DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-26 were originally presented having a filing date of June 10, 2024 and claiming priority to United Kingdom Application GB2201115.9 that was filed on January 28, 2022 and PCT/IB2023/050165 that was filed on January 9, 2023.
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on June 10, 2024.
Claims 2-25 were amended via Preliminary Amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) that was submitted on July 10, 2024 is in partial compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. The Examiner did not consider “European Patent Office, International Search Report related to International Patent Application No. PCT/IB2022/059043, Mail date 02 APR 2023, 20 pages” because that document was not submitted. There was a document submitted, “European Patent Office, International Search Report related to International Patent Application No. PCT/IB2023/050165, which was reviewed by the Examiner. Accordingly, the IDS was partially considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text within the flowchart illustrated in Figure 3 is not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, dependent claims from claim 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because the meaning of the term “a base model” is not clearly defined. It is not clear if “a base model” is related to the algorithm associated with the software or if it is related to the physical model or type of underlying agricultural machine. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “a base model” as being associated with the algorithm associated with the software.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the base model " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the base model " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a control system (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 1 recites:
A control system for planning an agricultural operation in a working environment, the control system comprising one or more controllers and being configured to:
determine a boundary for the working environment;
determine one or more characteristics of at least one obstacle within the working environment;
determine an operational path for an agricultural machine in dependence on the boundary for the working environment and the characteristic(s) of the obstacle(s); and
generate and output a control signal for controlling one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined operational path.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine a boundary for the working environment; determine one or more characteristics of at least one obstacle within the working environment; and determine an operational path for an agricultural machine in dependence on the boundary for the working environment and the characteristic(s) of the obstacle(s)” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A control system for planning an agricultural operation in a working environment, the control system comprising one or more controllers and being configured to:
determine a boundary for the working environment;
determine one or more characteristics of at least one obstacle within the working environment;
determine an operational path for an agricultural machine in dependence on the boundary for the working environment and the characteristic(s) of the obstacle(s); and
generate and output a control signal for controlling one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined operational path.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “one or more controllers” and “generate and output a control signal for controlling one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined operational path”, they merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the abstract idea steps.
The “ generate and output a control signal for controlling one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined operational path”, is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The Examiner notes that if the claim limitation is amended to read, “generate and output a control signal [[for]] controlling one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined operational path”, this would result in explicit control of the agricultural machine and would fall outside of the realm of 35 USC 101.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “determine a boundary for the working environment; determine one or more characteristics of at least one obstacle within the working environment; and determine an operational path for an agricultural machine in dependence on the boundary for the working environment and the characteristic(s) of the obstacle(s)” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “one or more controllers” and “generate and output a control signal for controlling one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined operational path”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “one or more controllers” and “generate and output a control signal for controlling one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined operational path“, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-25 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-25 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 12, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1) as being anticipated by Peterson, Publication US 2015/0241879 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Peterson”).
As per claim 1 (representative of claim 26), Peterson discloses a control system for planning an agricultural operation in a working environment, the control system comprising one or more controllers and being configured to [see at least Peterson [0006] "...The agricultural machine has an auto guidance system operative to direct the agricultural machine along a predetermined path. At least one sensor is attached to the agricultural machine, the at least one sensor configured to indicate the presence of an obstruction in the predetermined path. The agricultural machine further includes a processor operatively coupled to the auto guidance system. The processor receives an output from the at least one sensor indicating the presence of the obstruction in the predetermined path and sends a signal to the auto guidance system, the signal operative to cause the auto guidance system to change an operating characteristic of the agricultural machine from a first state to a second state in response to the detected obstruction."]:
determine a boundary for the working environment [see at least Peterson {Examiner Note: the boundary is a fence 104, wayline is also a type of boundary determined by a set distance from the fence which is determined based upon the fence 104 boundary} [0028] "...Once at field 102, the operator may engage the auto guidance system so that the agricultural machine 114 follows the wayline 116."; [0029] "...the wayline 116 may be a wayline outlining a path proximate field 102's perimeter. The auto guidance system may follow the wayline 116 such that the agricultural machine 114 travels a preset distance (e.g., six inches) from boundary 104. As the agricultural machine 114 follows the wayline 116 the auto guidance system and the fencerow management processor 118 may send and receive information between each other."];
determine one or more characteristics of at least one obstacle within the working environment [see at least Peterson [0029] "…The transfer of information may allow the agricultural machine 114 to traverse the wayline 116 while staying the preset distance from boundary 104 and any obstruction (e.g., second fence post 110 and obstacle 122) located proximate the wayline 116."; [0030] "...The sensor output may comprise data that the fencerow management processor 118 can process to determine if an obstacle is within the path of the agricultural machine 114. ..."; [0033] "...the sensor 120 may be a LIDAR system that may create a point cloud proximate the agricultural machine 114. The point cloud may be used by the fencerow management processor 118 to create a three dimensional representation of the area surrounding the agricultural machine 114. The fencerow management processor 118 may use the point cloud information to detect the presence of the obstruction."];
determine an operational path for an agricultural machine in dependence on the boundary for the working environment and the characteristic(s) of the obstacle(s) [see at least Peterson [0034] "...as the agricultural machine 114 is traversing the wayline 116, the agricultural machine 114 may be operating in the first state (i.e., at a constant speed and direction). As the agricultural machine 114 approaches obstacle 122, the fencerow management processor 118 may detect obstacle 122. In response to detecting obstacle 122, the fencerow management processor 118 may cause the agricultural machine 114 to operate in the second state. In other words, the fencerow management processor 118 may cause the auto guidance system to steer the agricultural machine 114 long second alternate path 126 to avoid obstacle 122. ..."]; and
generate and output a control signal for controlling one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined operational path [see at least Peterson [0034] "...In other words, the fencerow management processor 118 may cause the auto guidance system to steer the agricultural machine 114 long second alternate path 126 to avoid obstacle 122. ...".]
As per claim 2, Peterson discloses the control system, configured to determine a base model for the operational path in dependence on the boundary only [see at least Peterson [0028] "... the auto guidance system may send and receive information from the fencerow management processor 118. For example, the operator may drive the agricultural machine 114 to field 102. Once at field 102, the operator may engage the auto guidance system so that the agricultural machine 114 follows the wayline 116."; [0029] "the wayline 116 may be a wayline outlining a path proximate field 102's perimeter. The auto guidance system may follow the wayline 116 such that the agricultural machine 114 travels a preset distance (e.g., six inches) from boundary 104. As the agricultural machine 114 follows the wayline 116 the auto guidance system and the fencerow management processor 118 may send and receive information between each other. The transfer of information may allow the agricultural machine 114 to traverse the wayline 116 while staying the preset distance from boundary 104 and any obstruction (e.g., second fence post 110 and obstacle 122) located proximate the wayline 116."]
As per claim 3, Peterson discloses the control system, configured to determine one or more adjustments to the base model in dependence on the one or more obstacle characteristics [see at least Peterson [0034] "From decision block 320 where the fencerow management processor 118 determines the obstruction is present, method 300 may proceed to stage 325 where an operating characteristic may be changed from a first state to a second state. …"; [0007] "...the processor may cause the machine's hydraulic system to activate to reposition an implement. Steering the agricultural machine and/or activating a hydraulic system may cause a portion of the agricultural machine to clear the obstacle."]
As per claim 4, Peterson discloses the control system, configured to determine the one or more adjustments in dependence on the operational path according to the base model being intercepted by one or more obstacles [see at least Peterson [0034] "... as the agricultural machine 114 is traversing the wayline 116, the agricultural machine 114 may be operating in the first state (i.e., at a constant speed and direction). As the agricultural machine 114 approaches obstacle 122, the fencerow management processor 118 may detect obstacle 122. In response to detecting obstacle 122, the fencerow management processor 118 may cause the agricultural machine 114 to operate in the second state. In other words, the fencerow management processor 118 may cause the auto guidance system to steer the agricultural machine 114 long second alternate path 126 to avoid obstacle 122. ... ."]
As per claim 5, Peterson discloses the control system, wherein the one or more adjustments comprise dividing the operational path at the location of the obstacle into a pre-obstacle section and a post-obstacle section [see at least Peterson [0007] "... For example, the agricultural machine may be traversing the wayline (i.e., operating in the first state) and may approach a fence post leaning into the agricultural machine's path. The processor may direct the auto guidance system to steer the agricultural machine along an alternate path (i.e., a second state). In addition, the processor may cause the machine's hydraulic system to activate to reposition an implement. Steering the agricultural machine and/or activating a hydraulic system may cause a portion of the agricultural machine to clear the obstacle. After the obstacle is cleared, the processor may direct the agricultural machine to return to the wayline and may activate the hydraulic system to return the implement to its original state (i.e., the first state)."]
As per claim 6, Peterson discloses the control system, where the one or more adjustments comprise determining an obstacle operational path between the pre- obstacle section and post-obstacle sections of the operational path [see at least Peterson [0007] "...For example, the agricultural machine may be traversing the wayline (i.e., operating in the first state) and may approach a fence post leaning into the agricultural machine's path. The processor may direct the auto guidance system to steer the agricultural machine along an alternate path (i.e., a second state). ... Steering the agricultural machine ... may cause a portion of the agricultural machine to clear the obstacle. After the obstacle is cleared, the processor may direct the agricultural machine to return to the wayline and ... return the implement to its original state (i.e., the first state).]
As per claim 7, Peterson discloses the control system, configured to classify the at least one obstacle in dependence on one or more of: the size of the obstacle(s); the shape of the obstacle(s); and a relative dimension with respect to direction of travel of the agricultural machine according to the base model for the operational path [see at least Peterson [0032] "… the three dimensional model may allow the fencerow management processor 118 to determine a size of the obstruction."]
As per claim 8, Peterson discloses the control system, configured to determine a size of the at least one obstacle in a direction substantially perpendicular a travel direction for the machine operating in accordance with the base model for the operational path [see at least Peterson [0032] "… the three dimensional model may allow the fencerow management processor 118 to determine a size of the obstruction. For example, the three dimensional model may allow the fencerow management processor 118 to determine that second fence post 110 is four feet tall."]
As per claim 12, Peterson discloses the control system, wherein the one or more characteristics of the obstacle(s) comprises a distance between obstacle and the boundary [see at least Peterson [0036] "...the fencerow management processor 118 may detect second fence post 110 and may cause the agricultural machine 114 to deviate from the wayline 116 (i.e., change the drive element characteristic). For instance, after detecting second fence post 110, the fencerow management processor 118 may cause agricultural machine to deviate from the wayline 116 so it remains a predetermined distance from second fence post 110."]
As per claim 21, Peterson discloses the control system, configured to perform at least one of:
retrieve obstacle data indicative of the one or more characteristic(s) of the obstacle from a database comprising mapped information of the working environment;
receive obstacle data from a sensing system associated with at least one of the machine or more additional machines operating within the working environment [see at least Peterson [0031] "...as the agricultural machine 114 progresses along the wayline 116, the fencerow management processor 118 may receive point cloud information from the sensor 120. The fencerow management processor 118 may use the point cloud information and may determine that second fence post 110 is within the path of the agricultural machine 114."]; or
determine the one or more characteristics of the at least one obstacle in dependence thereon.
As per claim 22, Peterson discloses the control system, configured to present the determined operational path to an operator of the agricultural machine; wherein the determined operational path is presented on at least one of:
a display screen associated with the machine [see at least Peterson [0023] "...the user interface 212 may allow the fencerow management processor 118 to display information to the operator. For example, the user interface 212 may display a warning to the operator and allow the operator to acknowledge the warning by pressing a button."]; or
on a remote device.
As per claim 23, Peterson discloses the control system, wherein the one or more operational components associated with the agricultural machine comprises at least one of a steering system or propulsion system of the machine for automating motion of the machine along the determined operational path [see at least Peterson [0034] "...the fencerow management processor 118 may cause the auto guidance system to steer the agricultural machine 114 long second alternate path 126 to avoid obstacle 122. In addition, as the agricultural machine 114 approaches second fence post 110, the fencerow management processor 118 may cause the auto guidance system to steer the agricultural machine 114 along first alternate path 124 to avoid second fence post 110."]
As per claim 24, Peterson discloses a guidance system for an agricultural vehicle comprising the control system of claim 1 [see at least Peterson [0006], [00028], [0029], [0030], [0033], [0034] See claim 1 explanation.]
As per claim 25, Peterson discloses an agricultural vehicle comprising the guidance system of claim 24 [see at least Peterson [0006], [00028], [0029], [0030], [0033], [0034] See claim 1 explanation.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view of Toshifumi, JP 2017 204061 A (hereinafter referred to as “Toshifumi.”)
As per claim 9, Peterson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Peterson fails to disclose the control system …, configured to determine an adjusted operational path for the machine which bypasses the obstacle in dependence on the determined size being less than a threshold parameter. However, Toshifumi teaches this limitation [see at least Toshifumi [0082] "...The obstacle circumference setting unit 34 sets the obstacle outer circumferential area with respect to the obstacle in the work area. The route generation unit 47 can generate a travel route to include the first travel route P 1, the detour route Q, and the second travel route P 2 (see FIGS. 8 to 11)."; [0083] "As a result, a travel route including the first travel path P1, the detour path Q, and the second travel path P2 is generated. Therefore, by allowing the tractor 1 to run autonomously along this traveling route, it is possible to make the tractor 1 travel so as to bypass the obstacle. In addition, since the detour path Q is arranged to pass through a preset obstacle outer circumferential region, it is possible to systematically generate a detour path in consideration of the relationship with the entire travel route, etc., so that the unmanned tractor 1 Can be performed smoothly. ..."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Peterson to use the control system …, configured to determine an adjusted operational path for the machine which bypasses the obstacle in dependence on the determined size being less than a threshold parameter as disclosed in Toshifumi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of efficiently running the working machine. [See at least Toshifumi [0108].]
As per claim 10, Peterson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Peterson fails to disclose the control system …, configured to define a boundary box about the or each obstacle defining region(s) of the working environment not to be traversed by the agricultural machine. However, Toshifumi teaches this limitation [see at least Toshifumi [0084] "In addition, in the autonomous traveling route generation system 99 according to the present embodiment, when the route length of the detour route Q is less than the predetermined distance L1, the route generation unit 47 creates the first travel route P1, the detour route Q and the second travel It is possible to generate a traveling route including the road P2 (see FIG. 11). On the other hand, when the route of the detour is equal to or larger than the predetermined distance L 1, the route generation unit 47 can generate the travel route so as to include the first travel route P 1, the turn back road R, and the third travel route P 3 (See FIG. 13). "]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Peterson to use the control system …, configured to define a boundary box about the or each obstacle defining region(s) of the working environment not to be traversed by the agricultural machine as disclosed in Toshifumi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of efficiently running the working machine. [See at least Toshifumi [0108].]
As per claim 13, Peterson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12.
Peterson fails to disclose the control system …, configured to compare the distance between the obstacle(s) and the boundary with a threshold distance, the threshold distance being dependent on a working width of the agricultural machine. However, Toshifumi teaches this limitation [see at least Toshifumi [0108] "it is assumed that the obstacle is in an island shape in the work area. However, in reality, it is naturally possible to consider situations where obstacles are arranged so as to overlap the contour of the work area. For example, FIG. 17 shows an example in which obstacles are arranged so as to protrude from the edge of the field toward the center. Even in such a case, the autonomous traveling route generation system 99 of the present invention can generate an efficient traveling route while avoiding obstacles. As shown in FIG. 17, in the case where it is physically impossible to create a detour route that bypasses the unprocessed area side, instead of this, detouring to the work area side (the side where farm work has already been performed) A detour route may be generated."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Peterson to use the control system …, configured to compare the distance between the obstacle(s) and the boundary with a threshold distance, the threshold distance being dependent on a working width of the agricultural machine as disclosed in Toshifumi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of efficiently running the working machine. [See at least Toshifumi [0108].]
As per claim 14, Peterson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Peterson further discloses the control system …, configured to define at least one of a new boundary which encompasses the obstacle in dependence on the distance between obstacle and boundary being less than the threshold distance, or where obstacle crosses the boundary [see at least Peterson FIG. 1; [0020] "… the agricultural machine 114 may traverse a second alternate path 126 due to obstacle 122 being positioned proximate boundary 104."; [0021] "...The sensor 120 may send information to the fencerow management processor 118. The fencerow management processor 118 may use the information to create a model of an area proximate the agricultural machine 114. This model may indicate the presence of obstructions in the path of the agricultural machine 114. For example, the sensor 120 may be a LIDAR system that creates a point cloud proximate the agricultural machine 114. The point cloud may represent a three dimensional representation of the area surrounding the agricultural machine 114. The fencerow management processor 118 may use the point cloud information to determine that the agricultural machine 114 may hit second fence post 110 if the agricultural machine 114 continues along the wayline 116."]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view of Green, et al., Publication US 2019/0239416 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Green.”)
As per claim 11, Peterson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Peterson fails to disclose the control system …, configured to define a boundary box about the or each obstacle defining region(s) of the working environment not to be traversed by the agricultural machine. However, Green teaches this limitation [see at least Green Fig. 25; [0291] "Within the field boundary 2 two obstacles 8, which obviously must be avoided when working the field, are located."; [0294] "Also, each of the obstacles 8 have been approximated to an obstacle polygon 12. The shape of the obstacle polygon corresponds to a square encompassing the shape of obstacle 8 itself."; [0300] "In the nest step we wish to create, within the work area, an array of possible work rows to be followed by the working vehicle."; Fig. 27]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Peterson to use the control system …, configured to define a boundary box about the or each obstacle defining region(s) of the working environment not to be traversed by the agricultural machine as disclosed in Green with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving efficiency when working an agricultural field using a working vehicle. [See at least Green [0011].]
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view of Shangguan, et al., Publication US 2023/0008289 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Shangguan.”)
As per claim 17, Peterson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Peterson fails to disclose the control system …, wherein the one or more characteristics of a first obstacle comprises a distance between the first obstacle and one or more further obstacles within the working environment. However, Shangguan teaches this limitation [see at least Shangguan [0170] "After the distance between the first obstacle and the second obstacle along the moving direction is determined, the distance along the moving direction may be first compared to the preset distance. The preset distance in the present embodiment is greater than or equal to a width of the vehicle, thus the current determining may be understood as determining whether the distance between the two obstacles along the moving direction is enough for the vehicle to pass through."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Peterson to use the control system …, wherein the one or more characteristics of a first obstacle comprises a distance between the first obstacle and one or more further obstacles within the working environment as disclosed in Shangguan with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety of the obstacle-avoidance processing. [See at least Shangguan [0100].]
As per claim 18, the combination of Peterson and Shangguan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 17.
Peterson fails to disclose the control system …, configured to compare the distance between the first obstacle and the one or more further obstacles with a threshold distance, the threshold distance being dependent on a working width of the agricultural machine. However, Shangguan teaches this limitation [see at least Shangguan [0170] "After the distance between the first obstacle and the second obstacle along the moving direction is determined, the distance along the moving direction may be first compared to the preset distance. The preset distance in the present embodiment is greater than or equal to a width of the vehicle, thus the current determining may be understood as determining whether the distance between the two obstacles along the moving direction is enough for the vehicle to pass through."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Peterson to use the control system …, configured to compare the distance between the first obstacle and the one or more further obstacles with a threshold distance, the threshold distance being dependent on a working width of the agricultural machine as disclosed in Shangguan with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety of the obstacle-avoidance processing. [See at least Shangguan [0100].]
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view of Shangguan, Shashua, et al., Publication US 2017/0010618 A1, and Beller, et al., US Patent 11,738,772 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Shashua” and “Beller”.)
As per claim 19, the combination of Peterson and Shangguan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 18.
The combination of Peterson and Shangguan fails to disclose the control system …, configured, in dependence on the distance between the first obstacle and the one or more further obstacles being less than the threshold distance, to merge the first obstacle and the further obstacle(s)… . However, Shashua teaches this limitation [see at least Shashua [0827] "In some embodiments, regions between obstacles may be excluded from free space region 6402. For example, if a width of a region between two obstacles is less than the width of the vehicle, the region may be excluded from free space region 6402."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Peterson and Shangguan to use the control system …, configured, in dependence on the distance between the first obstacle and the one or more further obstacles being less than the threshold distance, to merge the first obstacle and the further obstacle(s)… as disclosed in Shashua with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved accuracy of the position indicators. [See at least Shashua [0814].]
The combination of Peterson, Shangguan, and Shashua fails to disclose … determine the operational path in dependence on one or more characteristics of the merged obstacle. However, Beller teaches this limitation [see at least Beller col 12, lines 55-67 "... at least a portion of each of the three objects 406 is located within the vehicle path 416. In other examples, based on a determination that at least a portion of at least one of the objects 406 is within a threshold distance of the path 416, the perception component 412 may determine that the group of three pedestrians are designated as objects 406. In some examples, based on a determination that at least a portion of at least one of the objects 406 is within a threshold distance of the path 416, the perception component 412 may generate a bounding box 420 around the group of objects 406. In such examples, the perception component 412 may consider the group of objects 406 together."; col 13, lines 8-12 "... the fusion of the object(s) 406 includes a modification of the drivable area such that the location occupied by the object(s) 406 is removed from the available drivable surfaces (e.g., no longer an area in which the vehicle 404 may travel)."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Peterson, Shangguan, and Shashua to use … determine the operational path in dependence on one or more characteristics of the merged obstacle as disclosed in Beller with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving safety, such as avoiding collisions and/or injuries in autonomous navigation. [See at least Beller col. 1, line 64 - col. 2, line 4.]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights