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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 — 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Claim 24 recites positioning the distal treatment head “at the lower portions of crops.” Neither Claim 1 nor Claim 24 previously recites lower portions of crops. Claim 1 recites “a crop plant,” in the singular; Claim 23 recites “lower and upper portions of the crop plant,” but Claim 24 depends from Claim 1 and not from Claim 23, so Claim 23 supplies no antecedent.
The recitation is therefore of uncertain scope in two respects: whether “crops” refers to the single crop plant of Claim 1 or to crops generally, and whether “the lower portions” refers to a previously identified region or introduces a new one. Amendment to recite “at a lower portion of the crop plant,” or to depend from Claim 23, would overcome this rejection.
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.
I. Statutory Framework
Claims 1, 16–18, 20, 21, 23–25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feugier (US 2014/0311014 A1) in view of Koselka (US 2006/0213167 A1) and Cavender-Bares (US 2017/0223889 A1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feugier in view of Koselka and Cavender-Bares, and further in view of Lert (US 2017/0313514 A1).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feugier in view of Koselka and Cavender-Bares, and further in view of Gonzalez-De-Santos, Unmanned Ground Vehicles for Smart Farms
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feugier in view of Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos, and further in view of Lert.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feugier in view of Koselka and Cavender-Bares, and further in view of Gonzalez-De-Santos.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feugier in view of Koselka and Cavender-Bares, and further in view of Tugel (US 2019/0223425 A1).
Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, Gonzalez-De-Santos, and Tugel are within the broader field of agricultural machinery and crop-treatment systems. More particularly, Feugier and Tugel are both directed to controlling pests on crop plants, while Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos address complementary robotic positioning, navigation, and platform functions. Tugel is a tractor-carried implement rather than a robot, but it is directed to the identical problem the claimed invention addresses — removing pests from crop plants — and is therefore both in the field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to that problem. Feugier concerns autonomous robotic detection and treatment of pests among crop plants; Koselka concerns image-guided articulated agricultural robots that position distal end effectors relative to targets carried on plants; Cavender-Bares concerns camera-assisted autonomous navigation of agricultural robots between crop rows and around obstacles; and Gonzalez-De-Santos is a survey of unmanned ground vehicles for smart farms. Tugel discloses suction-based removal and destruction of insects from crop plants. A person of ordinary skill developing Feugier's mobile crop-pest-control robot would reasonably have consulted Koselka for target-relative manipulator positioning, Cavender-Bares for fine-scale field navigation, Gonzalez-De-Santos for field-robot chassis and safety architecture, and Tugel for a non-optical pest-treatment modality.
Lert is relied upon solely for the extension mechanism of Claim 19 and the wheel-drive transmission of Claim 27. Lert is analogous under the second prong of MPEP 2141.01(a): it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the inventor was concerned — how to extend a mechanism from a mobile robot to reach a target beyond the robot's own footprint, and how to couple rotary motive power to the driven wheels of an autonomous mobile robot. Those problems are indifferent to whether the robot operates in a warehouse aisle or a crop row.
II. Rejection of Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding Claim 1,
A. Disclosure by Feugier
Feugier discloses:
An autonomous agricultural robot system
See at least:
“For example, if the robot has to move in an autonomous fashion (without rails), it can be guided inside virtual circulation corridors indicated by GPS or positional information radio emitters arranged along the borders of the patrolled area.” (0030])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses a robot that moves in an autonomous fashion under position-referenced guidance within virtual circulation corridors, deployed in agricultural crop settings for pest control. The teaching is express, and Feugier's robot therefore constitutes an autonomous agricultural robot system.
for identifying and controlling pests on crop plants,
See at least:
“In the present invention, ‘pest’ has a conceptual meaning including all organisms harmful to crops or plants such as insects, invertebrates (arthropods, mollusks, etc.), fungi, bacteria, weeds, etc.” (0026])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly defines its targets as organisms harmful to crops or plants, and the disclosed system both detects those pests and directs destructive energy at them while limiting harm to the associated crop. The teaching is express as to identification and control of pests residing on crop plants.
the system comprising:
See at least:
“As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the pest control system 1A of this embodiment primarily comprises a patrol device 2 for patrolling areas to be controlling pests, and a control device 3 for controlling the patrol device 2.” (0027])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly employs the open transitional phrase “comprises,” corresponding to the claim's “comprising” and permitting inclusion of additional unrecited components.
a mobile platform
See at least:
“The patrol device 2 is designed to patrol areas to be controlling pests. In this embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, on the assumption that plant quantity is large, the patrol device 2 is mounted on a self-propelled robot moving in the furrows, on rails on the ground or attached to the ceiling of a green house, etc.” (0028])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses a self-propelled robot on which the pest detection and destruction equipment is mounted. A self-propelled robot carrying operative equipment through a crop area is a mobile platform.
configured to travel through a crop field
See at least:
“Basically, the robot has to be able to move while carrying the material necessary for its task. Its shape must allow it to move easily amongst the different shapes of crop plants (maize, tomatoes, apple trees, etc.).” (0028])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly conditions the robot's physical configuration on its ability to move among named agricultural crop plants while carrying its operative payload. Configuring a robot's shape and drive so that it moves among maize, tomatoes, and apple trees is expressly configuring it to travel through a crop field.
between rows;
See at least:
“During day and night, patrol devices 2 are moving amongst furrows in a maize field guided by positional information emitters located at the limit of the field.” (0092])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses movement amongst furrows in a maize field. A person of ordinary skill would have understood a furrow in a row-planted maize field to be the trafficable space between adjacent crop rows, because maize is planted in rows separated by furrows and a field-traversing implement necessarily occupies that inter-row space. The teaching is express as to inter-row travel.
a navigation subsystem
See at least:
“For example, if the robot has to move in an autonomous fashion (without rails), it can be guided inside virtual circulation corridors indicated by GPS or positional information radio emitters arranged along the borders of the patrolled area.” (0030])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses position-referenced guidance of the robot within defined virtual corridors. The guidance sensing components together with the control logic constraining the robot to those corridors collectively constitute a navigation subsystem, because together they determine the robot's position and govern its travel path.
including at least one georeferenced positioning device
See at least:
“For example, if the robot has to move in an autonomous fashion (without rails), it can be guided inside virtual circulation corridors indicated by GPS or positional information radio emitters arranged along the borders of the patrolled area.” (0030])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly names GPS as the guidance source. GPS is a georeferenced positioning technology because it resolves position by reference to geographic coordinates derived from satellite constellations. The GPS receiver carried on the robot is therefore at least one georeferenced positioning device.
wherein onboard control circuitry is configured to:
See at least:
“However, the control device 3 is not limited to the above mentioned embodiment, but may be altered accordingly. For example, all or part of the control device 3 can be embarked on the robot together with the patrol device 2.” (0037])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses an embodiment in which all or part of control device 3 — comprising a storage unit 4 and an arithmetic processing unit 5 that performs the arithmetic processing controlling the patrol device — is embarked on the robot itself. Circuitry comprising storage and an arithmetic processing unit carried on the robot is onboard control circuitry. That this is disclosed as an alternative embodiment does not diminish its availability as prior art, because a reference is available for all that it discloses, including alternative and non-preferred embodiments.
B. Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
and at least two depth cameras
configured to detect crop rows
and obstacles;
an articulated control arm
mounted on the mobile platform,
wherein the articulated control arm being movable
to place a distal end of the articulated control arm
at different heights and positions
relative to a crop plant; and
a distal treatment head
carried at the distal end of the articulated control arm
and comprising at least one imaging device
and at least one pest-treatment device
selected from a laser device and a suction device,
receive image data from the at least one imaging device,
detect a pest location on a crop plant from the image data,
control movement of the articulated control arm
to align the distal treatment head with the pest location on the crop plant; and
actuate the pest-treatment device
to perform localized pest treatment
at the pest location.
Examiner's note. Feugier discloses a laser pest-destruction device, receipt of camera image data by its control logic, image-based derivation of pest spatial coordinates, actuation of the destruction device on a destruction order, and treatment directed at those coordinates. The recitation of at least one pest-treatment device selected from a laser device and a suction device is nevertheless listed above as not disclosed by Feugier, because the claim recites the imaging device and the pest-treatment device as components carried by a distal treatment head at the distal end of an articulated control arm, and Feugier's camera and emitter are carried on the patrol device rather than at a distal arm end. The same is true of the recitations that the onboard control circuitry receive image data from the at least one imaging device, detect a pest location on a crop plant from the image data, actuate the pest-treatment device, perform localized pest treatment, and do so at the pest location, each of which is drawn by reference back to those distally carried components. These recitations are accordingly mapped below to the combination of Feugier and Koselka rather than to Feugier alone.
C. Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
and at least two depth cameras
See at least:
“Several stereo camera pairs may be located around the perimeter of the platform. These camera pairs are shown in FIG. 1 as ‘Stereo Cameras Around Robot Body’. These cameras enable the robot to view a significant area at all times. The robot may use these cameras to navigate through the fields and to map the fruit and vegetables located near the outside of the plants.” (0105])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses several stereo camera pairs located around the perimeter of the platform, identified in FIG. 1 as “Stereo Cameras Around Robot Body.” Each stereo camera pair constitutes a depth-camera assembly, because it determines depth from the disparity between spatially separated camera images — consistent with Koselka's disclosure that positional offset from the platform is calculated “using at least two on-board cameras (stereo vision)” (0077]). Because Koselka discloses several such pairs, it expressly discloses at least two depth cameras. Koselka further states that the robot “may use these cameras to navigate through the fields,” establishing that the plural depth cameras are deployed for the navigational function the claim assigns to them.
an articulated control arm
See at least:
“Each arm has one or more degrees of freedom based on the specific requirements. Actuators, such as electric motors, servos and hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders, may be utilized for each degree-of-freedom (DOF) at each joint.” (0114])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses an arm having joints, one or more degrees of freedom, and dedicated actuators at each degree of freedom. An arm constructed of actuator-driven joints is, by its ordinary meaning in the robotic arts, an articulated arm; because its joint actuators are driven by the robot's control system, it is an articulated control arm.
mounted on the mobile platform,
See at least:
“An agricultural robot may comprise zero or more actuators or articulating arms coupled with a self-propelled automated platform or coupled with a tractor, trailer or boom.” (0016])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly couples its articulating arms to a self-propelled automated platform, and confirms in [0114] that “the arm geometry is also affected by the design of the base platform,” establishing that the arms are physically carried by and referenced to the platform structure. The articulated arm is therefore mounted on the mobile platform.
wherein the articulated control arm being movable
See at least:
“The arm geometry is also affected by the design of the base platform. If the platform is wide, some arms must be located in front of the base in order to harvest the fruit that may either be damaged or blocked by the base platform when it is adjacent to the tree.” (0114])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly provides the arm with actuated joints, each having a dedicated degree of freedom driven by an electric motor, servo, or hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder, for the purpose of reaching fruit at positions the platform cannot itself occupy. Joints driven by dedicated actuators render the arm movable; movability is the express purpose for which the actuators are provided.
to place a distal end of the articulated control arm
See at least:
“It positions itself as directed around each plant at 504. It then moves its actuators to locate the intended item as directed in the plan.” (0132])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly moves the arm actuators to bring the operative end of the arm to the intended item. Because the actuators drive the arm's joints and the end effector sits at the terminus of that jointed chain, moving the actuators to locate the intended item necessarily displaces the distal end of the articulated arm to the required position. The teaching is express as to the actuation and inherent as to the resulting placement, because a jointed arm cannot bring its end effector to a target without displacing its distal end.
at different heights and positions
See at least:
“A rear mounted ‘Boom’ comprises multiple arms that are mounted higher than front mounted Booms. Each Boom may be raised or lowered which in turn moves any arms coupled to the Boom up or down simultaneously. Other embodiments are configured to allow arms to move along the booms.” (0115])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses raising and lowering the booms so as to move the coupled arms up and down, and expressly discloses embodiments permitting the arms to translate along the booms. Vertical displacement places the arm distal ends at different heights; translation along the boom, together with the arm's own joint degrees of freedom, places them at different positions.
relative to a crop plant; and
See at least:
“The actuator or arm is positioned to operate on the next intended item associated with the plant, then it moves to the next item location and the process continues until the entire plant is operated on.” (0132])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly indexes successive arm positions to items associated with a particular plant, continuing until the entire plant has been operated upon. The arm's commanded positions are therefore expressly defined relative to a crop plant and to the targets it bears, rather than in absolute field coordinates alone.
a distal treatment head
See at least:
“The end effector may be a mechanical hand that grabs and picks fruit, or may contain some mechanical cutting or thinning device, some type of spraying mechanism, or any other device or implement to perform an agricultural function or observation or measurement.” (0016])
Rationale:
Koselka does not employ the phrase “distal treatment head,” but expressly discloses an end-effector assembly carrying an implement that performs an agricultural treatment function — cutting, thinning, or spraying — and expressly states that the assembly accommodates “any other device or implement to perform an agricultural function.” An end-effector assembly bearing a treatment implement is a treatment head. The difference is one of nomenclature; the claim's structural and functional requirements are expressly met.
carried at the distal end of the articulated control arm
See at least:
“FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a robotic hand. The hand-type actuator includes a camera and light system to locate and track each piece of fruit as it is picked even the fruit located inside the dark interior of some plants.” (0125])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses a hand-type actuator assembly, illustrated in FIG. 3, that performs the operative function on the target. An end effector is by definition, and by Koselka's illustrated arrangement, located at the working terminus of the arm — its distal end — because it must reach the target while the opposite end of the arm remains anchored to the platform. The teaching is express in FIG. 3 and inherent in the disclosed arm architecture.
and comprising at least one imaging device
See at least:
“The hand-type actuator includes a camera and light system to locate and track each piece of fruit as it is picked even the fruit located inside the dark interior of some plants.” (0125])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly places a camera, together with a light system, within the hand-type actuator itself, for the express purpose of locating and tracking targets situated in the dark interior of a plant and therefore not observable from the platform. A camera is an imaging device, and Koselka's camera is expressly a component of the distal end-effector assembly rather than of the platform.
control movement of the articulated control arm
See at least:
“It then moves its actuators to locate the intended item as directed in the plan.” (0132])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses that the robot's control logic drives the arm actuators pursuant to a computed action plan. Commanding the joint actuators pursuant to stored logic is controlling movement of the articulated control arm.
D. Disclosure by the Combination of Feugier and Koselka
The following limitations recite Feugier's disclosed imaging, detection, and laser-treatment components and functions in the structural arrangement disclosed by Koselka. They are accordingly mapped to the combination.
and at least one pest-treatment device
See at least:
“The destruction beam emitter 23, as shown in FIG. 3, is designed to emit a destruction beam to the pests upon detecting the pests.” (Feugier,[0036])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses a destruction beam emitter that directs pest-destructive energy at a detected pest; a device applying destructive energy to a pest to eliminate it is a pest-treatment device. Koselka expressly discloses a distal end-effector assembly configured to carry “any other device or implement to perform an agricultural function” (0016]). Mounting Feugier's emitter on Koselka's distal assembly yields a distal treatment head comprising a pest-treatment device. Feugier itself contemplates carrying its optical delivery path on a robot arm (0062]), so the relocation is one the primary reference invites rather than one supplied only by hindsight.
selected from a laser device and a suction device,
See at least:
“LED (Light Emitting Diode), laser beam, or electromagnetic beam can be used as the destruction beam.” (Feugier,[0036])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly identifies a laser beam as the destruction beam, so the emitter generating it is a laser device. Because this limitation recites the laser device and the suction device in the alternative, disclosure of the laser alternative satisfies it; disclosure of the suction alternative is not additionally required. As carried on Koselka's distal end effector, the laser device is the pest-treatment device of the distal treatment head.
receive image data from the at least one imaging device,
See at least:
“In case of using a computer vision techniques such as image segmentation, texture analysis, pattern recognition, etc., a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device) camera can also be used as the reflected signal receptor 22, which receives an image signal of the object in the form of a still image and a moving image.” (Feugier,[0035])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses a CCD camera generating still-image and moving-image signals, and expressly provides that “the signal can be analyzed in the robot,” so its onboard control circuitry receives image data from an imaging device. Koselka expressly places the imaging device on the distal end effector (0125]) and routes its output to the control logic that operates on the located target (0132]). In the combination, the onboard control circuitry receives image data from the imaging device carried by the distal treatment head. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the source of the image stream is a matter of sensor placement, not of processing architecture, and that Feugier's computer-vision pipeline operates identically on an image acquired from a distally carried camera.
detect a pest location on a crop plant from the image data,
See at least:
“In case of using the computer vision techniques for detection, the pest detecting means 51 obtains a shape/texture/pattern/etc. of the pests as the reflected data on the basis of the image signal as the reflected signal. Then, the pest detecting means 51 determines presence or absence of the pests by comparing the shape/texture/pattern/etc. with the reference signature data dedicated for computer vision detection.” (Feugier,[0054])
and further:
“At the same time, in this embodiment, the pest detecting means 51 notifies the wavelength selecting means 52 of the species of the pests, and notifies the targeting means 53 of some data to destroy the pests such as the spatial coordinates of the pest, the power required and the diameter of the destruction beam, etc.” (Feugier,[0052])
Rationale:
Feugier [0054] expressly establishes that the pest detecting means determines the presence of a pest from the image signal, obtaining the pest's shape, texture, or pattern from that signal and comparing it against stored signature data. Feugier [0052] then expressly establishes that, upon such detection, the pest detecting means supplies the targeting subsystem with “the spatial coordinates of the pest.” Read together, the two paragraphs close the evidentiary chain the limitation requires: [0054] supplies detection from the image data, and [0052] supplies the resulting pest location. Feugier expressly applies this process to pests residing on crop plants. In the combination, the determination is made from the image data supplied by the distally carried imaging device.
to align the distal treatment head with the pest location on the crop plant; and
See at least:
“Once the actuator is looking approximately at the target location, the various camera(s) locates and operates on the item at 505... The actuator or arm is positioned to operate on the next intended item associated with the plant, then it moves to the next item location and the process continues until the entire plant is operated on.” (Koselka,[0132])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses a two-stage image-guided alignment sequence: the arm is first brought to look approximately at a target location, and the end-effector-carried camera then refines that alignment until the end effector is positioned to operate on the target. Koselka performs this on fruit rather than on a pest. Feugier, however, expressly determines pest spatial coordinates and expressly reorients its treatment device in accordance with “the direction/position of the pests” (0058]). A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that Koselka's alignment routine is indifferent to the biological identity of the target, because it operates on a supplied coordinate and a camera-refined image rather than on any property unique to fruit. Supplying Feugier's pest coordinate in place of Koselka's fruit coordinate is the predictable application of a known image-guided positioning technique to a known target type, yielding the expected result of aligning the distal treatment head with the pest location on the crop plant.
actuate the pest-treatment device
See at least:
“Afterward, the destruction beam emitter 23 emits the destruction beam to the pests on the basis of the destruction order from the pest detecting means 51 (step S8).” (Feugier,[0076])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses that the control logic issues a destruction order upon pest detection and that the emitter emits on the basis of that order. Commanding the emitter to emit in response to a control instruction is actuation of the pest-treatment device. In the combination, the device so actuated is the emitter carried by the distal treatment head.
to perform localized pest treatment
See at least:
“...the pest detecting means 51 ... notifies the targeting means 53 of some data to destroy the pests such as the spatial coordinates of the pest, the power required and the diameter of the destruction beam, etc.” (Feugier,[0052])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly computes, for each detected pest, both the pest's spatial coordinates and the diameter of the destruction beam to be applied. Sizing the beam's spatial extent to the individual target, and aiming it by that target's coordinates, confines the applied energy to the pest rather than distributing it across the surrounding crop area — which is what distinguishes localized treatment from broadcast treatment. Feugier's wavelength selection, which ensures the beam's energy “will be well absorbed by the pests but not so well by the plant” (0057]), further confines the treatment's effect, but the spatial confinement established by the per-target coordinate and beam diameter is the teaching that meets this limitation.
at the pest location.
See at least:
“The targeting means 53 is designed to aim the destruction beam at the pests upon detecting the pests. In this embodiment, the targeting means 53 changes the orientation of the destruction beam after receiving the direction/position of the pests from the pest detecting means 51.” (Feugier,[0058])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly reorients the destruction beam according to the direction and position of the pest received from the detection logic, so that the emitter “can be directed at the pests.” Actuation after such reorientation applies the treatment at the detected pest location. In the combination, that alignment is achieved by the arm movement that places the distal treatment head at the pest location.
E. Motivation to Combine Feugier and Koselka
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 Feugier and Koselka before them, to carry Feugier's imaging device and laser destruction beam emitter on the distal end-effector assembly of Koselka's platform-mounted articulated arm, and to control that arm so as to align the assembly with the pest coordinates Feugier's detection logic determines.
Feugier itself supplies the suggestion. Feugier expressly contemplates arm-borne delivery of its optical train: “Also the user can use optical fibers on mobile (or not) arms of the robot, combined (or not) with mirrors mounted on piezoelectric actuators” (0062]). Feugier further recognizes the need to reach pests distributed throughout the vertical extent of the plant, disclosing scanning grids “coming from above and below the plants and also reaching the ground” (0092]). Feugier thus identifies both the problem of reaching pests at varied plant locations and the use of robot arms as a means of positioning its optics. Feugier [0062] does not, however, disclose an articulated arm, a distal head carrying the camera, a distal head carrying the emitter, or arm movement that aligns that head with a pest; Koselka supplies each of those structural and control relationships.
Koselka provides a mature and technically compatible implementation: a platform-mounted articulated arm with actuated joints (0114]), raisable and lowerable booms placing arm ends at differing heights (0115]), and an end effector carrying its own camera specifically so that targets “located inside the dark interior of some plants” can be located and tracked (0125]).
A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to make the combination in order to extend the accessible treatment envelope to pests at different heights and positions on the plant; to obtain images from within and around foliage where Feugier's platform-mounted optics have no line of sight; to reduce standoff distance between the imaging and treatment components and the pest, improving targeting accuracy and mitigating the beam-divergence penalty Feugier itself acknowledges; and to permit Feugier's laser to be aligned with the pest coordinates Feugier already computes.
Teaching away. Feugier's disclosure of mirror-based beam steering does not teach away from arm-based positioning. Feugier nowhere criticizes, discredits, or discourages the use of an arm, and instead expressly contemplates optical fibers carried on mobile robot arms at [0062]. Mirror steering and mechanical arm positioning are disclosed alternatives that may also operate complementarily. The disclosure of one workable targeting arrangement is not a teaching away from another absent criticism or discouragement of that alternative.
Reasonable expectation of success. The combination requires no change in the operating principle of either reference. Feugier would continue to detect pests from image data, derive pest coordinates, and issue a destruction order; Koselka's arm would continue to position a camera-equipped end effector at a visually identified agricultural target under stored control logic. Each element performs in the combination the same function it performs separately, and the interface between them — a target coordinate passed to an arm controller — is the interface Koselka already employs. A person of ordinary skill would accordingly have had a reasonable expectation of success.
F. Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Feugier and Koselka
After combining the teachings of Feugier and Koselka, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
configured to detect crop rows
and obstacles;
G. Disclosure by Cavender-Bares
Cavender-Bares discloses:
configured to detect crop rows
See at least:
“Aerial mapping sensors 116 can be capable of providing data that can be used to localize the position of the unmanned agricultural robot 100 in relation to the annual crop rows 102 within a given observation window.” (0040])
Rationale:
Cavender-Bares expressly teaches configuring a stereo-camera navigation sensor to localize an agricultural robot relative to annual crop rows, and confirms this operationally in disclosing that the robot uses “on-board navigational sensors, such as LIDAR or stereo camera, to navigate between rows.” Localizing the robot relative to the crop rows requires resolving the locations of those rows within the sensed environment. The plural depth cameras recited in the claim are, however, supplied by Koselka. Applying Cavender-Bares's disclosed crop-row-localization configuration to Koselka's plural perimeter-mounted stereo camera pairs renders the limitation obvious. The modification uses Koselka's depth cameras for the field-navigation purpose Koselka already assigns to them and predictably provides row-relative navigation.
and obstacles;
See at least:
“In other embodiments, obstacles 134 may not be recognized until one or more onboard cameras on the unmanned agricultural robot 100 have detected an obstacle 134 in the intended path of the unmanned agricultural robot 100 during operation.” (0051])
Rationale:
Cavender-Bares expressly discloses onboard cameras detecting an obstacle in the robot's intended path during operation, and expressly plots the resulting obstacle position for generation of an avoidance course. Camera-based obstacle detection is therefore express. Cavender-Bares does not expressly state that the obstacle-detecting cameras of [0051] are the same depth-resolving sensors of [0040]; configuring the depth cameras recited in the claim to perform both row detection and obstacle detection is accordingly an obviousness conclusion.
That configuration would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. Cavender-Bares expressly teaches using stereo-camera or other depth-sensor data to localize an agricultural robot relative to crop rows (0040]), and using onboard camera data to detect an obstacle in the robot's intended path (0051]). In the combination, the recited depth cameras are Koselka's perimeter-mounted stereo pairs, which Koselka already deploys so that the robot can “view a significant area at all times” and “navigate through the fields” (0105]). Cavender-Bares is not relied upon as identifying its [0051] obstacle-detecting cameras with its [0040] depth sensors, and it does not; the combined navigation subsystem instead uses Koselka's stereo camera pairs to execute both of Cavender-Bares's separately disclosed functions. A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to so configure those cameras, because the cameras already acquire spatial information for field navigation and both functions require determining the relative position of features within the robot's surrounding travel environment from that same spatially registered depth data. Applying Cavender-Bares's known crop-row-localization and obstacle-detection processes to Koselka's existing field-navigation stereo cameras would predictably yield integrated row following and obstacle avoidance without requiring a separate sensing architecture, and would avoid the redundant hardware, weight, power draw, and calibration burden of a second sensing chain.
H. Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to supplement the georeferenced guidance of Feugier's autonomous robot, as modified by Koselka's camera-equipped articulated arm and perimeter depth cameras, with Cavender-Bares's crop-row localization and obstacle-detection navigation functions.
The perimeter stereo camera pairs Koselka provides are already put to navigational use — Koselka states the robot “may use these cameras to navigate through the fields” (0105]) — but Koselka does not specify how those cameras resolve crop-row geometry or respond to an obstruction. Cavender-Bares supplies precisely that missing navigational logic, teaching that onboard depth sensors localize the robot “in relation to the annual crop rows” (0040]) and that onboard cameras detect an obstacle in the intended path so that an avoidance course may be generated (0051]). A person of ordinary skill would therefore have been applying Cavender-Bares's navigation methodology to sensing hardware the combination already possesses, rather than adding a new sensor suite.
Feugier already contemplates autonomous guidance within virtual circulation corridors indicated by GPS, and already contemplates the robot moving amongst furrows in an open maize field, but addresses guidance only at the level of satellite positioning and field-boundary emitters. Cavender-Bares identifies this deficiency, teaching that geospatial data alone is of limited accuracy for fine-scale positioning relative to adjacent crop rows and that onboard sensing is required to resolve actual row positions and continually correct the robot's course, and teaching further that unexpected obstacles are a recognized condition demanding onboard detection and an avoidance maneuver.
A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to make the combination in order to improve fine-scale navigation accuracy between crop rows; to compensate for the error and drift inherent in satellite-derived position data; to obtain three-dimensional range information concerning nearby crop rows and objects; to detect obstacles before collision, improving operational safety and reliability; and to protect the crop by keeping the robot within the inter-row corridor. Each of these incentives is expressly articulated by Cavender-Bares.
The combination employs Cavender-Bares's navigation methodology according to its established function and alters neither Feugier's pest-detection and laser-treatment principle nor Koselka's articulated-arm positioning principle. The navigation, pest-detection, and arm-control functions are technically compatible and operate in a coordinated manner: the navigation subsystem controls platform travel, Feugier's detection logic determines the pest location, and Koselka's arm-control architecture positions the distal treatment head relative to that detected location. The references disclose no technical incompatibility that would prevent their predictable integration. A person of ordinary skill would accordingly have had a reasonable expectation of success, and the result would have been the predictable integration of complementary navigation, manipulation, imaging, and pest-treatment subsystems in a single autonomous agricultural robot.
III. Rejection of Claims 16–29 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding Claim 16
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Feugier
Feugier discloses:
wherein the navigation subsystem is configured to navigate the mobile platform
See at least:
“For example, if the robot has to move in an autonomous fashion (without rails), it can be guided inside virtual circulation corridors indicated by GPS or positional information radio emitters arranged along the borders of the patrolled area.” (0030])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses that the guidance arrangement steers the self-propelled robot within defined virtual corridors. Guidance components that constrain the robot's travel path perform the recited navigation of the mobile platform. The teaching is express.
between crop rows
See at least:
“During day and night, patrol devices 2 are moving amongst furrows in a maize field guided by positional information emitters located at the limit of the field.” (0092])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses guided movement amongst furrows in a maize field. A person of ordinary skill would have understood the furrow in a row-planted maize field to be the trafficable space separating adjacent crop rows. Feugier therefore expressly navigates the platform between crop rows.
using georeferenced positioning data
See at least:
“For example, if the robot has to move in an autonomous fashion (without rails), it can be guided inside virtual circulation corridors indicated by GPS or positional information radio emitters arranged along the borders of the patrolled area.” (0030])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly names GPS as the source of the guidance information. GPS output is positional data resolved by reference to geographic coordinates, and is therefore georeferenced positioning data. Feugier expressly uses that data to steer the robot.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitation:
together with depth data generated by at least two depth cameras.
Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
together with depth data generated by at least two depth cameras.
See at least:
“Several stereo camera pairs may be located around the perimeter of the platform. These camera pairs are shown in FIG. 1 as ‘Stereo Cameras Around Robot Body’. These cameras enable the robot to view a significant area at all times. The robot may use these cameras to navigate through the fields and to map the fruit and vegetables located near the outside of the plants.” (0105])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses several stereo camera pairs on the platform and expressly puts them to navigational use. Each stereo camera pair generates depth information from the disparity between its two spatially separated viewpoints, consistent with Koselka's disclosure that positional offset is calculated “using at least two on-board cameras (stereo vision)” (0077]). Koselka therefore expressly discloses depth data generated by at least two depth cameras and expressly employs that data for field navigation. Koselka does not expressly disclose that the depth data is relied upon conjointly with georeferenced positioning data; although Koselka houses a GPS system on the same platform (0104]), co-location of the two systems is not a disclosure of their combined use. The conjoint operation is rendered obvious by Cavender-Bares as set out below.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to steer the mobile platform between crop rows on Feugier's GPS-referenced positioning data and Koselka's stereo-camera depth data together, in the manner Cavender-Bares expressly describes. Cavender-Bares discloses precisely that conjoint operation: “As the unmanned agricultural robot 100 moves through the agricultural field 101, onboard navigational sensors guide the machine between both actual crop row positions 120 ... and anticipated crop row positions 126 ... until such a point that the layout of actual crop rows 120 or other vegetation create significant uncertainty about the correct path for the agricultural robot 100 to follow” (0045]). The mapped row positions are georeferenced; the sensors guiding the machine against them are onboard depth sensors.
A person of ordinary skill had clear reason to adopt that arrangement. Feugier's guidance is referenced to emitters “located at the limit of the field” (0092]) and therefore resolves position at field scale, not row scale; Koselka's perimeter stereo cameras sense the immediate surroundings but carry no absolute field reference. Each supplies what the other lacks, and Cavender-Bares demonstrates that the two together yield accurate inter-row travel with continual course correction. The combination improves lane-keeping accuracy, compensates for drift in satellite-derived position, and reduces the risk of crop contact — benefits Cavender-Bares expressly articulates. Each element performs the function it performs separately, so a reasonable expectation of success attends the combination.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 16 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 17
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the at least two depth cameras are positioned laterally
with respect to the mobile platform.
Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
wherein the at least two depth cameras are positioned laterally
See at least:
“Several stereo camera pairs may be located around the perimeter of the platform. These camera pairs are shown in FIG. 1 as ‘Stereo Cameras Around Robot Body’. These cameras enable the robot to view a significant area at all times.” (0105])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly distributes several stereo camera pairs around the perimeter of the platform, and FIG. 1 depicts the arrangement, its “Stereo Cameras Around Robot Body” lead line resolving to two separate camera units mounted on different faces of the platform body. Koselka therefore expressly discloses plural depth cameras distributed across distinct faces of the robot. Koselka does not expressly designate any unit as lateral, and lateral placement is not inherent, since a perimeter distribution could in principle concentrate the units fore and aft. Lateral placement is accordingly PHOSITA-obvious rather than express or inherent. A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to place at least two of the cameras laterally: Koselka states the object of the distribution is to “view a significant area at all times,” which units confined to the fore and aft faces cannot achieve; in the combination the robot travels amongst furrows with standing crop on either side of it (Feugier,[0092]), so the features to be sensed lie principally to the flanks; and Cavender-Bares teaches that depth sensing is used to resolve the robot's position relative to the crop rows it travels between (0040]), which are the flanking features. Placing depth cameras where the features to be sensed actually are is the predictable placement of a known sensor, with a reasonable expectation that it will resolve those features.
with respect to the mobile platform.
See at least:
“Several stereo camera pairs may be located around the perimeter of the platform. These camera pairs are shown in FIG. 1 as ‘Stereo Cameras Around Robot Body’.” (0105])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly defines the camera positions by reference to the platform itself — around its perimeter, and around the robot body as labeled in FIG. 1. The recited positional relationship is therefore expressly taken with respect to the mobile platform, which is the frame of reference the claim requires.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to distribute the depth cameras of the combined system around the platform perimeter including its lateral faces, in the manner Koselka discloses and FIG. 1 depicts. Feugier's robot travels amongst furrows with crop standing on either side (0092]), so the crop rows the navigation subsystem must resolve lie to the machine's flanks throughout the pass. Cavender-Bares establishes that the purpose of the onboard depth sensing in such a machine is to localize it “in relation to the annual crop rows” (0040]) — a function that requires sight of the rows on either hand. Koselka provides the corresponding sensor layout and states its object expressly, continuous coverage of a significant area. A person of ordinary skill would have adopted that layout to obtain depth coverage of the rows the robot passes between, improving navigational reliability and reducing the risk of crop contact, and would have expected the arrangement to perform as Koselka describes.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 17 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 18
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the articulated control arm is mounted in a rear region
of the mobile platform.
Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
wherein the articulated control arm is mounted in a rear region
See at least:
“A rear mounted ‘Boom’ comprises multiple arms that are mounted higher than front mounted Booms. Each Boom may be raised or lowered which in turn moves any arms coupled to the Boom up or down simultaneously.” (0115])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses a rear-mounted boom carrying multiple arms, distinguished from front-mounted booms carrying others. An arm carried on a rear-mounted boom is mounted in the rear region of the machine. Koselka does not use the phrase “mounted in a rear region,” but an arm affixed to a structure the reference itself designates as rear-mounted occupies the rear region as a matter of the arrangement disclosed; mounting through an intervening boom is indirect structural mounting and satisfies the limitation, which does not require direct attachment.
of the mobile platform.
See at least:
“In addition to being the main robot frame and the base for arms wherein each arm is referenced in FIG. 1 as ‘Arm’, the platform houses the main power components...” (0104])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly identifies the platform as “the main robot frame and the base for arms.” The booms of [0115] and the arms they carry are therefore borne by the platform, and the fore and aft regions those booms occupy are regions of the mobile platform. The recited structural referent is expressly disclosed.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to mount the articulated control arm of the combined system in the rear region of the platform in the manner Koselka discloses. Koselka expressly explains that arm placement is dictated by platform geometry — “the arm geometry is also affected by the design of the base platform,” and arms must be positioned so that fruit is not “damaged or blocked by the base platform when it is adjacent to the tree” (0114]). Rear mounting is one of the small number of positions Koselka expressly identifies, and it gives the arm an unobstructed working envelope behind the platform as the machine advances, so the platform does not occlude the treatment head's approach to the plant. That advantage is compounded in the combined system, where Cavender-Bares's forward-looking navigation sensing must retain an unobstructed view of the crop rows ahead (0040]) — placing the arm aft keeps the manipulator out of the navigational field of view while the machine advances. Selecting the rear position from the fore and aft alternatives Koselka names is a routine choice among identified, predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill would have expected the arm to operate as Koselka describes.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 18 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 19
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 19.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the articulated control arm comprises an extendable sliding portion
configured to increase a reach of the distal treatment head
above a height of the mobile platform.
Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
above a height of the mobile platform.
See at least:
“For example, ‘top entry arms’ may reach into the plant from the top... This enables the harvester to pick fruit at the top of the tree and to reach into the canopy from the top, which is often the least dense area.” (0112])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses arms that reach into the plant from above and operate at the top of the tree. Koselka does not expressly compare the height of the arm's working end to the height of the platform, and the relationship is not inherent, since the comparison depends on the relative statures of machine and crop. The limitation is therefore PHOSITA-obvious rather than express: in the orchard embodiment Koselka describes, in which a ground-borne base platform services mature trees and the arm must rise over the canopy in order to descend into it from above, positioning the working end at the treetop would predictably place it above the height of the platform.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
wherein the articulated control arm comprises an extendable sliding portion
configured to increase a reach of the distal treatment head
Examiner Note: The recitation of an extendable sliding portion and the recitation that it is configured to increase a reach of the distal treatment head are addressed together, because the claim recites them in a single structural relationship, the extendable sliding portion must be the member that increases the distal head's reach, and treating them separately would obscure that relationship.
Disclosure by Lert
Lert discloses:
wherein the articulated control arm comprises an extendable sliding portion
See at least:
“FIG. 33 shows a side elevation of a telescoping Tote extend and lift/lower using one drive motor. Slide stages are extended using looped belt or cable anchored on preceding stage. First moving stage follows a chain drive with parallel bearings in elliptical profile to provide lifting and lowering with stage fully extended to left or right.” (0263])
Rationale:
Lert expressly discloses a telescoping extension mechanism carried on an autonomous mobile robot, comprising multiple slide stages that extend from the robot under a single drive motor, each stage anchored on the preceding stage, and capable of lifting and lowering the payload while fully extended. A multi-stage telescoping assembly whose stages translate relative to one another to project the working end beyond the machine's own footprint is an extendable sliding portion in the sense the limitation recites — a member that both slides and extends, as distinguished from a carriage that merely repositions a fixed-length arm. Lert applies the mechanism to transferring totes rather than to an articulated treatment arm, so its incorporation into the articulated control arm is rendered obvious below rather than expressly disclosed.
configured to increase a reach of the distal treatment head
See at least:
“Here, the robot loads Totes onboard by extending the transfer mechanism to either side of the robot (ambidextrous), engaging the target Tote, and then pulling the Tote onboard by retracting. Further, the Bot unloads Totes by extending the mechanism (which is already engaged with the Tote) to either side to place Tote at target location, releasing the Tote, and then retracting the mechanism.” (0263])
Rationale:
Lert expressly discloses that the function of extending the telescoping stages is to carry the mechanism's working end to a target beyond the robot's own footprint, and of retracting them to bring it back. The sliding portion is therefore expressly configured for the purpose of enlarging the working reach of the member it carries, which is the function the limitation recites. In the combination, the member carried at the end of the extended stages is the distal treatment head of Claim 1 — bearing Feugier's imaging device and laser or suction pest-treatment device — so the extension of the sliding portion increases the reach of that head. That structural correspondence is supplied by the combination and is set out in the motivation below.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Lert
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 Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Lert before them, to incorporate Lert's telescoping multi-stage slide as a portion of the articulated control arm of the combined system, so that extending that portion carries the distal treatment head to targets beyond the arm's fixed-length reach and above the height of the mobile platform. Feugier expressly identifies the need to reach pests distributed throughout the vertical extent of the plant, disclosing scanning “coming from above and below the plants and also reaching the ground” (0092]), and expressly recognizes that pests may be “hidden amongst the leaves, or within the plant body” (0043]) and therefore beyond the reach of a beam from a fixed station. Koselka establishes that an agricultural arm must service the plant from ground to treetop and enter the canopy from above (0112]).
Neither reference, however, supplies a mechanism that lengthens the arm itself rather than merely swinging or raising it. Lert does, and a person of ordinary skill had a recognized design incentive to adopt it. An articulated arm long enough in fixed length to reach the upper canopy is correspondingly long when folded; on a machine that must pass between crop rows without contacting the crop, the operating constraint Feugier imposes (0092]) and Cavender-Bares's row-relative navigation exists to maintain (0040]), stowed length is limited by the inter-row corridor. A telescoping section resolves that conflict directly, giving extended reach when deployed and a compact envelope when retracted, which is the same conflict Lert's mechanism resolves for a robot that must fit within a storage aisle yet place a payload beyond it. Lert's assembly is carried on a mobile robot and driven by an ordinary motor, so it is mechanically compatible with a jointed arm, and it performs in the combination the same function it performs in Lert — projecting a working member away from the robot body along a controlled linear path. The result is predictable and a reasonable expectation of success attends it.
Two points bear emphasis as to the compatibility of the modification. First, Lert's slide does not merely translate an inert payload: it carries an operative terminal member that engages, retains, and releases a target under control (0263]), which is the same duty the distal treatment head performs on a pest. Second, incorporating a prismatic, telescoping member into a serial articulated arm was a recognized robotic design option, and Koselka itself already provides for arms mounted upon and moving relative to other arms and booms (0113]), so the combined arm remains a jointed chain of the kind Koselka discloses with one linear degree of freedom added. Lert is not relied upon as disclosing an articulated arm, and it does not; it is relied upon only for the extendable sliding member, whose load, stiffness, and positional-control demands on a small mobile robot are of the same order as those Lert's mechanism already meets.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Lert, all limitations of Claim 19 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 20
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 20.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitation:
wherein the at least one imaging device comprises a depth camera.
Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
wherein the at least one imaging device comprises a depth camera.
See at least:
“A ‘wrist’ pivots and turns a hand-like actuator relative to the lower arm linkage. The hand may include a small stereo camera pair encased in a protective housing and is shown as this embodiment in FIG. 1 as ‘Hand with Stereo Cameras’. The housing is shaped such that it can be moved into and moved out of the canopy of the plant without engaging and significantly damaging either the plant or robot arm.” (0107])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly places a stereo camera pair in the hand-like actuator that the wrist carries at the end of the lower arm linkage — the arm's distal working member, which is the distal treatment head of the combination. FIG. 1 confirms the arrangement, labeling that member “Hand with Stereo Cameras.” A stereo camera pair resolves range from the disparity between two spatially separated viewpoints and is therefore a depth camera. The imaging device carried by the distal member accordingly comprises a depth camera, and the teaching is express in both the body text and the figure.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to implement the imaging device carried by the distal treatment head as the stereo depth camera pair Koselka places in its robotic hand. Feugier's control logic must determine “the spatial coordinates of the pest” and pass them to the targeting subsystem (0052]) — a three-dimensional position, not merely a two-dimensional image location. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that a stereo pair at the working member supplies range directly and therefore yields the coordinate Feugier's process consumes, without the additional inference a monocular camera would require. Koselka independently teaches that arm-carried cameras are what permit the system to see targets inside the canopy that body-mounted cameras cannot (0081]), and encases the pair in a housing shaped to enter and leave the canopy without damage (0107]) — addressing the same visibility problem Feugier identifies for pests “hidden amongst the leaves” (0043]). The choice is further reinforced by the architecture Cavender-Bares contributes to the combined system, which already relies on stereo depth sensing for navigation (0040]); adopting the same sensing modality at the treatment head lets the system resolve target range by one established technique throughout rather than two. Using a known stereo camera at the location Koselka expressly designates for it, to produce the range data Feugier expressly needs, is the predictable use of a known element for its established purpose.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 20 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 21
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 21.
Disclosure by Feugier
Feugier discloses:
wherein the pest-treatment device comprises the laser device.
See at least:
“LED (Light Emitting Diode), laser beam, or electromagnetic beam can be used as the destruction beam. In this embodiment, the destruction beam emitter 23 emits on the area the destruction beam with the best wavelengths to destroy the pest in response to a destruction order from the control device 3.” (0036])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly identifies a laser beam as the destruction beam and expressly discloses the emitter that generates it and directs it at the detected pest. The claimed “laser device” is that emitter — the structure that produces and applies the beam — rather than the beam standing alone, and Feugier's destruction beam emitter 23 is that structure. Feugier confirms the laser embodiment elsewhere, describing patrol devices carrying “a laser as the destruction beam emitter 23” (0069]). The teaching is express.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to select the laser alternative of Feugier's expressly disclosed pest-treatment devices as the device carried by the distal treatment head of the combined system. Although Feugier alone discloses the laser device, the claim incorporates every limitation of Claim 1, which the present rejection reaches only through the full combination: Koselka supplies the articulated arm, the distal end-effector assembly, and the plural depth cameras, and Cavender-Bares supplies the crop-row and obstacle detection functions of the navigation subsystem. A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to carry Feugier's laser emitter on Koselka's distal assembly for the reasons given in the rejection of Claim 1 — Feugier itself contemplates arm-borne delivery of its optical train (0062]) — and would have selected the laser from among Feugier's named alternatives because Feugier presents it as the modality by which pest-destructive energy is delivered to coordinates the detection logic has already computed. No change in the operating principle of any reference is required, and the result is predictable.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 21 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 22
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 22.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
Neither Feugier, Koselka, nor Cavender-Bares explicitly discloses the following claim limitation:
wherein the pest-treatment device comprises the suction device.
Koselka discloses a suction device at the operative end of its articulated arm — “The grabbing mechanism labeled as ‘Suction Grabber’ may either be a Suction cup with an internal vacuum pump as shown or any other grabbing mechanism capable of picking fruit” (0125]) — but applies it to detaching fruit, not to controlling pests. A suction cup that seals against a fruit surface and a device that removes an insect from foliage are not the same operating mechanism, and Koselka is accordingly not relied upon for the recited pest-treatment function. Koselka's contribution to this claim is the distal-arm placement of a vacuum-operated component, addressed in the motivation below.
Disclosure by Tugel
Tugel discloses:
wherein the pest-treatment device comprises the suction device.
See at least:
“As structure 100 is carried along a path, blower 106 operates at high capacity to draw air, primarily from the front of the structure, over and around the details of plants, capturing insects from the plants, and upward through plenum 105, and out through killing mechanism 107.” (0026])
Rationale:
Tugel expressly discloses a suction-operated pest-treatment device. A blower generates an airflow that draws insects off crop plants, conveys them through a plenum, and delivers them to a killing mechanism, and Tugel expressly characterizes the insects as “captured and suctioned through blower 106” and collected in a tray (0028]). Tugel further discloses that the killing mechanism “serves to kill insects drawn into and through the structure” by an electrically charged matrix (0020]), so the suction arrangement does not merely sample or observe pests but removes and destroys them. Suction is therefore expressly the operative means by which pests on crop plants are treated, which is the correspondence the limitation requires and which Koselka's fruit-gripping cup does not supply.
Tugel does not carry its suction device at the distal end of an articulated arm; Tugel's apparatus is a tractor-borne hood that vacuums whole rows as it passes (0025]). The distal-head placement and the localized, coordinate-targeted application of the suction are supplied by Koselka and Feugier respectively, through the combination set out below.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Tugel
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 Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Tugel before them, to provide the distal treatment head of the combined agricultural robot with a suction pest-treatment device implementing Tugel's vacuum-based insect capture, and to actuate that device once the articulated control arm has aligned the head with the pest location Feugier's image data identifies.
Feugier and Tugel address the same expressly stated problem — controlling insects and other organisms harmful to crop plants — by different modalities. Feugier directs a destruction beam to image-derived pest coordinates; Tugel draws insects off the plants in a suction airflow and delivers them to a killing and collection stage. Tugel therefore supplies a known treatment modality that is expressly pest-directed, rather than a suction device used for an unrelated purpose.
Feugier itself supplies the reason to reach for that second modality. Feugier expressly recognizes that “the plant can be infested by a pest that is not reachable by the destruction beams because it is hidden amongst the leaves, or within the plant body” (0043]). A person of ordinary skill would accordingly have had reason to supplement or replace the line-of-sight beam with a treatment that operates through directed airflow and pressure differential rather than through delivery of an optical destruction beam, which reaches targets among foliage that a beam cannot illuminate, and which avoids depositing laser or other destruction-beam energy in surrounding plant tissue.
Koselka supplies the technically compatible carrier. Koselka's articulated arm carries a camera-equipped hand-type actuator that locates and operates on plant-borne targets, including targets “located inside the dark interior of some plants,” and that actuator already carries a vacuum-operated component driven by an internal vacuum pump (0125]). Tugel establishes that suction airflow removes insects from plants; Koselka establishes that a vacuum-operated device can be carried at the operative end of an image-guided agricultural arm and brought to an identified target. A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to locate the suction inlet at the distal treatment head while placing the heavier supporting components — the blower, collection chamber, and power supply — on the mobile platform, connecting the inlet to those components through a flexible conduit. That component distribution is not expressly disclosed by Tugel, whose inlet, blower, plenum, and collection tray remain parts of one integrated tractor-borne hood, and it is relied upon here as an obvious implementation choice rather than as a teaching of the reference. It is a predictable arrangement of known vacuum-system components: it reduces the mass the arm must carry while putting the inlet immediately adjacent the detected pest, and it preserves the suction-capture function Tugel establishes. Flexible-hose coupling of a remote blower to a movable suction inlet is conventional in vacuum systems generally, and Official Notice is taken of that fact; Applicant may traverse by requesting documentary evidence.
Tugel further shows that its treatment is not confined to a fixed relationship with the crop. Tugel discloses that “the tractor interface is capable of raising and lowering the vacuum apparatus to adjust the relationship with plants and the ground level” (0034]), and discloses auxiliary blowers that “may be selectively aimed upward and inward toward plants over which the apparatus may be passing,” with the direction and volume of that air “made differently for different plants” (0039]). Tugel thus expressly recognizes that the direction and volume of treatment airflow may be adjusted for different plants. Paragraph [0039] concerns auxiliary airflow directed toward the plants rather than a selectively aimed suction inlet, and it is not relied upon as disclosing an aimed inlet; it is relied upon to show that plant-relative control of treatment airflow was an identified design variable within Tugel's pest-removal system, which is the direction in which the combination carries it.
In the combination, each element performs the function it performs separately: Feugier's onboard circuitry continues to detect pest coordinates from image data and command treatment at those coordinates; Koselka's arm continues to position a camera-equipped end effector at an image-identified plant target; Tugel's vacuum components continue to draw insects from plants into a killing and collection stage; and Cavender-Bares's navigation subsystem continues to guide the platform between crop rows and around obstacles. What the combination adds is the localization of Tugel's suction to a single detected pest rather than to a whole row, which is precisely what Koselka's coordinate-driven arm positioning accomplishes for any end effector it carries. Because blowers, conduits, and suction inlets were established components, and because Koselka already demonstrates an arm-carried vacuum device while Tugel expressly demonstrates vacuum removal of insects from plants, a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Tugel, all limitations of Claim 22 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 23
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 23.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the articulated control arm is configured to position the distal treatment head
at lower and upper portions of the crop plant.
Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
wherein the articulated control arm is configured to position the distal treatment head
See at least:
“The actuator or arm is positioned to operate on the next intended item associated with the plant, then it moves to the next item location and the process continues until the entire plant is operated on.” (0132])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses that the arm is commanded to positions indexed to successive targets on a given plant, and continues until the whole plant has been serviced. The arm is therefore configured — by the stored action plan that drives its actuators — to place its working end, the distal treatment head in the combination, at target-specific positions on the plant.
at lower and upper portions of the crop plant.
See at least:
“The ‘main arms’ slide up and down and can pick the fruit anywhere from the ground to the top of the trees.” (0112])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses the arm's full operating range as extending from the ground to the top of the tree. A range so bounded necessarily encompasses both the lower and the upper portions of the plant, since those regions lie within the stated endpoints. Koselka confirms the point in stating that its arms “may also be used to map the fruit near the top or bottom of the plants” (0105]). The claim terminology differs from Koselka's wording, but the capability the claim recites falls squarely within the range Koselka expressly discloses.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to configure the articulated control arm of the combined system to place the distal treatment head at both the lower and upper portions of the crop plant, as Koselka's arms are configured. Feugier expressly requires treatment across the plant's full vertical extent, describing scanning grids “coming from above and below the plants and also reaching the ground” (0092]), and expressly recognizes that pests may lodge where a beam cannot reach them (0043]). A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to give the treatment head the same ground-to-top working range Koselka gives its picking arms, so that Feugier's imaging and treatment components can be brought to pests wherever on the plant they occur rather than only where a fixed emitter has line of sight. Cavender-Bares's row-relative navigation makes the full-height treatment envelope usable in practice, since it holds the machine at a consistent lateral standoff from each row (0040]) so that a single pass can service the plant from base to crown without repositioning. The result is the predictable consequence of adopting an arm range Koselka expressly discloses.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 23 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 24
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 24.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the articulated control arm is configured to position the distal treatment head
at the lower portions of crops
and above a height of the mobile platform.
Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
wherein the articulated control arm is configured to position the distal treatment head
See at least:
“It positions itself as directed around each plant at 504. It then moves its actuators to locate the intended item as directed in the plan.” (0132])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly drives the arm's actuators pursuant to a stored plan in order to bring the arm's working member to a designated target. The arm is accordingly configured, by that control architecture, to position its distal working member — the distal treatment head in the combination.
at the lower portions of crops
See at least:
“The ‘main arms’ slide up and down and can pick the fruit anywhere from the ground to the top of the trees.” (0112])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses that the arms service the plant down to ground level. A working range that reaches the ground encompasses the lower portions of the crop, which lie between the ground and the mid-plant. The teaching is express as to the lower bound of the recited range.
and above a height of the mobile platform.
See at least:
“A rear mounted ‘Boom’ comprises multiple arms that are mounted higher than front mounted Booms. Each Boom may be raised or lowered which in turn moves any arms coupled to the Boom up or down simultaneously.” (0115])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses raising the boom so as to carry the coupled arms upward, and separately discloses arms that “reach into the plant from the top” to “pick fruit at the top of the tree” (0112]). Koselka does not expressly compare the resulting height of the working end to the height of the platform, and the relationship is not inherent, since it depends on the relative statures of machine and crop. The limitation is therefore PHOSITA-obvious rather than express: in the orchard embodiment Koselka describes, a ground-borne base platform servicing mature trees must carry its arm above the canopy in order to enter it from above, so positioning the working end at the treetop would predictably place it above the height of the platform.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to configure the articulated control arm of the combined system to place the distal treatment head both at the lower portions of the crop and above the height of the mobile platform, using Koselka's raisable boom and top-entry arm arrangements. Feugier expressly directs its scanning “from above and below the plants and also reaching the ground” (0092]), so the treatment envelope Feugier contemplates already spans from ground level to above the canopy; what Feugier lacks is a mechanism that carries the imaging and treatment components through that envelope. Koselka supplies it, expressly explaining that top entry is advantageous because the upper canopy “is often the least dense area” and therefore the most accessible (0112]). Cavender-Bares contributes the row-relative station-keeping that makes a tall, extended working envelope practical on a machine moving between rows (0040]), since an arm reaching above the canopy is usable only if the platform beneath it holds a predictable line. A person of ordinary skill would have adopted the arrangement to give the treatment head the full span, reaching pests at the plant base and in the upper canopy alike, and would have expected the boom and arm to behave as Koselka describes.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 24 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 25
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 25.
Disclosure by Feugier
Feugier discloses:
wherein the onboard control circuitry is configured to actuate the pest-treatment device
See at least:
“However, the control device 3 is not limited to the above mentioned embodiment, but may be altered accordingly. For example, all or part of the control device 3 can be embarked on the robot together with the patrol device 2.” (0037])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses an embodiment in which the control device — comprising the storage unit and the arithmetic processing unit that houses the pest detecting means and issues the destruction order — is carried on the robot itself. Circuitry so carried is onboard control circuitry, and it is that circuitry which commands the emitter to fire. The rejection relies on the embodiment in which the detecting function itself is onboard, not merely on the “all or part” language, because it is the onboard location of the detecting means that makes the negative limitation below operable. That this is an alternative embodiment does not limit its availability as prior art, since a reference is available for all that it discloses.
without requiring transmission of the image data to a remote server
See at least:
“In this embodiment, the reflected signal receptor 22 sends the reflected signal to the control device 3 for real-time analyses just after receiving it, or the signal can be analyzed in the robot.” (0035])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly presents two alternatives for where the image signal is analyzed: transmission to the control device, or analysis “in the robot.” The second alternative performs the analysis onboard, so no transmission of the image data off the machine is required to reach a detection result. The claim's “without requiring” phrasing does not demand that transmission never occur; it demands only that remote transmission not be a precondition of actuation, and Feugier's onboard-analysis embodiment satisfies that condition directly. Feugier does not label its remotely located control device a “server”; the distinction is immaterial because the onboard embodiment dispenses with transmission to any remote computing resource, however denominated.
before actuation of the pest-treatment device.
See at least:
“Afterward, the destruction beam emitter 23 emits the destruction beam to the pests on the basis of the destruction order from the pest detecting means 51 (step S8).” (0076])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly establishes the temporal order of operations: the pest detecting means analyzes the signal and issues a destruction order, and the emitter thereafter fires “on the basis of” that order. In the embodiment where analysis is performed in the robot (0035]) and the detecting means is embarked on the robot (0037]), every step preceding emission occurs onboard, so no transmission of image data to a remote resource intervenes before the emitter is actuated. The recited temporal relationship is expressly disclosed.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to perform the pest detection and treatment decision on the onboard control circuitry of the combined system, so that the pest-treatment device is actuated without first transmitting the image data off the machine. Although Feugier alone discloses the onboard-analysis embodiment, the claim incorporates every limitation of Claim 1, which the present rejection reaches only through the full combination — Koselka supplying the articulated arm, distal end-effector assembly, and plural depth cameras, and Cavender-Bares the crop-row and obstacle detection functions of the navigation subsystem. A person of ordinary skill would have had specific reason to select Feugier's onboard alternative in that combined machine: the arm-carried camera and treatment head require closed-loop alignment on a target that moves with the plant, and Koselka's own alignment routine refines the end effector's position from the camera image in real time as the arm approaches (0132]), which a round trip to a remote computing resource would delay. The onboard alternative is expressly disclosed by Feugier as operable, so its selection produces no unexpected result and a reasonable expectation of success attends it.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 25 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 26
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 26.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
Neither Feugier, Koselka, nor Cavender-Bares explicitly discloses the following claim limitations:
wherein the mobile platform comprises powered front wheels
and rear free-swiveling wheels.
Disclosure by Gonzalez-De-Santos
Gonzalez-De-Santos discloses:
wherein the mobile platform comprises powered front wheels
See at least:
“This is a platform that follows the skid steering scheme with two front fixed wheels (working in skid or differential mode) and two rear caster wheels.” (p. 9)
Rationale:
Gonzalez-De-Santos expressly describes the AgBot II agricultural robot as having “two front fixed wheels (working in skid or differential mode).” Read together with the chapter's definition of that scheme — skid steering is “accomplished by producing a differential thrust between the left” and right sides, in a structure “of four fixed, active wheels” (p. 7) — the front fixed wheels of the disclosed configuration are necessarily the driven pair, because wheels that generate the differential propulsive thrust by which the machine advances and turns are by definition powered. The limitation is therefore met expressly when the two passages are read together, and is at minimum necessarily implicit in the disclosed differential-thrust configuration, which cannot operate with unpowered front wheels.
and rear free-swiveling wheels.
See at least:
“This is a platform that follows the skid steering scheme with two front fixed wheels (working in skid or differential mode) and two rear caster wheels.” (p. 9)
Rationale:
Gonzalez-De-Santos expressly discloses two rear caster wheels on the same platform. A caster is by construction free to swivel about its vertical axis while rolling, and is therefore a free-swiveling wheel; two of them at the rear is the plural rear arrangement the limitation recites. The same configuration is tabulated at p. 11. The teaching is express, and it is express in the field of endeavor of the claimed invention.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos
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 Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos before them, to provide the mobile platform of the combined system with a pair of powered front wheels and a pair of rear free-swiveling caster wheels. Feugier requires only that “the robot has to be able to move while carrying the material necessary for its task” and that “its shape must allow it to move easily amongst the different shapes of crop plants” (0028]), leaving the running gear unspecified. Gonzalez-De-Santos supplies that running gear as implemented on a working autonomous field robot — AgBot II, “intended to work autonomously on both large-scale and horticultural crops” (p. 9).
A person of ordinary skill had concrete reasons to adopt it. Gonzalez-De-Santos reports that the skid steering scheme this configuration implements offers “compact size, robustness, few parts” and “agility (motion with heading control and zero-radius turns)” with “few actuators” (p. 8) — properties directly serving Feugier's requirement that the robot move easily amongst crop plants and turn at the ends of the furrows it patrols (0092]), and serving the row-following station-keeping that Cavender-Bares's navigation requires (0040]), since heading control at low turning radius is what allows a machine to hold a row line and re-enter the next. Driven wheels forward and free-swiveling casters aft additionally keep the running gear ahead of the rear-mounted articulated arm Koselka contributes (0115]), so the wheels do not obstruct the arm's working envelope. Because Gonzalez-De-Santos reports the configuration as already in service on autonomous crop robots performing field tasks, a person of ordinary skill would have had every expectation that it would carry Feugier's payload through a crop field as it carries AgBot II's.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos, all limitations of Claim 26 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 27
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 26, which is the basis for Claim 27.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Feugier
Feugier does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the powered front wheels are driven by an engine
through a chain drive system.
Disclosure by Koselka
Koselka discloses:
wherein the powered front wheels are driven by an engine
See at least:
“Alternatively, a single engine may drive the drive wheels simultaneously.” (0104])
Rationale:
Koselka expressly discloses an embodiment in which a single engine drives the drive wheels of the platform. Koselka confirms the prime mover and the interposed transmission path in the same paragraph, describing the platform as housing “main power components, which may comprise but is not limited to components such as an engine, generator, hydraulic pump, drive train and steering system.” That the driven wheels are the front pair is established by Gonzalez-De-Santos in the rejection of Claim 26, from which this claim depends. The recited engine drive of the powered wheels is expressly disclosed.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos, the following claim limitation is not explicitly disclosed:
through a chain drive system.
Disclosure by Lert
Lert discloses:
through a chain drive system.
See at least:
“For example, in one aspect, each drive wheel 5110A, 5110B is coupled to its respective motor through a chain drive (although in other aspects a belt or gear drive may be used) having a pinon gear 5110PG mounted to an output shaft of the respective drive motor 5110DA, 5110DB. An idler gear 5110DG is connected to wheel shaft 5110WS (as will be described below) and is drivingly coupled to the pinion gear 5110PG by any suitable chain 5110CN.” (0307])
Rationale:
Lert expressly discloses a chain drive system interposed between the rotary prime mover and the driven wheel of an autonomous mobile robot. The disclosed train is complete and structurally specified: a pinion gear mounted to the output shaft of the drive motor, a chain coupling that pinion to an idler gear, the idler gear connected to a wheel shaft, and the drive wheel mounted to that wheel shaft “so that as the wheel shafts 5110WS are driven the drive wheels 5110A, 5110B are driven with the respective wheel shaft.” Lert further identifies the chain drive as one of the recognized transmission options for that coupling, stating that “each drive wheel 5110A, 5110B is coupled to the respective drive motor 5110DA, 5110DB by any suitable transmission such as belts/pulleys, chains/sprockets, drive shafts, etc.” The recited chain drive system, positioned between the motive source and the powered wheels, is therefore expressly disclosed. Lert's prime mover is an electric drive motor rather than an engine; the engine is supplied by Koselka above, and the substitution is addressed in the motivation below.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, Gonzalez-De-Santos, and Lert
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 Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, Gonzalez-De-Santos, and Lert before them, to couple the engine of the combined system to its powered front wheels through Lert's chain drive system. Koselka expressly calls for a “drive train” between its engine and its drive wheels but leaves the transmitting member unspecified, and expressly signals that its listed power components are “not limited to” those named (0104]) — an invitation to supply the member. Lert supplies it, disclosing a complete pinion-chain-idler-wheelshaft train between a rotary power source and a driven wheel on an autonomous mobile robot (0307]), and expressly presenting chain and sprocket as one of the established transmissions for that coupling.
A person of ordinary skill had reason to select it here. Feugier requires a self-propelled robot able to carry its payload through the crop (0028]) and, in the open-field maize embodiment, to patrol “during day and night” (0092]) — a duty cycle demanding a robust, serviceable driveline. Gonzalez-De-Santos's skid-steering configuration adopted in Claim 26 requires torque to be delivered independently to each front wheel in order to produce the differential thrust by which the machine steers (p. 7), and Lert's arrangement provides exactly that, disclosing a separate motor and chain train for each drive wheel “so that each wheel can be individually driven independent of the other drive wheel” (0307]). A chain and sprocket further accommodates the center distance between a prime mover mounted within the platform frame and wheels set at the chassis extremities, and permits the drive ratio to be set by sprocket selection, Lert expressly noting that “the pinion gear 5110PG is smaller than the idler gear 5110DG but in other aspects the pinion gear and drive gear may have any suitable gear ratio (e.g. for gear reduction or multiplier).”
Substituting an engine for Lert's electric drive motor as the rotary source is immaterial to the transmission, which acts on shaft rotation without regard to how that rotation is produced, and Koselka independently establishes the engine as the prime mover of an agricultural robot platform of this kind. The combination applies a known transmission element to perform its established function of delivering torque from a rotary source to a driven wheel, and the result — engine torque at the powered front wheels — is entirely predictable.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, Gonzalez-De-Santos, and Lert, all limitations of Claim 27 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 28
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 28.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Feugier and Koselka
Neither Feugier nor Koselka explicitly discloses the following claim limitations:
wherein the navigation subsystem is further configured to cause the mobile platform to stop upon obstacle detection
and, after evaluation,
either resume movement after the obstacle is removed
or bypass the obstacle.
Disclosure by Cavender-Bares
Cavender-Bares discloses:
and, after evaluation,
See at least:
“In such a case, the L-FMAP combined with the FMAP can provide one or more alternative courses for the unmanned agricultural robot in order to avoid a collision with the obstacle. The unmanned agricultural robot can then select the appropriate course, or a remotely-located operator could be involved in selecting the course for the unmanned agricultural robot to take to avoid the obstacle.” (0016])
Rationale:
Cavender-Bares expressly interposes an assessment step between obstacle detection and the responsive maneuver: alternative courses are generated from the combined local and field maps, and the robot or a remote operator then selects among them. Generating candidate responses and choosing among them is an evaluation, and Cavender-Bares expressly places it after detection and before the robot acts, which is the sequence the limitation recites.
or bypass the obstacle.
See at least:
“In a situation where the unmanned agricultural robot is operating with many rows of crop on either side of it, a typical resolution involving an obstacle is to alter course to the right (or the left) and then continue parallel to the original direction until clear of the obstacle at which point returning to the left (or the right) until meeting and rejoining the original course.” (0016])
Rationale:
Cavender-Bares expressly discloses the complete bypass maneuver — a lateral deviation from the planned path, travel parallel to the original heading until the obstruction is cleared, and a return to and rejoining of the original course. Circumventing an obstruction and resuming the original path beyond it is bypassing the obstacle, and the teaching is express. This limitation is recited as one of two alternatives; its express disclosure independently satisfies the disjunctive response the claim requires.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
wherein the navigation subsystem is further configured to cause the mobile platform to stop upon obstacle detection
either resume movement after the obstacle is removed
Disclosure by Gonzalez-De-Santos
Gonzalez-De-Santos discloses:
wherein the navigation subsystem is further configured to cause the mobile platform to stop upon obstacle detection
See at least:
“An important shortcoming of these solutions is their lack of intelligence in solving problems, especially when obstacles are detected because they are not equipped with technology suitable for characterizing and identifying the obstacle type. This information is essential when defining any behavior other than simply stopping and waiting for the situation to be resolved.” (p. 6)
Rationale:
Gonzalez-De-Santos expressly identifies stopping upon obstacle detection as the established baseline behavior of autonomous agricultural vehicles — the behavior such a system exhibits when it detects an obstacle and lacks the discrimination needed to do anything more sophisticated. Gonzalez-De-Santos confirms the same response elsewhere, describing safety accomplished “through a combination of computer vision, LIDAR, and proximity sensors to infer dangerous situations and halt robot motion” (p. 17). Halting the platform on detection of an obstacle is therefore expressly disclosed as a known configuration of the navigation and safety subsystem of an autonomous agricultural robot.
either resume movement after the obstacle is removed
See at least:
“This information is essential when defining any behavior other than simply stopping and waiting for the situation to be resolved.” (p. 6)
Rationale:
Gonzalez-De-Santos expressly discloses the robot stopping and waiting for the obstacle situation to be resolved. It does not expressly state that the robot thereafter continues its interrupted travel, and that outcome is not inherent, since a stopped machine could instead remain halted, summon an operator, reverse, abandon the mission, or require a manual reset. This limitation is therefore PHOSITA-obvious rather than express or inherent. Once the obstruction has cleared and the planned path is again unobstructed, resuming the interrupted mission would have been the predictable response, because the sole condition that arrested the machine has ended and continued cessation would serve no navigational or safety purpose while leaving the field task unfinished — the very inefficiency Gonzalez-De-Santos identifies as the shortcoming of unintelligent systems. It is further noted that this limitation is recited in the alternative to bypassing, which Cavender-Bares expressly discloses above, so the claim is satisfied on the bypass branch independently of this one.
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos
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 Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos before them, to configure the navigation subsystem of the combined system to halt the platform upon detecting an obstacle, evaluate the situation, and then either wait for the obstruction to clear and continue, or execute the lateral bypass maneuver Cavender-Bares describes. Feugier's robot patrols autonomously day and night in an open maize field (0092]) and would therefore predictably encounter obstructions that no field-boundary emitter can anticipate, yet Feugier is silent as to how it responds. Koselka supplies the perimeter depth cameras that make detection possible (0105]) but no obstruction-response logic. Gonzalez-De-Santos supplies the baseline safety response and states its purpose: safety systems are “responsible for detecting obstacles in the robots' path and safeguarding humans and animals in the robots' surroundings as well as preventing collisions with obstacles or other robots” (p. 2). Cavender-Bares supplies the evaluated alternative and warns of its cost, that a bypass “would necessarily drive over some of the crop” (0016]).
A person of ordinary skill would have combined these teachings for reasons each reference articulates: to prevent collisions with people, animals, other machines, and field obstructions; to protect the arm-mounted optics and treatment head from impact; to preserve the crop Cavender-Bares identifies as the price of every bypass, by waiting out a transient obstruction rather than driving around it; and to keep Feugier's unattended patrol running without human intervention. Gonzalez-De-Santos further teaches the two-tier architecture that implements exactly this decision — a low-level system detecting short-range obstacles “with the purpose of avoiding imminent collisions” and a high-level system that “detects and discriminates obstacles at an adequate distance to allow the robotic system to make decisions (i.e., re-planning a trajectory)” (p. 17) — which maps onto the claimed stop-then-evaluate-then-choose sequence. The combination adds known navigation and safety logic to a machine already carrying the depth cameras that logic consumes, alters no operating principle of any reference, and yields the predictable result of an autonomous robot that neither collides with obstructions nor damages crop unnecessarily in avoiding them.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, Cavender-Bares, and Gonzalez-De-Santos, all limitations of Claim 28 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 29
The combination of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares establishes the autonomous agricultural robot system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 29.
Disclosure by Feugier
Feugier discloses:
wherein the onboard control circuitry is further configured to generate field data
See at least:
“The pest control statistical data making means 54 is designed to make the pest control statistical data. Firstly, the pest control statistical data making means 54 acquires a useful data for a pest control of the reflected signal gathered in the reflected signal storage means 43. Subsequently, the pest control statistical data making means 54 makes the pest control statistical data described above by using the useful data.” (0064])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly discloses a data-making function within the arithmetic processing unit that derives statistical data about the patrolled area from the signals the patrol device gathers. Because Feugier expressly provides that “all or part of the control device 3 can be embarked on the robot” (0037]), the arithmetic processing unit performing this function is the onboard control circuitry of the combination, and the data it produces — derived from observations made across the patrolled field — is field data as the limitation recites.
indicative of at least one of pest occurrence, weed pressure, crop failure, germination, or phenological stage.
See at least:
“For example, with a real time analysis of the spatial pest density, the predicting means 55 can calculate the density gradient to find the presence of a nest of pests. In this case, the predicting means 55 outputs an order to increase the number of patrols to the patrol device 2 in the area of the nest.” (0065])
Rationale:
Feugier expressly generates spatial pest density data across the patrolled area and expressly uses that data to locate concentrations of pests within the field. Spatial pest density resolved by location is data indicative of pest occurrence, which is the first alternative the limitation recites. Because the limitation is drawn in the alternative — “at least one of” the listed indicators — disclosure of pest occurrence satisfies it, and disclosure of weed pressure, crop failure, germination, or phenological stage is not additionally required. Feugier confirms the scope of the data it accumulates in disclosing a database whose entries the user may classify as “pest,” “infestation symptom,” “useful,” or “weed” (0047]).
Motivation to Combine Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares
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 Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares before them, to configure the onboard control circuitry of the combined system to generate field data indicative of pest occurrence, as Feugier's statistical data making means and predicting means do. Although Feugier alone discloses that function, the claim incorporates every limitation of Claim 1, which the present rejection reaches only through the full combination — Koselka supplying the articulated arm, distal end-effector assembly, and plural depth cameras, and Cavender-Bares the crop-row and obstacle detection functions of the navigation subsystem. A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to retain Feugier's data-generating function in the combined machine, and the combination makes it more useful rather than less: Cavender-Bares's georeferenced field map (0040], [0045]) supplies the spatial frame in which Feugier's pest density data can be resolved to particular rows and locations, so that the “density gradient” Feugier computes to “find the presence of a nest of pests” (0065]) is referenced to mapped field coordinates. Feugier expressly puts that output to operational use, directing additional patrols to the affected area, and the combination performs the same function to the same predictable effect.
After combining the teachings of Feugier, Koselka, and Cavender-Bares, all limitations of Claim 29 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims and Entry of the Amendment
Applicant's amendment and remarks filed have been received, and fully considered.
Claims 2–15 stand canceled. Claim 1 stands amended. New Claims 16–29 have been added. Claims 1 and 16–29 are pending and under examination.
Entry of the amendment reflects that it has been considered and made of record. It is not an adoption of Applicant's characterizations of the disclosure, and it is not an acknowledgment that every recitation of every newly presented claim finds support in the application as originally filed.
Two observations on the correspondence between the remarks and the claims are noted for the record, because certain arguments are keyed to language that does not appear in the claims as amended. The remarks describe Claim 1 as reciting a mobile platform “configured to travel through a cultivated field along crop rows”; Claim 1 as amended recites a mobile platform “configured to travel through a crop field between rows.” The remarks likewise argue support for the term “suction pump”; Claim 1 as amended recites a “suction device.” The claims as amended control, and the present rejections are applied to that language.
II. Effect of the Amendment on the Grounds of Rejection
Applicant characterizes the amendment to Claim 1 as a clarification. The amendment does more than clarify. It removes several recitations and adds a set of functional relationships that were not previously claimed.
Amended Claim 1 now requires onboard control circuitry configured to receive image data from the imaging device carried by the distal treatment head, to detect a pest location on a crop plant from that image data, to control movement of the articulated control arm so as to align the distal treatment head with the detected pest location, and to actuate the pest-treatment device to perform localized treatment at that location. The amendment further requires the depth cameras of the navigation subsystem to detect crop rows and obstacles.
These recitations tie image acquisition, pest localization, manipulator control, treatment-head alignment, and localized treatment into a single closed sequence. No such sequence appeared in the claim previously examined, which recited the control element and its distal-end components in structural terms without reciting the control relationships now claimed.
Basis for finality. The new grounds of rejection set forth in this action were necessitated by Applicant's amendment and by the presentation of new claims, and do not preclude finality. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Claim 1 as originally presented already recited a control element having a distal end bearing a camera and a laser device or suction pump, and already recited at least two lateral depth cameras; those features are not the basis for the change in applied art. The change is directed to the functional relationships first recited in the amendment. Feugier is applied because it discloses the derivation of a pest's spatial coordinates from image data, the reorientation of the treatment device in accordance with the detected direction and position of the pest, and actuation of that device upon a destruction order — the closed-loop sequence the amendment introduced. Cavender-Bares is applied because it discloses crop-row localization from onboard depth sensing and camera-based detection of an obstacle in the robot's intended path — the navigation functions the amendment introduced. Claims 16–29 were presented for the first time with this amendment and were not previously searched or examined; the further references applied to those claims address limitations first introduced by them.
III. Response to Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant argues that the previous written-description rejection should be withdrawn because Claims 2–15 have been canceled and because Claim 1 has been amended to delete the recitations that formed the basis of that rejection. Applicant separately argues that the specification need not disclose laser wavelengths, ablation parameters, or suction operating conditions, because a person of ordinary skill would supply them without undue experimentation.
The argument is well taken. Claims 2–15 are canceled and the previous rejections of those claims are not carried forward. As to Claim 1, the recitations that formed the basis of the previous rejection — including embedded artificial intelligence for navigation and decision-making in pest identification and control, embedded servers, radios, real-time failure identification, the horizontal structural base, the five degrees of freedom of the control element, the term “lateral” as applied to the depth cameras, the in-use signaling device, and the positioning and location device — have been deleted or replaced. The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is accordingly WITHDRAWN against amended Claim 1.
IV. Response to Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant argues that the limitations forming the basis of the previous indefiniteness rejection have been deleted from Claim 1 and that the rejection of Claims 2–15 is moot.
The argument is persuasive as to the grounds previously made. Claims 2–15 are canceled. The recitations identified in the remarks have been removed from Claim 1 or replaced with definite alternatives. The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is not maintained against amended Claim 1.
V. Response to Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that amended Claim 1 is directed to a physical autonomous agricultural robot system defined by a structural robotic arrangement, rather than to a mental process or other abstract idea, and that the claim does not merely automate a human cognitive workflow. Applicant's argument is persuasive.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Amended Claim 1 recites an autonomous agricultural robot system comprising a mobile platform, a navigation subsystem, at least one georeferenced positioning device, at least two depth cameras, an articulated control arm, a distal treatment head, at least one imaging device, at least one pest-treatment device selected from a laser device and a suction device, and onboard control circuitry. Claim 1 is directed to a machine and falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of a Judicial Exception
The recitation that the onboard control circuitry “detect a pest location on a crop plant from the image data” encompasses observation and evaluation of the kind a person could perform in reviewing an image of a plant, and therefore may recite a mental process within the meaning of MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). That the operation is recited as performed by onboard control circuitry does not by itself remove it from that grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) (a claim may recite a mental process even where it is claimed as being performed on a computer). Prong One is therefore resolved in favor of finding a recited exception, and the analysis proceeds to Prong Two.
The remaining recitations of Claim 1 — a mobile platform, a navigation subsystem with a georeferenced positioning device and depth cameras, an articulated control arm, a distal treatment head, an imaging device, a laser or suction pest-treatment device, and the control of arm movement, head alignment, and device actuation — recite no mathematical concept and no method of organizing human activity, and are treated as additional elements under Prong Two.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Integration Into a Practical Application
Claim 1 integrates the recited evaluation into a practical application, and is therefore not directed to a judicial exception.
The pest location determined by the onboard control circuitry is not displayed, reported, stored, transmitted, or subjected to further analysis. It governs the operation of the physical components of a particular machine. The circuitry uses that location to control movement of the articulated control arm, to align the distal treatment head with the detected pest location on the crop plant, and to actuate the laser device or suction device that performs localized treatment at that location. The claim thus does not merely apply the evaluation on a generic computer; it makes the result of the evaluation the control input for a specific physical operation.
The additional elements further confine the claim to a particular technological environment in a manner that is more than a field-of-use limitation. The platform must travel through a crop field between rows under a navigation subsystem having georeferenced positioning hardware and depth cameras that detect crop rows and obstacles, and the distal treatment head carries both the imaging device that supplies the image data and the pest-treatment device that acts upon the pest. The image acquisition is therefore not insignificant pre-solution data gathering; it is the sensing step of a closed control loop that terminates in physical treatment of the plant.
Considered as a whole, the claim effects a particular treatment operation performed by a particular machine upon a particular plant. Any recited mental process is integrated into that practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (an additional element that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception, integrates the exception into a practical application).
Step 2B
Because Claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, the analysis does not proceed to Step 2B.
Claims 16–29
These claims depend from Claim 1 and incorporate its structure and its practical application, further limiting the system by additional physical and operational features. Nothing in them displaces the practical application established by Claim 1.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn as to amended Claim 1. No rejection under § 101 is made against Claims 16–29. The previous § 101 rejection is not carried forward as to canceled Claims 2–15.
VI. Response to Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
A. The Ground Argued Has Been Superseded
Applicant's arguments are directed to the previous rejection over Santhosh in view of Letsky and Koselka. That ground is not maintained, and the present rejection relies on neither Santhosh nor Letsky and on none of the reasoning Applicant attributes to the previous action.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments that Letsky is a generic robotic platform, that Letsky does not disclose cameras configured for pest identification, that Letsky does not disclose a georeferenced agricultural system adapted for pest management, that Santhosh does not disclose the claimed integrated approach, and that the previous references furnished no adequate reason for their combination are moot. Claims 4 and 13 stand canceled, and the arguments directed to their previous rejection are likewise moot.
Applicant's remarks also advance general propositions of obviousness law and general assertions about the merits of the claimed system. Those are not moot, and they are addressed on their merits below as applied to the present combination.
B. Artificial Intelligence Is Not a Limitation of the Amended Claim
Applicant argues repeatedly that the applied references fail to disclose artificial intelligence configured for pest recognition, while acknowledging in the same remarks that artificial intelligence has been removed from Claim 1.
Because amended Claim 1 does not recite artificial intelligence, the present rejection does not rely upon artificial intelligence as a claim limitation, and the absence of that term from a reference is immaterial. What Claim 1 requires are functions of onboard control circuitry: receiving image data, detecting a pest location on a crop plant from that data, controlling movement of the articulated control arm, aligning the distal treatment head with the detected location, and actuating the pest-treatment device to treat that location. Those recitations, and not the label applied to the processing, are what the present rejection addresses.
C. The References Are Considered in Combination, Not Individually
Applicant argues that Koselka neither discloses a system directed to agricultural pest control nor teaches integration of pest identification and control within an autonomous robotic platform.
That argument evaluates Koselka as though the rejection rested on Koselka alone. It does not. Koselka is relied upon for what it discloses, each teaching identified by paragraph: a self-propelled agricultural platform that serves as the main robot frame and the base for its arms ([0104]); several stereo camera pairs located around the perimeter of that platform, which the robot “may use ... to navigate through the fields” ([0105]); arms having one or more degrees of freedom with actuators at each joint ([0114]); a hand-like actuator carried by the wrist at the end of the lower arm linkage, which “may include a small stereo camera pair encased in a protective housing” shaped so that it can be moved into and out of the canopy of the plant without damaging plant or arm ([0107]); a camera and light system in that same hand-type actuator used to locate and track targets “even the fruit located inside the dark interior of some plants” ([0125]); and movement of the arm to an intended target followed by camera-refined positioning of the end effector at that target ([0132]). Paragraphs [0107] and [0125] describe the same distal hand-type actuator in different figures and are relied upon for distinct features of it — the stereo camera pair and its canopy-entering housing in the former, the illuminated imaging of targets within the plant interior in the latter. Pest identification, the derivation of pest coordinates, targeting, and localized pest treatment are supplied by Feugier, not by Koselka.
Nonobviousness is not established by attacking references individually where the rejection rests on their combined teachings. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Nor is the test whether the structure of one reference may be bodily incorporated into another; the inquiry is what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012). That Feugier does not itself disclose Koselka's arm architecture, and that Koselka does not itself perform Feugier's pest-treatment process, is therefore not probative.
D. The Combination Rests on Articulated Reasoning Drawn From the References, Not on Hindsight
Applicant contends that the rejection reflects impermissible hindsight reconstruction and that the claim has been used as a template, citing In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Ex parte Raymond, 41 USPQ2d 1217 (BPAI 1996), and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals v. UCB Pharma, 913 F.3d 1076, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Those authorities are not disputed as statements of law. They forbid an obviousness conclusion drawn from knowledge available only in Applicant's disclosure. They do not forbid a conclusion drawn from knowledge within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
The reason for the central modification is stated in the primary reference itself. Feugier discloses:
“Also the user can use optical fibers on mobile (or not) arms of the robot, combined (or not) with mirrors mounted on piezoelectric actuators.” (Feugier, [0062])
Carrying Feugier's optical delivery path on a robot arm is therefore contemplated by Feugier, not derived from Applicant's claim. Feugier also states the problem such an arm solves, disclosing that a plant “can be infested by a pest that is not reachable by the destruction beams because it is hidden amongst the leaves, or within the plant body” ([0043]), and disclosing scanning “coming from above and below the plants and also reaching the ground” ([0092]). Feugier thus identifies both the need to reach pests throughout the vertical extent of the plant and the use of an arm as a means of positioning its optics, while stopping short of disclosing an articulated arm, a distal head carrying the camera and emitter, or arm movement that aligns that head with a detected pest. Koselka supplies those structures. Koselka is in the same field of endeavor — autonomous agricultural robotics — and is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned, namely positioning an imaging-equipped end effector at a visually identified target borne by a crop plant. Koselka is directed to harvesting, pruning, and like operations rather than to pest treatment, and it is relied upon for its positioning and imaging architecture rather than for any pest-control teaching.
A person of ordinary skill would accordingly have had reason to combine Feugier's pest-coordinate determination and treatment with Koselka's image-guided articulated end effector: to extend treatment access to pests at differing heights and positions on the plant; to obtain images from within and around foliage where Feugier's platform-mounted optics have no line of sight; to reduce the distance between the imaging and treatment components and the pest; and to apply Feugier's treatment modality at coordinates Feugier already computes. Such a reason may be drawn from the references, from the nature of the problem, or from the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill, who is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420–21 (2007); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Cavender-Bares addresses the complementary navigational deficiency. Feugier contemplates guidance referenced to emitters “located at the limit of the field” and movement amongst furrows, but does not specify how the machine resolves row geometry at close range or responds to an obstruction. Cavender-Bares supplies crop-row localization from onboard depth sensing and camera-based detection of an obstacle in the intended path. Applying those known navigational functions to the stereo-camera-equipped platform Koselka provides would predictably improve row following, collision avoidance, crop protection, and reliability.
In the combination each element performs the function it performs separately. Feugier's circuitry detects the pest location and commands localized treatment; Koselka's arm positions a camera-equipped end effector at a visually identified plant target; Koselka's perimeter stereo pairs supply depth-resolving navigation data; and Cavender-Bares's methodology applies that data to row localization and obstacle response. No change in the basic principle of operation of any reference is required. The components are technically compatible, the reasons to combine arise from the references and from recognized objectives in the art, and the result is predictable. A reasonable expectation of success therefore attends the combination.
The prima facie case set out above rests on affirmative findings: the express teachings of the applied references, their technical compatibility, the reasons to combine drawn from the references and from recognized objectives in the art, and the predictability of the result. Applicant's generalized allegation of hindsight does not identify any factual or legal error in those findings or in the articulated technical reasons for the proposed combination. It does not show that the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of any reference, nor that any reference criticizes or discourages the combination. The argument accordingly does not rebut the prima facie case.
E. The Claimed Invention Has Been Considered as a Whole
Applicant cites MPEP § 2141.02 for the proposition that obviousness is assessed as to the claimed invention as a whole rather than as to its separate pieces, and argues that the references fail to suggest a functionally integrated system combining autonomous navigation, georeferenced analysis, pest identification, and active localized pest control.
The claimed invention has been considered as a whole. The rejection does not locate the recited components in isolation and stop there; it addresses the sequence in which the claim requires them to cooperate. Feugier's onboard-control embodiment receives image data, detects a pest, derives its spatial coordinates, orients the treatment device to the detected position, and actuates that device. Koselka's control system drives the arm to an intended target associated with a plant and refines the position of the camera-equipped end effector at that target. Cavender-Bares uses onboard depth sensing to localize the machine relative to crop rows and onboard cameras to detect an obstruction ahead of it.
Combined as set forth above, these teachings yield the sequence Claim 1 recites: navigation of the platform through the crop field between rows; acquisition of image data at the distal treatment head; determination of a pest location on a crop plant from that image data; arm-controlled alignment of the head with that location; and localized actuation of the treatment device there. The asserted integration is thus the subject of the rejection, not something the rejection overlooks.
F. The Asserted Technical Advantages Do Not Establish Nonobviousness
Applicant asserts that the claimed integration yields precise and localized pest management, reduced pesticide usage, and autonomous decision-making based on real-time conditions. The assertion is not persuasive, for three reasons.
First, Claim 1 does not require applying a pesticide, measuring pesticide consumption, or achieving any reduction in pesticide use. An advantage not required by the claim cannot distinguish the claimed subject matter from the prior art. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Second, precise localized treatment is the expected result of the applied teachings rather than an unexpected one. Feugier derives the pest's spatial coordinates, computes the diameter of the destruction beam to be applied to that individual target, directs the beam to that position, and selects treatment parameters so that energy is absorbed by the pest and not by the plant. Positioning that treatment interface with Koselka's articulated end effector predictably preserves and improves the target-relative operation Feugier already performs. Expected results do not evidence nonobviousness.
Third, amended Claim 1 does not recite autonomous decision-making based on real-time conditions as a limitation of the breadth the argument supposes. Patentability is determined on the language of the claims; features and advantages appearing only in the specification or in argument of counsel cannot be read into them.
Applicant has submitted no comparative data, no showing of criticality, no evidence of unexpected results, and no other objective indicia of nonobviousness. Attorney argument unsupported by evidence cannot take the place of such a showing. See MPEP § 2145.
VII. Newly Presented Claims 16–29
Claims 16–29 were presented for the first time with this amendment and were not the subject of the previous action. Applicant's arguments, which are directed to the previous rejection of Claims 1–15, do not reach them.
The additional limitations of these claims have been searched and are rejected in the body of this action on the complete combination that establishes Claim 1, together with the further references identified for the respective dependent claims. The grounds applied to Claims 16–29 were necessitated by the presentation of those claims and by the additional limitations recited therein, which had not previously been before the Office. The references newly applied to these claims are directed to that newly presented subject matter and do not remedy any omission in the examination of the claims previously pending. Applicant has not directed substantive argument to those grounds.
VIII. Conclusion
The previous rejections of canceled Claims 2–15, and the previous rejections directed to the superseded language of Claim 1, are not carried forward. Withdrawal of those grounds does not establish that amended Claim 1 or newly presented Claims 16–29 satisfy the remaining requirements of the statute.
Applicant's argument under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is persuasive as to eligibility. Amended Claim 1 recites a statutory machine. Although the recitation of detecting a pest location on a crop plant from image data may recite a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim as a whole integrates that process into the practical application of controlling an articulated agricultural robot, aligning a physical treatment head with the detected pest location, and actuating a laser device or suction device to perform localized treatment at that location. Claim 1 is therefore not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two, and the analysis does not reach Step 2B.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn as to amended Claim 1. No rejection under § 101 is made against Claims 16–29. The previous § 101 rejection is not carried forward with respect to canceled Claims 2–15.
Applicant's arguments directed specifically to the superseded ground over Santhosh in view of Letsky and Koselka are moot, that ground not being maintained. To the extent Applicant's remarks present general objections potentially applicable to the newly made rejection — including the allegations of hindsight, of failure to consider the invention as a whole, and of deficiencies in the individual references — those arguments have been considered and are not persuasive for the reasons stated above: the present record supplies express prior-art teachings, technically compatible components, reasons to combine drawn from the references themselves, predictable results, and a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant's request for reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection is accordingly denied.
The rejections of Claims 1 and 16–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth in this action are newly made. They are made final because they were necessitated by Applicant's amendment to Claim 1 and by the presentation of new Claims 16–29. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
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