered.
Claim 8 recites the same essential detection, distance-determination, and alternative UI-control operations as claim 1 in method form. Claim 15 recites substantially the same operations as stored instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Reciting the abstract operations as a method or as instructions stored on a generic non-transitory medium does not, without more, integrate those operations into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 remain subject to the §101 rejection for substantially the same claim-specific reasons stated for claim 1.
Applicant’s Assertion That All Dependent Claims Are Eligible by Dependency
Applicant asserts that claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 are eligible by virtue of their dependency from the independent claims.
That proposition is legally incorrect. Eligibility is evaluated on a claim-by-claim basis. A dependent claim does not become eligible merely because it depends from another claim, nor does it necessarily remain ineligible merely because its parent is ineligible. The question is whether the additional limitations of each dependent claim integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP §2106.07.
The prior Office Action’s generalized treatment of all dependent claims did not provide sufficient claim-specific analysis. The present Office Action corrects that issue by separately evaluating the limitations added by the dependent claims.
Applicant’s Arguments Concerning Claims 2 and 3
Applicant argues that claims 2 and 3 require the type of physical machine control identified by the Examiner as potentially sufficient to overcome the eligibility rejection.
This argument is persuasive.
Claim 2 requires a control signal that controls either the steering angle or speed of the machine based on the lateral error. Both sides of that disjunctive limitation require a physical change in machine operation. Claim 3 more specifically requires a control signal controlling machine speed based on the lateral error.
Accordingly, the §101 rejection is withdrawn as to claims 2 and 3. For corresponding reasons, the rejection is also withdrawn as to method claims 9 and 10 and computer-readable-medium claims 16 and 17.
This withdrawal does not establish novelty or nonobviousness. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 remain subject to the separately stated prior-art rejections.
Remaining Dependent Claims
Claims 4, 11, and 18 require only a notification indicating a possible steering-angle or speed adjustment. They do not require that the indicated adjustment actually be performed.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19 add perception-sensor, mounting-position, and field-of-view limitations. As claimed, these limitations specify the source and acquisition of the data used in the abstract analysis but do not require a particular improved sensor, image-processing algorithm, or physical control response.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 add location acquisition, intrusion-distance determination, and geospatial-map generation. They do not require using the map to change a route or control machine operation. These limitations therefore add data gathering, spatial analysis, and generation of informational content.
Accordingly, the §101 rejection is maintained for claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20.
Response to the §102 Arguments
Applicant argues that Schleicher does not disclose:
“determining a first distance between the machine detection boundary and the crop detection boundary, the first distance being a pixel distance or a distance between points of a point cloud,”
and controlling the control system or UI based on a lateral error corresponding to that distance.
The argument is persuasive to the limited extent that Schleicher does not expressly disclose that its image-derived wheel-to-crop distance is a pixel distance or a point-cloud distance. Therefore, the previous §102 rejection based on Schleicher alone is withdrawn.
Applicant’s further conclusion that claims 1, 8, and 15 are therefore allowable is not persuasive. Overcoming anticipation by one reference does not establish patentability over a combination of references under §103. Anticipation and obviousness are separate statutory inquiries. A limitation not expressly disclosed by Schleicher may nevertheless be taught by another analogous reference and predictably incorporated into Schleicher’s system.
The present rejection does not rely on Schleicher alone:
Schleicher supplies the agricultural-machine guidance architecture, camera imaging of wheels and adjacent crop rows, wheel-to-row distance determination, lateral-offset calculation, and responsive control.
Adamchuk supplies crop-versus-soil image segmentation and crop-row localization.
Benson supplies detection of image transitions in pixel coordinates and calculation of the distance between those transitions as a pixel separation.
The applied combination therefore addresses the precise pixel-distance feature Applicant added. Applicant’s argument that Schleicher alone lacks the added feature does not rebut the combined teachings or the articulated reason for combining them.
Applicant also states that the amended features are “not obvious over Schleicher.” That argument addresses Schleicher individually and does not identify an error in the factual findings or motivation underlying the current Schleicher-Adamchuk-Benson combination. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references separately when the rejection relies on their combined teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); MPEP §2145.
Because the independent claims remain unpatentable over the newly applied combination, Applicant’s argument that the dependent claims are allowable solely by virtue of dependency is likewise unpersuasive.
Response to the §103 Arguments
Applicant argues that the former combinations of Schleicher with Kellum and Schleicher with Adamchuk suffered from the same asserted deficiency as Schleicher regarding the independent claims.
To the extent those former rejections depended on Schleicher alone to establish every limitation of the original independent claims, the arguments have been considered. The prior grounds have been superseded by the present grounds necessitated by the amendment.
The present rejections do not rely on Kellum or Adamchuk as independently curing every asserted deficiency in Schleicher:
For claims 1, 8, and 15, Adamchuk is relied upon for crop-image segmentation and identification of the crop-side spatial feature.
Benson is relied upon for representing detected transitions in pixel coordinates and determining their pixel separation.
Schleicher remains the primary reference for the agricultural machine, wheel-to-crop sensing, lateral-offset determination, and responsive control.
For claims 7, 14, and 20, Kellum is additionally relied upon for receiving GPS-derived vehicle-position information and combining crop-relative vehicle information with map data.
For claims 12, 13, and 19, Adamchuk’s camera positioning for imaging crops passing beneath the vehicle complements Schleicher’s front- and rear-camera configurations.
Thus, the asserted deficiency concerning the newly claimed pixel-distance alternative is not left to Schleicher, Kellum, or Adamchuk individually; it is addressed by Benson in the expressly stated combination. Applicant’s argument that Kellum and Adamchuk individually share Schleicher’s deficiency does not address what the combined references would have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejection does not require bodily incorporation of one reference into another or that any single reference contain an express suggestion to reproduce the claim verbatim. The question is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious from the combined teachings, with an articulated reason and reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417–18 (2007); In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425–26.
Here, the combination uses known, technically compatible agricultural image-processing techniques for their established functions:
crop segmentation to locate the crop-side image region;
pixel-transition coordinates to represent detected image edges;
coordinate subtraction to determine pixel separation;
wheel-to-row offset control to guide the machine; and
GPS-associated map updating to record crop-relative conditions.
The combination produces the predictable result of measuring the machine-to-crop relationship in pixel space and using the resulting lateral error for control or output. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not rebut the current prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive only to the following extent:
the former anticipation rejection based on Schleicher alone is withdrawn; and
the §101 rejection is withdrawn as to claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17.
The arguments are otherwise unpersuasive because:
the amended independent claims remain broad enough to encompass abstract pixel-distance analysis followed only by UI output;
the alleged crop-contact and improved-accuracy results are not required by the independent claims;
eligibility must be evaluated separately for each dependent claim;
absence of the amended pixel-distance limitation from Schleicher alone does not establish nonobviousness over the applied combination;
Benson directly addresses the newly added pixel-distance alternative;
Adamchuk supplies complementary crop-image segmentation;
Kellum supplies the geospatial-map teaching for claims 7, 14, and 20; and
Applicant’s separate-reference arguments do not rebut the combined teachings or the articulated motivations to combine.
The amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 necessitated the additional search, the application of Benson, and the revised combinations set forth in the present Office Action.
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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights