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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
2. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0237640) in view of Kinoshita et al. (WIPO Publication # WO 2022/145331).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Carpenter discloses an system (figs, etc) comprising:
a sensor system communicably coupled to and remotely positionable from an work machine at a worksite, the sensor system configured to detect one or more machine operating effect attributes corresponding to the work machine and generate sensor data indicative of the detected one or more machine operating effect attributes (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, P50-52, etc: sensor system on UAV for detecting wear, condition, usage, and/or performance of vehicle components);
one or more processors (fig 9, etc); and
memory storing instructions, executable by the one or more processors, that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (fig 9, etc):
obtain the sensor data indicative of the detected one or more machine operating effect attributes (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, etc);
identify the one or more machine operating effect attributes based on the sensor data indicative of the detected one or more machine operating effect attributes (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, P11, etc: wear, condition, usage, and/or performance of the vehicle components); and
generate a control signal based on the identified one or more machine operating effect attributes (fig 9, P61, 63, 68, 70, 77-78, etc).
Carpenter fails to disclose that the system is an agricultural system.
In the same field of endeavor, Kinoshita discloses an agricultural system (abstract, figs, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carpenter to apply the invention to an agricultural system, as taught by Kinoshita, in order to detect and warn of problems in an agricultural system, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Carpenter further discloses that the sensor system is configured to detect the one or more machine operating effect attributes at one or more of: (i) an area of the agricultural work machine associated with the a header of the agricultural work machine; (ii) an area of the agricultural work machine associated with an exhaust of the agricultural work machine; (iii) an area of the agricultural work machine associated with a residue subsystem of the agricultural work machine; or (iv) an area of the worksite (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, etc).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 12, Carpenter fails to disclose that the one or more machine operating effect attributes include one or more of: (i) smoke; (ii) material accumulation; or (iii) temperature.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect one or more of: (i) smoke; (ii) material accumulation; or (iii) temperature of a machine. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Carpenter to do so, as well known in the art, in order to expand the types of problems detected and alerted, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Carpenter further discloses that the sensor system is disposed on a drone, communicably coupled to the agricultural work machine (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, etc).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Carpenter further discloses that the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
identify one or more detection locations to be detected by the sensor system (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, etc);
generate, based, at least in part, on the identified one or more detection locations, a travel plan for the drone, the travel plan including the one or more monitoring locations and a monitoring sequence, wherein each monitoring location of the one or more monitoring locations corresponds to a detection location of the one or more detection locations and defines a location to position the drone to have the sensor system, disposed on the drone, detect the one or more machine operating effect attributes at the corresponding detection location, and wherein the sequence defines an order in which the drone is to travel to the one or more monitoring locations (P62, etc: only one monitoring location and one detection location required by claim; sequence implicit from disclosed flight path); and
control the drone based on the travel plan (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, P50-52, 62, etc).
Regarding claim 7, Carpenter further discloses that the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
identify one or more characteristics of an obstruction at a worksite, the one or more characteristics comprising one or more of a location of the obstruction or a future location of the obstruction (P13, 71, etc); and
generate the travel plan based, at least in part, on the identified one or more characteristics of the obstruction (P13, 71, etc).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Carpenter further discloses that the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
identify at least one monitoring location, based, at least in part, on the identified one or more characteristics of the obstruction (P13, 71, etc), the identified at least one monitoring location defining a location to position the drone such that the obstruction does not obstruct the sensor system from detecting the one or more machine operating effect attributes at the corresponding detection location (P62, 13, 71, etc: implicit from combination of disclosed flight path and obstacle avoidance).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Carpenter further discloses that the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
identify the sequence of the travel plan based, at least in part, on the identified one or more characteristics of the obstruction, the identified sequence defining an order in which the drone is to travel to the one or more monitoring locations (P62, 13, 71, etc: implicit from combination of disclosed flight path and obstacle avoidance, etc).
Regarding claims 10, 17, and 20, Carpenter fails to disclose identifying a priority of each of the one or more detection locations; and generate the travel plan based, at least in part, on the identified priority of each of the one or more detection locations.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prioritize locations and generate a travel plan based on the priority. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Carpenter to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve safety by performing the most urgent or important detections first, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Carpenter further discloses that the control signal controls one of: a controllable subsystem of the agricultural work machine or an interface mechanism to generate an alert (fig 9, P7, 49, 61, 63, 68, 70, 77-78, etc).
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection for claim 1 above.
Carpenter further discloses the sensor system disposed on a drone (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, P50-52, etc)
identify one or more detection locations to be detected by the sensor system (abstract, figs 7, 9, 11-12, etc);
generate, based, at least in part, on the identified one or more detection locations, a travel plan for the drone, the travel plan including one or more monitoring locations and a monitoring sequence, wherein each monitoring location of the one or more monitoring locations corresponds to a detection location of the one or more detection locations and defines a location to position the drone to have the sensor system, disposed on the drone, detect the one or more machine operating effect attributes at the corresponding detection location, and wherein the monitoring sequence defines an order in which the drone is to travel to the one or more monitoring locations (P62, etc: only one monitoring location and one detection location required by claim; sequence implicit from disclosed flight path, etc).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
May 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights