DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/698,261 filed on 04/03/2024, in
which claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2110534, filed on 10/05/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2024 has been received
and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection
previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/16/2025. Applicants arguments,
see page 8-15 filed on 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35
USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been
withdrawn. A new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment over Kocer (US 20210357664 A1) in view of Ehlers (US 20210007291 A1) further in view of Casper (US 9554098 B2) further in view of Scott (US 20220024486 A1) further in view of Sporrer (US 11632895 B2) and further in view of Ethirajan (WO 2022215095 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20210357664 A1) to Kocer et al. (hereinafter Kocer) in view of (US 20210007291 A1) to Ehlers et al. (hereinafter Ehlers).
Regarding claim 1, Kocer discloses An autonomous agricultural robot comprising: (Kocer Paragraph 0012: “for instance with an autonomous obstacle monitoring and vehicle control system configured to operate a remote sensing device (e.g., a drone, boom, articulating arm or the like) including one or more sensors.”) a control unit; (Kocer Paragraph 0041: “The autonomous obstacle monitoring and vehicle control system 110 further includes a controller”) treatment tools allowing treating crops; (Kocer Paragraph 0132: “As shown with illustrative arrows, spray output is provided from the sprayer booms, for instance, to the underlying crops”) forward movement means enabling the autonomous agricultural robot to advance in an advance direction within a crop parcel; (Kocer Paragraph 0007: “Optionally, an agricultural vehicle may use a ground based scout drone that drives ahead of the vehicle and provides a forward look at the forthcoming path for the agricultural vehicle.”) (Kocer Paragraph 0041: “For instance, the controller 104 includes a path module configured to determine a path of travel for the agricultural vehicle including ongoing planning of paths for the vehicle to drive”) […] measure characteristic quantities of the upstream crops, these crops being located upstream of the treatment tools before passage of the treatment tools over the crops with respect to the advance direction; (Kocer Paragraph 0170: “In operation, the remote sensing device 114 is deployed to conduct the scouting mission 1120, for instance, according to a scouting route 1122 provided by the mission administration module 304 shown in FIGS. 3A, 3B. The remote sensing device 114 moves proximate to the scouting route 1122 and observes the area proximate to the scouting route 1122 to analyze one or more crop or soil characteristics. In one example, the scouting route 1122 corresponds to one or more of guidance lines, swath lines, turn segments for the agricultural system 1100 provided by way of the path module 302 or the field computer 352 shown in FIG. 39.”) (Note: scouting route = upstream of the treatment tools before passage of the treatment tools) (para. 0176: treatment of pesticides or herbicides) measure characteristic quantities of said downstream crops, said crops being located downstream of the treatment tools after the treatment tools pass over the crops with respect to the advance direction; (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “The observations of the remote sensing device 114 are interpreted with the obstacle recognition module 310 including, but not limited to, the obstacle comparator 312, identification module 314, the indexing module 316 and the prioritizing module 318. In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”) (archived characteristics = downstream of the treatment tools after the treatment tools pass over the crops) (para. 0176: treatment of pesticides or herbicides) the control unit being configured to: receive the measurements of the characteristic quantities of the upstream and downstream crops originating […]; (Kocer Paragraph 0160: “The obstacle recognition module 310 includes one or more of an obstacle comparator 312”) (Kocer Paragraph 0169: “The obstacles 1102, 1104, in this example, correspond to variations in crop characteristics and are identified and indexed with the obstacle recognition module 310. The identified obstacles 1102, 1104 are relayed to the vehicle operation module 306 to control the application of one or more agricultural products to the zones of the field with the obstacles 1102, 1104 (variations in one or more characteristics).”) process the measurements of the characteristic quantities of the crops […] and performing a comparison of the measurements of the characteristic quantities of the same upstream and downstream crop, corresponding to the comparison of the characteristic quantities of said culture before and after passage of the treatment tools; (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “The observations of the remote sensing device 114 are interpreted with the obstacle recognition module 310 including, but not limited to, the obstacle comparator 312, identification module 314, the indexing module 316 and the prioritizing module 318. In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”) […] to the autonomous agricultural robot when the comparison exceeds a predefined threshold. (Kocer Paragraph 0070: “In another example, the identification module 314 identifies a potential obstacle from the observations if the confidence of the obstacle comparison at the comparator 312 is greater than a specified threshold, such as a threshold confidence value or the like (e.g., 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 percent or more likelihood of identification or the like).”) (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”)
Kocer does disclose treating a crop with pesticides or herbicides in para. 0176. Kocer does not disclose […] said autonomous agricultural robot being characterised in that it comprises a device for protecting the crop parcel, this protective device being configured to: […] from the protective device […] read by the protective device […] transmit a command for protecting the crop parcel
However, Ehlers does teach […] said autonomous agricultural robot being characterised in that it comprises a device for protecting the crop parcel, this protective device being configured to: […] from the protective device […] read by the protective device […] transmit a command for protecting the crop parcel (Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include […] said autonomous agricultural robot being characterised in that it comprises a device for protecting the crop parcel, this protective device being configured to:[…] from the protective device […] read by the protective device […] transmit a command for protecting the crop parcel taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
Regarding claim 2, Kocer discloses The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic quantities measured by the device for protecting the crops are an image of the crop and/or the width of the crop and/or the height of the crop and/or the angle formed by the crop with the soil and/or the position of the crop, and/or a spacing between the crop and another crop of the parcel. (Kocer Paragraph 0091: “As further shown in FIG. 4, the remote sensing device 114 includes one or more sensors represented with the sensor suite 400.”) (Kocer Paragraph 0091: “The sensor suite 400 includes one or more of optical or visual light based sensors such as an RGB sensor, camera, video camera or the like to visually observe obstacles such as obstructions, diagnostic issues, plants (e.g., crops or weeds), plant characteristics (foliage density, height”)
Regarding claim 7, Kocer discloses The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, further comprising a location system, wherein the control unit is configured to associate the measurements of the characteristic quantities, […] of the upstream and downstream crops at a position, estimated by the positioning system, of the characterised crop. (Kocer Paragraph 0092: “In another example, a global positioning system (GPS) unit or fiducial provided with the remote sensing device is another example of a sensor included with the sensor suite 400.”)
Kocer does disclose treating a crop with pesticides or herbicides in para. 0176. Kocer does not disclose […] read by the protective device,
However, Ehlers does teach […] read by the protective device, (Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include […] read by the protective device, taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
Regarding claim 11, Kocer discloses A method for protecting a crop parcel implemented by an autonomous agricultural robot based on claim 1, including the steps of: (Kocer Paragraph 0012: “for instance with an autonomous obstacle monitoring and vehicle control system configured to operate a remote sensing device (e.g., a drone, boom, articulating arm or the like) including one or more sensors.”) measuring the characteristic quantities of the upstream and downstream crops […]; (Kocer Paragraph 0170: “In operation, the remote sensing device 114 is deployed to conduct the scouting mission 1120, for instance, according to a scouting route 1122 provided by the mission administration module 304 shown in FIGS. 3A, 3B. The remote sensing device 114 moves proximate to the scouting route 1122 and observes the area proximate to the scouting route 1122 to analyze one or more crop or soil characteristics. In one example, the scouting route 1122 corresponds to one or more of guidance lines, swath lines, turn segments for the agricultural system 1100 provided by way of the path module 302 or the field computer 352 shown in FIG. 39.”) (Note: scouting route = upstream of the treatment tools before passage of the treatment tools) (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “The observations of the remote sensing device 114 are interpreted with the obstacle recognition module 310 including, but not limited to, the obstacle comparator 312, identification module 314, the indexing module 316 and the prioritizing module 318. In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”) (archived characteristics = downstream of the treatment tools after the treatment tools pass over the crops) (para. 0176: treatment of pesticides or herbicides) transmitting said measurements to the control unit; associating, by the control unit, measurements of the same upstream and downstream culture […]; (Kocer Paragraph 0160: “The obstacle recognition module 310 includes one or more of an obstacle comparator 312”) (Kocer Paragraph 0169: “The obstacles 1102, 1104, in this example, correspond to variations in crop characteristics and are identified and indexed with the obstacle recognition module 310. The identified obstacles 1102, 1104 are relayed to the vehicle operation module 306 to control the application of one or more agricultural products to the zones of the field with the obstacles 1102, 1104 (variations in one or more characteristics).”) comparing, by the control unit, the associated measurements; […] by the control unit to the autonomous agricultural robot if the comparison exceeds a predefined threshold. (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “The observations of the remote sensing device 114 are interpreted with the obstacle recognition module 310 including, but not limited to, the obstacle comparator 312, identification module 314, the indexing module 316 and the prioritizing module 318. In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”) (Kocer Paragraph 0070: “In another example, the identification module 314 identifies a potential obstacle from the observations if the confidence of the obstacle comparison at the comparator 312 is greater than a specified threshold, such as a threshold confidence value or the like (e.g., 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 percent or more likelihood of identification or the like).”) (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”)
Kocer does disclose treating a crop with pesticides or herbicides in para. 0176. Kocer does not disclose […] by the protective device […] originating from the protective device; […] transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel
However, Ehlers does teach […] by the protective device […] originating from the protective device; […] transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel. (Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include […] by the protective device […] originating from the protective device; […] transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
Regarding claim 12, Kocer discloses The method for protecting a crop parcel according to claim 11, implemented by the autonomous agricultural robot further comprising, a location system, wherein the control unit is configured to associate the measurements of the characteristic quantities, of the upstream and downstream crops at a position, estimated by the positioning system, of the characterised crop; (Kocer Paragraph 0092: “In another example, a global positioning system (GPS) unit or fiducial provided with the remote sensing device is another example of a sensor included with the sensor suite 400.”) and the method for protecting the crop parcel including an additional preliminary step of reading the location of the crops by the location system, the step of associating the measurements by the control unit comprising a first association of each measurement of characteristic quantities of a crop […] with a positioning estimated by the location system of the characterised crop and a second association of the measurements of characteristic quantities originating from the protective device associated with the same positioning, said measurements corresponding to the measurements of the characteristic quantities of the same upstream and downstream crop Kocer Paragraph 0170: “In operation, the remote sensing device 114 is deployed to conduct the scouting mission 1120, for instance, according to a scouting route 1122 provided by the mission administration module 304 shown in FIGS. 3A, 3B. The remote sensing device 114 moves proximate to the scouting route 1122 and observes the area proximate to the scouting route 1122 to analyze one or more crop or soil characteristics. In one example, the scouting route 1122 corresponds to one or more of guidance lines, swath lines, turn segments for the agricultural system 1100 provided by way of the path module 302 or the field computer 352 shown in FIG. 39.”) (Note: scouting route = upstream of the treatment tools before passage of the treatment tools) (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “The observations of the remote sensing device 114 are interpreted with the obstacle recognition module 310 including, but not limited to, the obstacle comparator 312, identification module 314, the indexing module 316 and the prioritizing module 318. In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”) (archived characteristics = downstream of the treatment tools after the treatment tools pass over the crops)
Kocer does disclose treating a crop with pesticides or herbicides in para. 0176. Kocer does not disclose […] read by the protective device, […] originating from the protective device.
However, Ehlers does teach […] read by the protective device, […] originating from the protective device. (Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include […] read by the protective device, […] originating from the protective device taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
7. Claim(s) 3, 8-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocer (US 20210357664 A1) in view of Ehlers (US 20210007291 A1) and further in view of (US 9554098 B2) to Casper et al. (hereinafter Casper).
Regarding claim 3, Kocer in view of Ehlers teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Kocer does not disclose The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic quantities measured by the device for protecting the crops are an image of the crop and/or the width of the crop and/or the height of the crop and/or the angle formed by the crop with the soil and/or the position of the crop, and/or a spacing between the crop and another crop of the parcel.
However, Ehlers does teach […] the control unit being configured to transmit the crop parcel protection command to the treatment tools (Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0060: “The machine 30 has a mechanism 32 controlled by a control program for mechanical removal of unwanted plants outside the respective protection zones.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include […] the control unit being configured to transmit the crop parcel protection command to the treatment tools taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
Ehlers does not teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the treatment tools are movable between two positions, a work position and a raised position, […] which are positioned in the raised position.
However, Casper does teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the treatment tools are movable between two positions, a work position and a raised position, (Casper Column 6, line number 10-14: “the controller 30 may signal the cylinders 32 to raise or lower the first frame section 20 relative to the field 16 in order to move the various shanks 22 to various orientations between a preliminary position (e.g., FIG. 1) and a particular operating depth (FIG. 2).”) […] which are positioned in the raised position. (Casper Column 6, line number 13: “a preliminary position (e.g., FIG. 1)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the treatment tools are movable between two positions, a work position and a raised position, […] which are positioned in the raised position taught by Casper. This would have been for the benefit to provide A control system and computer-implemented method are disclosed for monitoring residue coverage and controlling various operations based on residue coverage. [Casper Column 1, line number 44-46]
Regarding claim 8, Kocer in view of Ehlers teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Kocer does not disclose The autonomous agricultural robot according to a claim 1, wherein the device for protecting the crop parcel comprises two characterisation devices, the first characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops; the second characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops.
However, Ehlers does teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to a claim 1, wherein the device for protecting the crop parcel (Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include […] The autonomous agricultural robot according to a claim 1, wherein the device for protecting the crop parcel taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
Ehlers does not teach […] comprises two characterisation devices, the first characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops; the second characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops.
However, Casper does teach […] comprises two characterisation devices, the first characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops; the second characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops. (Casper Column 8, line number 22-32: “In certain embodiments, one or more camera assemblies may also be included on (or otherwise associated with) the implement 10. In certain embodiments, referring in particular to FIGS. 4A and 4B, aft camera assembly 74 is mounted to the implement 10 (or otherwise positioned) in order to capture images at least of an area 76 behind the implement 10 (i.e., “aft images”). In certain embodiments, forward camera assembly 78 may additionally (or alternatively) be mounted to the implement 10 (or otherwise positioned) in order to capture images at least of an area 80 forward of the implement 10 (i.e., “forward” images).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include […] comprises two characterisation devices, the first characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops; the second characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops taught by Casper. This would have been for the benefit to provide A control system and computer-implemented method are disclosed for monitoring residue coverage and controlling various operations based on residue coverage. [Casper Column 1, line number 44-46]
Regarding claim 9, Kocer in view of Ehlers teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Kocer in view of Ehlers does not teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the two crop characterisation devices comprise sensors of the same type.
However, Casper does teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, wherein the two crop characterisation devices comprise sensors of the same type. (Casper Column 8, line number 35-37: “In certain embodiments, one or both of the assemblies 74 and 78 may include an infrared camera to capture infrared images.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the two crop 50 characterisation devices comprise sensors of the same type taught by Casper. This would have been for the benefit to provide A control system and computer-implemented method are disclosed for monitoring residue coverage and controlling various operations based on residue coverage. [Casper Column 1, line number 44-46]
Regarding claim 10, Kocer in view of Ehlers and further in view of Casper teaches claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated above.
Kocer does not disclose The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 9, wherein; the device for protecting the crop parcel comprises two characterisation devices, the first characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops; the second characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops; and the first crop characterisation device is positioned upstream of the treatment tools and the second crop characterisation device is positioned downstream of the treatment tools.
However, Ehlers does teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 9, wherein; the device for protecting the crop parcel (Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include […] The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 9, wherein; the device for protecting the crop parcel taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
Ehlers does not teach […] comprises two characterisation devices, the first characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops; the second characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops; and the first crop characterisation device is positioned upstream of the treatment tools and the second crop characterisation device is positioned downstream of the treatment tools.
However, Casper does teach […] comprises two characterisation devices, the first characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops; the second characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops; and the first crop characterisation device is positioned upstream of the treatment tools and the second crop characterisation device is positioned downstream of the treatment tools. (Casper Column 8, line number 22-32: “In certain embodiments, one or more camera assemblies may also be included on (or otherwise associated with) the implement 10. In certain embodiments, referring in particular to FIGS. 4A and 4B, aft camera assembly 74 is mounted to the implement 10 (or otherwise positioned) in order to capture images at least of an area 76 behind the implement 10 (i.e., “aft images”). In certain embodiments, forward camera assembly 78 may additionally (or alternatively) be mounted to the implement 10 (or otherwise positioned) in order to capture images at least of an area 80 forward of the implement 10 (i.e., “forward” images).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include […] comprises two characterisation devices, the first characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops; the second characterisation device being configured to measure the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops; and the first crop characterisation device is positioned upstream of the treatment tools and the second crop characterisation device is positioned downstream of the treatment tools taught by Casper. This would have been for the benefit to provide A control system and computer-implemented method are disclosed for monitoring residue coverage and controlling various operations based on residue coverage. [Casper Column 1, line number 44-46]
Regarding claim 13, Kocer discloses The method for protecting a crop parcel according to claim 11, implemented by the autonomous agricultural robot further comprising an automatic device for […] if the comparison exceeds a predefined threshold comprises analysing the comparison […] (Kocer Paragraph 0070: “In another example, the identification module 314 identifies a potential obstacle from the observations if the confidence of the obstacle comparison at the comparator 312 is greater than a specified threshold, such as a threshold confidence value or the like (e.g., 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 percent or more likelihood of identification or the like).”) (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”)
Kocer does not disclose […] positioning the treatment tools wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the autonomous agricultural robot […] and transmitting to the treatment tools a command for positioning the treatment tools.
However, Ehlers does teach […] wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the autonomous agricultural robot Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include[…] wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the autonomous agricultural robot taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
However, Casper does teach […] positioning the treatment tools […] and transmitting to the treatment tools a command for positioning the treatment tools. (Casper Column 6, line number 8-line number 14: “The cylinders 32 is in hydraulic (or other) communication with the controller 30, such that the controller 30 may signal the cylinders 32 to raise or lower the first frame section 20 relative to the field 16 in order to move the various shanks 22 to various orientations between a preliminary position (e.g., FIG. 1) and a particular operating depth (FIG. 2).”) (Casper Column 12, line number 20-29: “in order to determine indicators of residue coverage by, at least in part, comparing 216 information from one or more forward images 208 to information from one or more aft images 206. For example, the RMRC process 200 may identify a forward image 208 and an aft image 206 that include a view of the same portion of a field and may compare the images in order to determine the effect of the passage of the relevant implement on residue coverage over that portion of the field.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include […] positioning the treatment tools […] and transmitting to the treatment tools a command for positioning the treatment tools taught by Casper. This would have been for the benefit to provide A control system and computer-implemented method are disclosed for monitoring residue coverage and controlling various operations based on residue coverage. [Casper Column 1, line number 44-46]
8. Claim(s) 4, 5, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocer (US 20210357664 A1) in view of Ehlers (US 20210007291 A1) and further in view of (US 20220024486 A1) to Scott et al. (hereinafter Scott).
Regarding claim 4, Kocer in view of Ehlers teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Kocer in view of Ehlers does not teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the crop parcel protection command to the forward movement means to stop the autonomous agricultural robot.
However, Scott does teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the crop parcel protection command to the forward movement means to stop the autonomous agricultural robot. (Scott Paragraph 0062: “In this process, operation of the robot's detection and identification capabilities permit it to avoid unwanted contact with crops, humans, obstacles such as tools and equipment, and other environmental features, thereby avoiding damage or injury to these and to the robot itself.”) (Scott Paragraph 0109: “If however, the detected obstacle is deemed to be non-traversable the obstacle handler will cause the robot to slow down or stop in its movement along the path.”) (Note: avoiding unwanted contact = protecting crops)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the crop parcel protection command to the forward movement means to stop the autonomous agricultural robot taught by Scott. This would have been for the benefit to provide an autonomous ground vehicle for traversing a ground surface in an environment. The autonomous ground vehicle comprises a body, a drive assembly and a control system. The body comprises a payload bed, a front end portion and a rear end portion, and at least one of a front camera group and a rear camera group. [Scott Paragraph 0009]
Regarding claim 5, Kocer in view of Ehlers teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Kocer in view of Ehlers does not teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the protective device comprises an image sensor.
However, Scott does teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the protective device comprises an image sensor. (Scott Paragraph 0083: “Modules comprising the sensing subsystem 86 support accompanying hardware, and thus, consist of device drivers in conjunction with RAS wrappers, providing programmatic/operational system access to the low level operations of each device in the specific context of the robot's systems.”) (Scott Paragraph 0083: “In particular, the exemplary sensing subsystem 86 includes a cameras module 94, a LIDAR(s) module 96, an IMUs module 98, an encoders module 100, and a GPS module 102.”) (Scott Paragraph 0120: “Throughout this autonomous path traversal, the robot RAS will cause it to execute row edge detection (to be described later) and related perception, navigation, and mobility capabilities to maintain its autonomous course and avoid damage to the crops, the robot itself, or injury to humans.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1,wherein the protective device comprises an image sensor taught by Scott. This would have been for the benefit to provide an autonomous ground vehicle for traversing a ground surface in an environment. The autonomous ground vehicle comprises a body, a drive assembly and a control system. The body comprises a payload bed, a front end portion and a rear end portion, and at least one of a front camera group and a rear camera group. [Scott Paragraph 0009]
Regarding claim 14, Kocer discloses […] comparison exceeds a predefined threshold Kocer Paragraph 0070: “In another example, the identification module 314 identifies a potential obstacle from the observations if the confidence of the obstacle comparison at the comparator 312 is greater than a specified threshold, such as a threshold confidence value or the like (e.g., 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 percent or more likelihood of identification or the like).”) (Kocer Paragraph 0171: “In one example, the obstacle comparator 312 compares one or more archived characteristics, for instance, nitrogen content, water content, foliage density or color, crop height, reflectivity of visible and near-infrared light or other crop characteristics or the like with the observations made with the remote sensing device 114. Through this comparison, one or more of the first or second obstacles 1102, 1104 (and potentially graduated versions of the obstacles corresponding to varying characteristic levels) are identified and indexed to the corresponding portions of the field.”)
Kocer in view of Ehlers does not teach The method for protecting a crop parcel according to claim 11, wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the autonomous agricultural robot […] comprises transmitting a stop command by the control unit to the forward movement means of the autonomous agricultural robot.
However, Scott teaches The method for protecting a crop parcel according to claim 11, wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the autonomous agricultural robot (Scott Paragraph 0083: “Modules comprising the sensing subsystem 86 support accompanying hardware, and thus, consist of device drivers in conjunction with RAS wrappers, providing programmatic/operational system access to the low level operations of each device in the specific context of the robot's systems.”) (Scott Paragraph 0120: “Throughout this autonomous path traversal, the robot RAS will cause it to execute row edge detection (to be described later) and related perception, navigation, and mobility capabilities to maintain its autonomous course and avoid damage to the crops, the robot itself, or injury to humans.”) […] comprises transmitting a stop command by the control unit to the forward movement means of the autonomous agricultural robot. (Scott Paragraph 0062: “In this process, operation of the robot's detection and identification capabilities permit it to avoid unwanted contact with crops, humans, obstacles such as tools and equipment, and other environmental features, thereby avoiding damage or injury to these and to the robot itself.”) (Scott Paragraph 0109: “If however, the detected obstacle is deemed to be non-traversable the obstacle handler will cause the robot to slow down or stop in its movement along the path.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include The method for protecting a crop parcel according to claim 11, wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the autonomous agricultural robot […] comprises transmitting a stop command by the control unit to the forward movement means of the autonomous agricultural robot taught by Scott. This would have been for the benefit to provide an autonomous ground vehicle for traversing a ground surface in an environment. The autonomous ground vehicle comprises a body, a drive assembly and a control system. The body comprises a payload bed, a front end portion and a rear end portion, and at least one of a front camera group and a rear camera group. [Scott Paragraph 0009]
9. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocer (US 20210357664 A1) in view of Ehlers (US 20210007291 A1) and further in view of Ethirajan (WO 2022215095 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kocer in view of Ehlers teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Kocer does not disclose The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, further comprising a straddle frame defining a passage corridor for a crop row wherein the protective device comprises movable arms arranged respectively on either side of a longitudinal midplane of the passage corridor, and one sensor per arm configured to measure a change in the position of said arm.
However, Ehlers does teach […] the protective device Ehlers Paragraph 0001: “The invention relates to a device for the protection of crop plants”) (Ehlers Paragraph 0006 :”The object of the invention is to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device should be environmentally friendly and sustainable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer to include […] the protective device taught by Ehlers. This would have been for the benefit to provide a device which enables a reliable mechanical weed control using autonomously operating apparatuses and machines, whereby the device is environmentally friendly and sustainable in order to protect the planted crops. [Ehlers Paragraph 0002 and 0006]
Ehlers does not tech The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, further comprising a straddle frame defining a passage corridor for a crop row wherein […] comprises movable arms arranged respectively on either side of a longitudinal midplane of the passage corridor, and one sensor per arm configured to measure a change in the position of said arm.
However, Ethirajan does teach The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, further comprising a straddle frame defining a passage corridor for a crop row wherein […] comprises movable arms arranged respectively on either side of a longitudinal midplane of the passage corridor, and one sensor per arm configured to measure a change in the position of said arm. (Ethirajan Page 5, Paragraph 2: “The distinguish nature of the invention is below, each joints in the straddle frame being configured as a pivoted joint, each pivoted joints (7) and the horizontal extension of the upper connecting member (4) being 245 operated dynamically through a driving unit (8) to retain the engaged position. The upper connecting member (4) configured to carry the implements (9). A plurality of sensors (10) provided in each joints (7), members and implements to acquire real time position data.”) (Ethirajan Page 6, Paragraph 1: “Step 1: continuously sensing the position of the joints,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include The autonomous agricultural robot according to claim 1, further comprising a straddle frame defining a passage corridor for a crop row wherein […] comprises movable arms arranged respectively on either side of a longitudinal midplane of the passage corridor, and one sensor per arm configured to measure a change in the position of said arm taught by Ethirajan. This would have been for the benefit to provide a smart frame and self-balancing control method for straddle type implement carriers more particularly the mechanically 165 optimized smart frame structure and its control method together make the straddle type capable of self balancing and carrying the implements, particularly agriculture implements irrespective of ground profiles. [Ethirajan Page 4, Paragraph 1]
10. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocer (US 20210357664 A1) in view of Ehlers (US 20210007291 A1) further in view of Scott (US 20220024486 A1) and further in view of Casper (US 9554098 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Kocer in view of Ehlers teaches claim 11, accordingly the rejection of claim 11 incorporated above.
Kocer in view of Ehlers does not teach The method for protecting a crop parcel according to claim 11, wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the robot autonomous agricultural comprises transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the treatment tools which are in a raised position, corresponding to a position in which said treatment tools have no contact with the crops.
However, Scott teaches The method for protecting a crop parcel according to claim 11, wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the robot autonomous agricultural (Scott Paragraph 0062: “In this process, operation of the robot's detection and identification capabilities permit it to avoid unwanted contact with crops, humans, obstacles such as tools and equipment, and other environmental features, thereby avoiding damage or injury to these and to the robot itself.”) (Scott Paragraph 0063: “Such payload attachments may include flatbed or other bed configurations, or tools or machinery consistent with the desired purpose of the vehicle, such as sprayers for herbicides or water.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include The method for protecting a crop parcel according to claim 11, wherein the step of transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the robot autonomous agricultural taught by Scott. This would have been for the benefit to provide an autonomous ground vehicle for traversing a ground surface in an environment. The autonomous ground vehicle comprises a body, a drive assembly and a control system. The body comprises a payload bed, a front end portion and a rear end portion, and at least one of a front camera group and a rear camera group. [Scott Paragraph 0009]
Scott does not teach […] comprises transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the treatment tools which are in a raised position, corresponding to a position in which said treatment tools have no contact with the crops.
However, Casper does teach […] comprises transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the treatment tools which are in a raised position, corresponding to a position in which said treatment tools have no contact with the crops. (Casper Column 6, line number 10-14: “the controller 30 may signal the cylinders 32 to raise or lower the first frame section 20 relative to the field 16 in order to move the various shanks 22 to various orientations between a preliminary position (e.g., FIG. 1) and a particular operating depth (FIG. 2).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers further in view of Scott to include […] comprises transmitting a command for protecting the crop parcel by the control unit to the treatment tools which are in a raised position, corresponding to a position in which said treatment tools have no contact with the crops taught by Casper. This would have been for the benefit to provide A control system and computer-implemented method are disclosed for monitoring residue coverage and controlling various operations based on residue coverage. [Casper Column 1, line number 44-46]
11. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocer (US 20210357664 A1) in view of Ehlers (US 20210007291 A1) and further in view of Scott (US 20220024486 A1) and further in view of (US 11632895 B2) to Sporrer et al. (hereinafter Sporrer).
Regarding claim 16, Kocer in view of Ehlers teaches claim 7, accordingly, the rejection for claim 7 is incorporated above.
Kocer in view of Ehlers does not teach A method for mapping a crop parcel implemented by an autonomous agricultural robot based on claim 7, including the steps of: measuring the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops by the protective device, transmitting to the control unit and detecting the upstream crops by the control unit; associating, by the control unit, each of the detected upstream crops with their locations read by the location system; integrating the location of each of the upstream crops with a first map by the control unit; implemented in parallel with the following three steps: measuring the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops by the protective device, transmitting to the control unit and detecting the downstream crops by the control unit; associating, by the control unit, each of the detected downstream crops with their locations read by the location system; integrating the location of each of the downstream crops with a second map by the control unit; for each location of the upstream crops originating from the first map, searching for the location of the closest downstream crop originating from the second map and associating the two locations by the control unit; for each upstream crop derived from the first map, integrating the average of the two locations originating from the first and second maps into a third map by the control unit.
However, Scott does teach A method for mapping a crop parcel implemented by an autonomous agricultural robot based on claim 7, including the steps of: measuring the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops by the protective device, (Scott Paragraph 0083: “Modules comprising the sensing subsystem 86 support accompanying hardware, and thus, consist of device drivers in conjunction with RAS wrappers, providing programmatic/operational system access to the low level operations of each device in the specific context of the robot's systems.”) (Scott Paragraph 0120: “Throughout this autonomous path traversal, the robot RAS will cause it to execute row edge detection (to be described later) and related perception, navigation, and mobility capabilities to maintain its autonomous course and avoid damage to the crops, the robot itself, or injury to humans.”) […] implemented in parallel with the following three steps: measuring the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops by the protective device, (Scott Paragraph 0083: “Modules comprising the sensing subsystem 86 support accompanying hardware, and thus, consist of device drivers in conjunction with RAS wrappers, providing programmatic/operational system access to the low level operations of each device in the specific context of the robot's systems.”) (Scott Paragraph 0120: “Throughout this autonomous path traversal, the robot RAS will cause it to execute row edge detection (to be described later) and related perception, navigation, and mobility capabilities to maintain its autonomous course and avoid damage to the crops, the robot itself, or injury to humans.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers to include A method for mapping a crop parcel implemented by an autonomous agricultural robot based on claim 7, including the steps of: measuring the characteristic quantities of the upstream crops by the protective device, […] implemented in parallel with the following three steps: measuring the characteristic quantities of the downstream crops by the protective device, taught by Scott. This would have been for the benefit to provide an autonomous ground vehicle for traversing a ground surface in an environment. The autonomous ground vehicle comprises a body, a drive assembly and a control system. The body comprises a payload bed, a front end portion and a rear end portion, and at least one of a front camera group and a rear camera group. [Scott Paragraph 0009]
Scott does not teach […] transmitting to the control unit and detecting the downstream crops by the control unit; associating, by the control unit, each of the detected downstream crops with their locations read by the location system; […] integrating the location of each of the downstream crops with a second map by the control unit; for each location of the upstream crops originating from the first map, searching for the location of the closest downstream crop originating from the second map and associating the two locations by the control unit; for each upstream crop derived from the first map, integrating the average of the two locations originating from the first and second maps into a third map by the control unit.
However, Sporrer does teach […] transmitting to the control unit and detecting the upstream crops by the control unit; associating, by the control unit, each of the detected upstream crops with their locations read by the location system; integrating the location of each of the upstream crops with a first map by the control unit; (Sporrer Column 13, line number 56-60: Residue map generator logic 214 receives residue metric values from forward residue generator logic 206 and rearward residue generator logic 208 as well as a sensor signal from position sensors 72 and generates a map of residue metrics.”) transmitting to the control unit and detecting the downstream crops by the control unit; associating, by the control unit, each of the detected downstream crops with their locations read by the location system; integrating the location of each of the downstream crops with a second map by the control unit; (Sporrer Column 13, line number 60-65: “ For example, residue map generator logic 214 takes a residue metric for specific rearward zone 75 and stores it in connection with its location (since there is a known spatial relationship between position sensor 72 and field of view of sensor 74, the position of rearward zones 75 may be calculated based on the known position).”) for each location of the upstream crops originating from the first map, searching for the location of the closest downstream crop originating from the second map and associating the two locations by the control unit; (Sporrer Column 9, line number 35-45: “In another example, a control system may have access to the dimensions of the implement and the locations of the camera assemblies 74 and 78 and the locations of the fields of view of the camera assemblies. In that way, based on the location of the implement 10, and as that location changes, the control system can determine when a rearward image is of the same portion of the field as a previously captured forward image. Thus, the two images can be corelated with one another based on a location where they were taken instead of, or in addition to, the time offset between the images and the speed and heading of the implement”) for each upstream crop derived from the first map, integrating the average of the two locations originating from the first and second maps into a third map by the control unit. (Sporrer Column 13, line number 56-60: “Residue map generator logic 214 receives residue metric values from forward residue generator logic 206 and rearward residue generator logic 208 as well as a sensor signal from position sensors 72 and generates a map of residue metrics.”) (Sporrer Column 20, line number 20-22: “FIG. 9 provides a general block diagram of the components of a client device 916 that can run some components shown in FIG. 6, that interacts with them, or both”) (Sporrer Column 20, line number 51-58: Location system 927 illustratively includes a component that outputs a current geographical location of device 916. This can include, for instance, a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a LORAN system, a dead reckoning system, a cellular triangulation system, or other positioning system. It can also include, for example, mapping software or navigation software that generates desired maps, navigation routes and other geographic functions.”) (Note: The location system can generate multiple maps therefore this art can generate three different maps)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kocer in view of Ehlers further in view of Scott to include […] transmitting to the control unit and detecting the downstream crops by the control unit; associating, by the control unit, each of the detected downstream crops with their locations read by the location system; […] integrating the location of each of the downstream crops with a second map by the control unit; for each location of the upstream crops originating from the first map, searching for the location of the closest downstream crop originating from the second map and associating the two locations by the control unit; for each upstream crop derived from the first map, integrating the average of the two locations originating from the first and second maps into a third map by the control unit taught by Sporrer. This would have been for the benefit to provide An agricultural machine includes a set of ground engaging elements that perform a ground engaging operation. The agricultural machine includes a rearward sensor mounted to the agricultural machine to sense an area of ground behind the agricultural machine and generate a rearward sensor signal. The agricultural machine includes rearward zone generator logic that determines a first zone and a second zone, wherein the first zone and the second zone represent portions of the area of ground behind the agricultural machine. [Sporrer Column 1, line number 39-48]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights