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 1-13 have been presented in the present application. No preliminary amendments have been made. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the present application.
Priority
The present application, filed 20 June 2024, is a Continuation of PCT App. No. PCT/JP2022/040395, filed on 28 October 2022, and claims foreign priority to Japanese Patent App. No. JP2021-120461, filed 24 December 2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “or whether the road is a road where satellite signals from GNSS satellites can be properly received….” The examiner notes that the acronym “GNSS” has not been defined within the body of the claim. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “or whether the road is a road where satellite signals from Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellites can be properly received…” or the like.
Claim 13 contains limitations similar to that of claim 1, and is similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-12 are directed towards a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 13 is directed towards a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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 a mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as the representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A path planning system for an agricultural machine to automatically travel inside and outside a field, the path planning system comprising:
A storage to store a map of a region including plurality of fields and roads around the plurality of fields; and
A processor to generate a path for the agricultural machine on the map; wherein
The map includes attribute information representing, for each of the roads, at least one of whether the road is an agricultural road, whether the road is a road along a specific feature, or whether is road is a road where satellite signals from GNSS satellites can be properly received; and
For generation of a path toward a field or a path from a field toward another site, the processor is configured or programmed to generate at least one of a path including an agricultural road with priority, a path including a road along the specific feature with priority, or a path including, with priority, a road where the satellite signals are receivable, as the path for the agricultural machine based on the attribute information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process”, because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers actions capable of being performed in the human mind. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the limitation of “generat[ing] at least one of a path…” constitutes a mental process, as it amounts to a mere mental determination as to a path to travel. 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 the 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 path planning system for an agricultural machine to automatically travel inside and outside a field, the path planning system comprising:
A storage to store a map of a region including plurality of fields and roads around the plurality of fields; and
A processor to generate a path for the agricultural machine on the map; wherein
The map includes attribute information representing, for each of the roads, at least one of whether the road is an agricultural road, whether the road is a road along a specific feature, or whether is road is a road where satellite signals from GNSS satellites can be properly received; and
For generation of a path toward a field or a path from a field toward another site, the processor is configured or programmed to generate at least one of a path including an agricultural road with priority, a path including a road along the specific feature with priority, or a path including, with priority, a road where the satellite signals are receivable, as the path for the agricultural machine based on the attribute information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the limitation of “a storage to store,” the examiner asserts that this limitation amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data storage (and the apparatus to do so). Regarding the limitation of “a processor to generate a path,” the examiner asserts that this amounts to a mere apply-it level integration of a “processor” to perform the above indicated mental process of “to generate a path.” Regarding the limitation of “the map includes attribute information…” the examiner asserts that this amounts to merely a description of the information contained within the “map,” and notes that the storage of road attributes is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of autonomous vehicle path planning.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative 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 to those discussed above, with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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, and conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “a storage to store” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP § 2106.05(d), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1344, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed at a high level of generality. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2, dependent claim 2 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 2 merely provides further description of the map attributes, as well as further criteria by which the path is to be generated, i.e., to follow a waterway. Hence, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 3, dependent claim 3 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 3 merely provides further criteria by which the path is to be generated, i.e., to minimize an evaluation function. Hence, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 4, dependent claim 4 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 4 merely provides further description of the intended path to be generated. Hence, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 5, dependent claim 5 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 5 merely provides further description of the “path” intended to be generated. Hence, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 6, dependent claim 6 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 6 merely provides further description of the generated “path”. Hence, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 7, dependent claim 7 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 7 merely recites insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere display in the form of “display[ing] a graphical user interface…,” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 8, dependent claim 8 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 8 merely recites additional insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of “stor[ing] a schedule…,” as well as providing a mere description of parameters taken into account when performing the mental process of “generat[ing] the path”. Hence, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 9, dependent claim 9 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 9 merely provides a description of when to perform the mental process of “generat[ing] the path”. Hence, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 10, dependent claim 10 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 10 recites an additional mental process in the form of “repeat[ing] an operation of generating a local path … based on data acquired by a sensor…,” which the examiner asserts is capable of being performed in the human mind, as it amounts to a mere mental determination as to whether or not to re-generate a path, and insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data transmission in the form of “outputting information representing the local path to a controller controlling the traveling of the agricultural machine”. Hence, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 11, dependent claim 11 does include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 11 recites “a controller configured or programmed to cause the agricultural machine to travel along the path generated by the processor,” which the examiner asserts is unable to be performed in the human mind. Hence, dependent claim 11 is patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12 is similarly patent eligible by virtue of its dependence on patent eligible dependent claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 6-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuroki (JP2020103092A), hereafter Kuroki.
Regarding claim 1, Kuroki teaches a path planning system for an agricultural machine to automatically travel inside and outside a field, the path planning system comprising:
A storage to store a map of a region including plurality of fields and roads around the plurality of fields (0046, The map storage unit 102 of the display device stores map information about the area surrounding the field map MP2 in addition to the field map MP2. That is, the map storage unit 102 stores map information including farm roads, roads, buildings,); and
A processor to generate a path for the agricultural machine on the map (0047, The driving assistance device 100 includes a supply plan creation unit 115. The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a supply plan, and is composed of electric and electronic circuits provided in the display device.); wherein
The map includes attribute information representing, for each of the roads, at least one of whether the road is an agricultural road (0049, The supply plan creation unit 115 acquires map information of the surrounding area of the supply setting field map MP2 from the map memory unit 102, and displays farm roads J10, roads J11, buildings J12, etc., surrounding the supply setting field map MP2 on the surrounding area display unit 801.), whether the road is a road along a specific feature, or whether is road is a road where satellite signals from GNSS satellites can be properly received; and
For generation of a path toward a field or a path from a field toward another site, the processor is configured or programmed to generate at least one of a path including an agricultural road with priority (0050, The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 based on the priority conditions input in the setting conditions 802 displayed on the supply plan screen M9. For example, if "farm road" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 that preferentially passes through the farm road J10.), a path including a road along the specific feature with priority, or a path including, with priority, a road where the satellite signals are receivable, as the path for the agricultural machine based on the attribute information.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the path in a mode selected by a user from a plurality of modes (0050, The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 based on the priority conditions input in the setting conditions 802 displayed on the supply plan screen M9. For example, if "farm road" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 that preferentially passes through the farm road J10. Furthermore, when "distance" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route with the shortest distance as a priority.) including at least one of:
A first mode to generate the path with an agricultural road being selected with priority (0050, The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 based on the priority conditions input in the setting conditions 802 displayed on the supply plan screen M9. For example, if "farm road" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 that preferentially passes through the farm road J10.);
A second mode to generate the path with a road along the specific feature being selected with priority; or
A third mode to generate the path with a road where the satellite signals are receivable being selected with priority.
Regarding claim 6, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the path in a mode selected by the user from the plurality of modes further including a fourth mode to generate the path such that the moving distance or the moving time of the agricultural machine is shortest (0050, The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 based on the priority conditions input in the setting conditions 802 displayed on the supply plan screen M9. For example, if "farm road" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 that preferentially passes through the farm road J10. Furthermore, when "distance" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route with the shortest distance as a priority.).
Regarding claim 7, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured or programmed to cause a display device to display a graphical user interface to allow the user to select one mode from the plurality of modes (0050, The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 based on the priority conditions input in the setting conditions 802 displayed on the supply plan screen M9.).
Regarding claim 8, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein:
The storage is configured or programmed to store a schedule of at least one task of agricultural work to be performed by the agricultural machine on each of working days (0053, A supply plan may be created by linking the planned travel route L1 and the transport route L7. For example, the start time for starting work (travel) on the planned travel route L1 (the time for starting work from the starting point of the planned travel route L1) can be input into the start input section 807 of the route setting screen M3. When a start time is input in the start input section 807, the supply plan creation section 115 calculates the time it takes for the traveling vehicle 3 to reach the supply position P20 after starting work (supply position arrival time). In addition, the supply plan creation unit 115 sets a transport route L7 for the supply machine VB1 to reach the supply position P20 and the supply setting field map MP2 before the time to arrive at the supply position, and also sets the time (departure time) to depart from the supply source P65, and sets the departure time and transport route L7, etc. as the supply plan. In this way, the supply machine VB1 can reach the supply position P20 before the traveling vehicle 3 arrives at the supply position P20.);
The processor is configured or programmed to generate, based on the schedule, the path such that a final task of agricultural work on each working day is completed before the time when the agricultural work is to end (0053, A supply plan may be created by linking the planned travel route L1 and the transport route L7. For example, the start time for starting work (travel) on the planned travel route L1 (the time for starting work from the starting point of the planned travel route L1) can be input into the start input section 807 of the route setting screen M3. When a start time is input in the start input section 807, the supply plan creation section 115 calculates the time it takes for the traveling vehicle 3 to reach the supply position P20 after starting work (supply position arrival time). In addition, the supply plan creation unit 115 sets a transport route L7 for the supply machine VB1 to reach the supply position P20 and the supply setting field map MP2 before the time to arrive at the supply position, and also sets the time (departure time) to depart from the supply source P65, and sets the departure time and transport route L7, etc. as the supply plan. In this way, the supply machine VB1 can reach the supply position P20 before the traveling vehicle 3 arrives at the supply position P20.).
Regarding claim 9, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate, based on the schedule, the path such that the agricultural machine arrives at a field where each of tasks of agricultural work is to be performed before the time when the agricultural work is to begin (0053, In addition, the supply plan creation unit 115 sets a transport route L7 for the supply machine VB1 to reach the supply position P20 and the supply setting field map MP2 before the time to arrive at the supply position, and also sets the time (departure time) to depart from the supply source P65, and sets the departure time and transport route L7, etc. as the supply plan. In this way, the supply machine VB1 can reach the supply position P20 before the traveling vehicle 3 arrives at the supply position P20. See also at least Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Kuroki teaches a control system, comprising:
The path planning system of claim 1 (See at least the rejection of claim 1 above); and
A controller configured or programmed to cause the agricultural machine to travel along the path generated by the processor (0055, That is, the automatic travel control unit 61 of the supply machine VB1 including the work vehicle performs automatic travel along the transport route L7.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Kuroki.
Regarding claim 5, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to generate the path in a mode selected by the user from a plurality of modes (0050, The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 based on the priority conditions input in the setting conditions 802 displayed on the supply plan screen M9. For example, if "farm road" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 that preferentially passes through the farm road J10. Furthermore, when "distance" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route with the shortest distance as a priority.)
Kuroki fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the mode is selected from a plurality of modes including all of the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode.
The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have made the plurality of modes include all of the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode, as to do so would have been obvious to try. The examiner asserts that in view of Kuroki’s disclosure of having a plurality of different prioritization modes, there is both a design need (i.e., to prioritize some attribute) as well as a finite number of solutions (e.g., choosing a specific road attribute).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuroki in view of McGavran (US 20200151611 A1), hereafter McGavran. The examiner notes that dependent claim 2 requires the teaching of wherein the road attribute "includes a road along a specific feature", which the examiner notes is not taught by Kuroki. However, the "road attribute includ[ing] a road along a specific feature" limitation in independent Claim 1 is an alternative limitation, hence the reasoning for why Claim 1 is rejected under 102 whereas Claim 2 is instead rejected under 103.
Regarding claim 2, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 1, and Kuroki further teaches wherein:
The processor is configured or programmed to generate a path including a road having a specific attribute with priority, as the path for the agricultural machine based on the attribute information (0050, The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 based on the priority conditions input in the setting conditions 802 displayed on the supply plan screen M9. For example, if "farm road" is selected in the setting condition 802, the supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transportation route L7 that preferentially passes through the farm road J10.).
Kuroki fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the map includes attribute information representing, for each road, whether the road is a road along a specific feature.
McGavran, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the map includes attribute information representing, for each road, whether the road is a road along a specific feature (0043, Example vehicle map service data that can be sent and/or received among the map service systems (e.g., the geographic information system cloud computing system, the vehicle cloud computing system, and/or the vehicle) and/or among individual clients within a map service system can include … road network data in some radius around the vehicle (e.g., road geometry, lane count and/or lane attributes, road attributes, road slope, traffic control devices, such as traffic lights or stop sighs, information associated with nearby landmarks (to aid with localization and/or map matching))).
Kuroki and McGavran are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous vehicle mapping systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the road having a specific feature of McGavran in order to provide a means of better describing roads in an operating environment. The motivation to combine is to allow the vehicle to be more easily localized (see at least 0043 of McGavran).
The combination of Kuroki and McGavran fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the specific feature is a waterway. The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have made the specific feature a water way, because to do so amounts to mere design choice. The examiner asserts that no new or unexpected result comes from the specific feature being the waterway, and points to at least [0170] of Applicant's specification, which recites that "Note that a feature other than the waterway 78 (e.g., a river, a row of trees, grass, a building, or the like) may be used as a landmark for the localization."
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroki, and further in view of Jacobus (US 20190088148 A1), hereafter Jacobus.
Regarding claim 3, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine a path by which an evaluation function is minimum, as the path for the agricultural machine among a plurality of paths reaching a target point from a departure point, the evaluation function being such that a path having a higher ratio of agricultural roads, a higher ratio of roads along the specific feature, or a higher ratio of roads where the satellite signals are receivable is given a smaller evaluation value and a path providing a longer moving distance or a longer moving time is given a larger evaluation value.
Jacobus, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the processor is configured or programmed to determine a path by which an evaluation function is minimum, as the path for the agricultural machine among a plurality of paths reaching a target point from a departure point, the evaluation function being such that a path having a higher ratio of agricultural roads, a higher ratio of roads along the specific feature, or a higher ratio of roads where the satellite signals are receivable is given a smaller evaluation value and a path providing a longer moving distance or a longer moving time is given a larger evaluation value (0127, The core function of an AV is to transport payloads and/or people from a starting point to a destination point. This is accomplished by locating the starting point on or near a digital roadway map. Then search is performed to identify an acceptable path from this starting point to the destination, also located on the map, that minimizes cost metrics including minimum distance, time, safety, fuel use, fewest congestion segments (segments where traffic congestion is reported), and maximum utilization of priority segments (segments with larger traffic flow and higher speed limits).).
Kuroki and Jacobus are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous vehicle planning systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the cost minimizing of Jacobus in order to provide further means of refining the generated path. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the generated path is as optimal as possible.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroki, and further in view of Tomita (JP2021035381A), hereafter Tomita.
Regarding claim 10, Kuroki teaches the path planning system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein while the agricultural machine is traveling along the path, the processor is configured or programmed to repeat an operation of generating a local path which is defined by a plurality of waypoints along a portion of the path and along which an obstacle is avoidable, based on data acquired by a sensor included in the agricultural machine, and of outputting information representing the local path to a controller controlling the traveling of the agricultural machine.
Tomita, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein while the agricultural machine is traveling along the path, the processor is configured or programmed to repeat an operation of generating a local path which is defined by a plurality of waypoints along a portion of the path and along which an obstacle is avoidable, based on data acquired by a sensor included in the agricultural machine, and of outputting information representing the local path to a controller controlling the traveling of the agricultural machine (0075, When the input work site data includes the position of a traveling obstacle in the field, or when the harvester 1 is equipped with an obstacle position detection device, the position of the obstacle and the own vehicle based on the position, the travel path element for obstacle avoidance travel is selected. Examiner's note: the examiner is interpreting the points between the beginning and end of the travel path element to constitute "waypoints", see also at least [0023] of Tomita, which states that "This travel path element group is a group of linear travel path elements in which two nodes (points at both ends, which are referred to as route changeable points) connected by a single link…").
Kuroki and Tomita are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous work vehicle systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the sensor-based control of Tomita in order to provide a means of better navigating the environment. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the agricultural vehicle is able to navigate as effectively and safely as possible.
Regarding claim 12, Kuroki teaches an agricultural machine, comprising:
The control system of claim 11 (see at least the rejection of claim 11 above).
Kuroki fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the agricultural machine includes:
A sensor to perform sensing on a surrounding environment of the agricultural machine; wherein
The controller is configured or programmed to cause the agricultural machine to travel along the path generated by the processor based on a signal output from the sensor.
Tomita, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach a sensor to perform sensing on a surrounding environment of the agricultural machine (0075, When the input work site data includes the position of a traveling obstacle in the field, or when the harvester 1 is equipped with an obstacle position detection device, the position of the obstacle and the own vehicle based on the position, the travel path element for obstacle avoidance travel is selected.); wherein
The controller is configured or programmed to cause the agricultural machine to travel along the path generated by the processor based on a signal output from the sensor (0075, When the input work site data includes the position of a traveling obstacle in the field, or when the harvester 1 is equipped with an obstacle position detection device, the position of the obstacle and the own vehicle based on the position, the travel path element for obstacle avoidance travel is selected.).
Kuroki and Tomita are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous work vehicle systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the sensor-based control of Tomita in order to provide a means of better navigating the environment. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the agricultural vehicle is able to navigate as effectively and safely as possible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Robinson (US 20210000005 A1) teaches an autonomous work vehicle, wherein the autonomous work vehicle is operable to determine steering instructions based on a generated travel path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3658