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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 05 January 2026, amendments and/or arguments have been submitted and placed in the application file. Claims 2-19 have been added, therefore claims 1-19 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Statutory Double Patenting rejections of claim(s) 1 has been considered but are moot in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Examiner notes wherein based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection(s) is/are provided below, which was necessitated based on said amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,053,894 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope to the allowed claims and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the issued U.S. Patent.
Specifically wherein;
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A method implemented using one or more processors, comprising:
generating a plurality of agricultural tasks for a semi-autonomous agricultural system (plurality of robots) to perform for a plurality of plants, wherein each plant of the plurality of plants is designated as a target for one of the agricultural tasks;
for each agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks, calculating a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi-autonomous agricultural system (respective robot) assigned to the agricultural task is configured to perform the agricultural task; and
providing instructions to a client device to render a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plurality of selectable elements corresponding to the plurality of agricultural tasks,
wherein a selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements is rendered to convey an indication of the measure of performability calculated for the agricultural task represented by the selectable element.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-7, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 2-7 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 15 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
generate a plurality of agricultural tasks for a semi-autonomous agricultural system (plurality of robots) to perform for a plurality of plants, wherein each plant of the plurality of plants is designated as a target for one of the agricultural tasks;
for each agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks, calculate a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi-autonomous agricultural system (plurality of robots) assigned to the agricultural task is configured to perform the agricultural task; and
provide instructions to a client device to render a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plurality of selectable elements corresponding to the plurality of agricultural tasks,
wherein a selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements is rendered to convey an indication of the measure of performability calculated for the agricultural task represented by the selectable element.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 9-13, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 16-20 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 8 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A semi-autonomous agricultural system (plurality of robots) comprising:
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
generate a plurality of agricultural tasks for a semi-autonomous agricultural system (plurality of robots) to perform for a plurality of plants, wherein each plant of the plurality of plants is designated as a target for one of the agricultural tasks;
for each agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks, calculate a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi-autonomous agricultural system (respective robot) assigned to the agricultural task is configured to perform the agricultural task; and
provide instructions to a client device to render a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plurality of selectable elements corresponding to the plurality of agricultural tasks,
wherein a selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements is rendered to convey an indication of the measure of performability calculated for the agricultural task represented by the selectable element.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 15-19, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 9-13 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Examiner notes wherein the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) provided herein would be overcome with a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
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(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbs et al (US 9,532,508 B1, hereinafter Stubbs) in view of Foster et al (US 2017/0357400 A1, hereinafter Foster).
Regarding claim 1, Stubbs teaches a method implemented using one or more processors (Figure 11, processor(s) 202), comprising:
generating a plurality of agricultural tasks for a semi-autonomous agricultural system (Figure 11, robotic agricultural system 200) to perform for a plurality of plants, wherein each plant of the plurality of plants is designated as a target for one of the agricultural tasks (Figures 1, 6 & 7; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 14-49 and column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48, wherein said robot may be autonomous and/or semi-autonomous device(s) configured to execute one or more generated agricultural tasks);
for each agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks, calculating a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task is configured to perform the agricultural task (Figures 1, 6 & 7; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 14-49 and column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48, wherein “The robotic device may be the same robotic device used to perform method 100, or may be a different robotic device configured to perform various types of agricultural operations. In addition, if multiple agricultural operations are performed over the course of a growing season, different robotic devices specialized for different agricultural operations, or including different end-effectors specialized for different agricultural operations, may perform method 120 at different points in time. As with method 100, in some implementations all of the computational operations for method 120 may be performed locally by a robotic device, while in other implementations a robotic device may be in communication with a remote computer system that handles a portion of the computational operations”) Examiner notes wherein selecting a specialized end-effector for a corresponding particular agricultural operation correlates to the “calculating a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi-autonomous agricultural system” is able to perform the designated agricultural task, since selecting a particular end effector for performing one or more agricultural tasks dictates the likelihood for successfully performing said one or more agricultural task(s).; and
providing instructions to a client device to render a graphical user interface (GUI) (Figures 1, 6, 7 & 11; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 33-49, column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48 and column 12, lines 37-58, specifically as shown in at least Figure 7, steps 0136-0146, wherein one or a plurality of agricultural operations may be performed, and further wherein said robotic device may be in communication with a remote computer system that includes one or more user interface input devices (i.e. touchscreen, or graphics tablet) for manual input relating to said one or more agricultural operations). That said, Stubbs is silent specifically wherein the GUI includes “a plurality of selectable elements corresponding to the plurality of agricultural tasks” and further “wherein a selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements is rendered to convey an indication of the measure of performability calculated for the agricultural task represented by the selectable element.”
Foster, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a control system for an autonomous agricultural system including a display that is configured to display one or more control functions associated with at least one operation. Foster goes on to teach wherein the display may be a touchscreen display with a plurality of buttons/icons that may be selected/utilized to control said agricultural system to perform one or more agricultural task(s) (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030, specifically at least as in paragraph 0029, wherein “the controller may send signal(s) for the touchscreen display 34 indicative of instructions to display a start button 78 while the virtual agricultural vehicle 70 and/or implement 72 and the virtual agricultural field 74 are selected. The controller may receive signal(s) from the display indicative of actuation of the start button 78 and may commence the autonomous agricultural operation accordingly”, and further as in paragraph 0030, wherein “the touchscreen display 34 displays a control panel 80 having various control functions indicative of operating states of the agricultural system 10”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Stubbs, to include Foster’s touchscreen display (i.e. GUI) with selectable elements (i.e. icons, buttons, etc.) corresponding to one or more agricultural task(s), since Foster teaches wherein said touchscreen display provides a more enhanced and interactive display for a user to control an agricultural system or perform one or more autonomous and/or semi-autonomous agricultural task(s), thereby providing a more robust agricultural system.
Regarding claim 2, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches the method further comprising:
determining that the semi-autonomous agricultural system has autonomously reached an individual plant of the plurality of plants that is associated with the respective agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks that was assigned to the semi-autonomous agricultural system (Figures 2 & 3; at least as in column 7, lines 34-44 and column 8, lines 1-23); and
in response to the determining, causing a selectable element of the plurality of selective elements representing the respective agricultural task to convey a status for the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the respective agricultural task, wherein the status comprises awaiting manual control or performing the respective agricultural task (Figures 2 & 3; at least as in column 7, lines 34-44 and column 8, lines 1-23). Examiner additionally notes wherein Foster also teaches wherein the display provides the one or more selective elements as in claim 1 above, and further wherein the status of one or more agricultural operations may be provided on the display for manual manipulation/control (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Foster teaches the method further comprising:
in response to selection of the selectable element representing the respective agricultural task, causing the GUI to render a manual control interface that is operable to cause the semi-autonomous agricultural system to perform the respective agricultural task (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030);
receiving user input at the manual control interface (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030); and
operating the semi-autonomous agricultural system in accordance with the user input received at the manual control interface (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches the method further comprising causing the selectable element to be rendered with a previously-acquired image of the plant targeted by the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches wherein the previously-acquired image is annotated to identify one or more plant-parts-of-interest to be acted upon by the semi- autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches wherein the selectable element is selectable to asynchronously predefine a semi-autonomous agricultural system plan to be implemented by the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches the method further comprising generating a trajectory of a component of the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task represented by the selectable element, wherein the generating is based on interaction at the GUI with the annotated plant-parts-of-interest of the previously-acquired image (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 8, Stubbs teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Figure 11, processor(s) 202; at least as in column 13, lines 8-22), cause the one or more processors to:
generate a plurality of agricultural tasks for a semi-autonomous agricultural system (Figure 11, robotic agricultural system 200) to perform for a plurality of plants, wherein each plant of the plurality of plants is designated as a target for one of the agricultural tasks (Figures 1, 6 & 7; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 14-49 and column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48, wherein said robot may be autonomous and/or semi-autonomous device(s) configured to execute one or more generated agricultural tasks);
for each agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks, calculate a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task is configured to perform the agricultural task (Figures 1, 6 & 7; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 14-49 and column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48, wherein “The robotic device may be the same robotic device used to perform method 100, or may be a different robotic device configured to perform various types of agricultural operations. In addition, if multiple agricultural operations are performed over the course of a growing season, different robotic devices specialized for different agricultural operations, or including different end-effectors specialized for different agricultural operations, may perform method 120 at different points in time. As with method 100, in some implementations all of the computational operations for method 120 may be performed locally by a robotic device, while in other implementations a robotic device may be in communication with a remote computer system that handles a portion of the computational operations”) Examiner notes wherein selecting a specialized end-effector for a corresponding particular agricultural operation correlates to the “calculating a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi-autonomous agricultural system” is able to perform the designated agricultural task, since selecting a particular end effector for performing one or more agricultural tasks dictates the likelihood for successfully performing said one or more agricultural task(s).; and
provide instructions to a client device to render a graphical user interface (GUI) (Figures 1, 6, 7 & 11; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 33-49, column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48 and column 12, lines 37-58, specifically as shown in at least Figure 7, steps 0136-0146, wherein one or a plurality of agricultural operations may be performed, and further wherein said robotic device may be in communication with a remote computer system that includes one or more user interface input devices (i.e. touchscreen, or graphics tablet) for manual input relating to said one or more agricultural operations). That said, Stubbs is silent specifically wherein the GUI includes “a plurality of selectable elements corresponding to the plurality of agricultural tasks” and further “wherein a selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements is rendered to convey an indication of the measure of performability calculated for the agricultural task represented by the selectable element.”
Foster, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a control system for an autonomous agricultural system including a display that is configured to display one or more control functions associated with at least one operation. Foster goes on to teach wherein the display may be a touchscreen display with a plurality of buttons/icons that may be selected/utilized to control said agricultural system to perform one or more agricultural task(s) (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030, specifically at least as in paragraph 0029, wherein “the controller may send signal(s) for the touchscreen display 34 indicative of instructions to display a start button 78 while the virtual agricultural vehicle 70 and/or implement 72 and the virtual agricultural field 74 are selected. The controller may receive signal(s) from the display indicative of actuation of the start button 78 and may commence the autonomous agricultural operation accordingly”, and further as in paragraph 0030, wherein “the touchscreen display 34 displays a control panel 80 having various control functions indicative of operating states of the agricultural system 10”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Stubbs, to include Foster’s touchscreen display (i.e. GUI) with selectable elements (i.e. icons, buttons, etc.) corresponding to one or more agricultural task(s), since Foster teaches wherein said touchscreen display provides a more enhanced and interactive display for a user to control an agricultural system or perform one or more autonomous and/or semi-autonomous agricultural task(s), thereby providing a more robust agricultural system.
Regarding claim 9, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine that the semi-autonomous agricultural system has autonomously reached an individual plant of the plurality of plants that is associated with the respective agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks that was assigned to the semi-autonomous agricultural system (Figures 2 & 3; at least as in column 7, lines 34-44 and column 8, lines 1-23); and
in response to the determining, cause a selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements representing the respective agricultural task to convey a status for the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the respective agricultural task, wherein the status comprises awaiting manual control or performing the respective agricultural task (Figures 2 & 3; at least as in column 7, lines 34-44 and column 8, lines 1-23). Examiner additionally notes wherein Foster also teaches wherein the display provides the one or more selective elements as in claim 1 above, and further wherein the status of one or more agricultural operations may be provided on the display for manual manipulation/control (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Foster teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
in response to selection of the selectable element representing the respective agricultural task, cause the GUI to render a manual control interface that is operable to cause the semi-autonomous agricultural system to perform the respective agricultural task (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030);
receive user input at the manual control interface (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030); and
operate the semi-autonomous agricultural system in accordance with the user input received at the manual control interface (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to cause the selectable element to be rendered with a previously-acquired image of the plant targeted by the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches wherein the previously-acquired image is annotated to identify one or more plant-parts-of-interest to be acted upon by the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches wherein the selectable element is selectable to asynchronously predefine a semi-autonomous agricultural system plan to be implemented by the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 14, Stubbs teaches a semi-autonomous agricultural system (Figure 11, robotic agricultural system 200) comprising:
one or more processors (Figure 11, processor(s) 202; at least as in column 13, lines 8-22); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Figure 11; at least as in column 13, lines 8-22), cause the system to:
generate a plurality of agricultural tasks for a semi-autonomous agricultural system to perform for a plurality of plants, wherein each plant of the plurality of plants is designated as a target for one of the agricultural tasks (Figures 1, 6 & 7; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 14-49 and column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48, wherein said robot may be autonomous and/or semi-autonomous device(s) configured to execute one or more generated agricultural tasks);
for each agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks, calculate a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi- autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task is configured to perform the agricultural task (Figures 1, 6 & 7; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 14-49 and column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48, wherein “The robotic device may be the same robotic device used to perform method 100, or may be a different robotic device configured to perform various types of agricultural operations. In addition, if multiple agricultural operations are performed over the course of a growing season, different robotic devices specialized for different agricultural operations, or including different end-effectors specialized for different agricultural operations, may perform method 120 at different points in time. As with method 100, in some implementations all of the computational operations for method 120 may be performed locally by a robotic device, while in other implementations a robotic device may be in communication with a remote computer system that handles a portion of the computational operations”) Examiner notes wherein selecting a specialized end-effector for a corresponding particular agricultural operation correlates to the “calculating a measure of performability that represents a likelihood that the semi-autonomous agricultural system” is able to perform the designated agricultural task, since selecting a particular end effector for performing one or more agricultural tasks dictates the likelihood for successfully performing said one or more agricultural task(s).; and
provide instructions to a client device to render a graphical user interface (GUI) (Figures 1, 6, 7 & 11; at least as in column 6, lines 23-59, column 8, lines 33-49, column 9, line 41-column 10, line 48 and column 12, lines 37-58, specifically as shown in at least Figure 7, steps 0136-0146, wherein one or a plurality of agricultural operations may be performed, and further wherein said robotic device may be in communication with a remote computer system that includes one or more user interface input devices (i.e. touchscreen, or graphics tablet) for manual input relating to said one or more agricultural operations).
That said, Stubbs is silent specifically wherein the GUI includes “a plurality of selectable elements corresponding to the plurality of agricultural tasks” and further “wherein a selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements is rendered to convey an indication of the measure of performability calculated for the agricultural task represented by the selectable element.”
Foster, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a control system for an autonomous agricultural system including a display that is configured to display one or more control functions associated with at least one operation. Foster goes on to teach wherein the display may be a touchscreen display with a plurality of buttons/icons that may be selected/utilized to control said agricultural system to perform one or more agricultural task(s) (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030, specifically at least as in paragraph 0029, wherein “the controller may send signal(s) for the touchscreen display 34 indicative of instructions to display a start button 78 while the virtual agricultural vehicle 70 and/or implement 72 and the virtual agricultural field 74 are selected. The controller may receive signal(s) from the display indicative of actuation of the start button 78 and may commence the autonomous agricultural operation accordingly”, and further as in paragraph 0030, wherein “the touchscreen display 34 displays a control panel 80 having various control functions indicative of operating states of the agricultural system 10”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Stubbs, to include Foster’s touchscreen display (i.e. GUI) with selectable elements (i.e. icons, buttons, etc.) corresponding to one or more agricultural task(s), since Foster teaches wherein said touchscreen display provides a more enhanced and interactive display for a user to control an agricultural system or perform one or more autonomous and/or semi-autonomous agricultural task(s), thereby providing a more robust agricultural system.
Regarding claim 15, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine that the semi-autonomous agricultural system has autonomously reached an individual plant of the plurality of plants that is associated with the respective agricultural task of the plurality of agricultural tasks that was assigned to the semi-autonomous agricultural system (Figures 2 & 3; at least as in column 7, lines 34-44 and column 8, lines 1-23); and
in response to the determining, cause a selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements representing the respective agricultural task to convey a status for the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the respective agricultural task, wherein the status comprises awaiting manual control or performing the respective agricultural task (Figures 2 & 3; at least as in column 7, lines 34-44 and column 8, lines 1-23). Examiner additionally notes wherein Foster also teaches wherein the display provides the one or more selective elements as in claim 1 above, and further wherein the status of one or more agricultural operations may be provided on the display for manual manipulation/control (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Foster teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
in response to selection of the selectable element representing the respective agricultural task, cause the GUI to render a manual control interface that is operable to cause the semi-autonomous agricultural system to perform the respective agricultural task (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030);
receive user input at the manual control interface (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030); and
operate the semi-autonomous agricultural system in accordance with the user input received at the manual control interface (Figure 3; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 17, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches the system further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to cause the selectable element to be rendered with a previously-acquired image of the plant targeted by the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 18, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches wherein the previously-acquired image is annotated to identify one or more plant-parts-of-interest to be acted upon by the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Regarding claim 19, in view of the above combination of Stubbs and Foster, Stubbs teaches wherein the selectable element is selectable to asynchronously predefine a semi-autonomous agricultural system plan to be implemented by the semi-autonomous agricultural system assigned to the agricultural task represented by the selectable element (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in column 8, line 50-column 9, line 40, column 9, line 64-column 10, line 22 and column 10, line 34-column 11, line 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, and also appear to read on several of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2006/0213167 A1, issued to Koselka et al, which is directed towards an autonomous and/or semi-autonomous agricultural robot system and corresponding method for performing one or more agricultural tasks for one or more agricultural crops.
US 2015/0186387 A1, issued to Funabashi, which is directed towards a farm work support device including a touchscreen display for a user to select one or more icons or buttons to perform an autonomous/semi-autonomous agricultural operation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights