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 § 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as the independent claims are directed towards actions, but for the mere recitation of generic computing components, that can be performed solely within the human mind. The independent claim recites “automatically generate one or both of a common route…”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed towards the limitation within it that represents the judicial exception and therefore the claim as-a-whole fails to integrate said judicial exception into a practical application as required by Step 2A Prong Two of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test presented in MPEP 2106. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements presented either represent generic computing components performing routing well-understood processes (i.e. “[a] communication interface” that performs the routine function of transmitting data and “at least one computing device” that performs the routine function of processing data) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “automatically transmit” the data that has been processed). Examiner’s Note: the limitation “wherein the one or both of common route plan the [sic] individualized route plan are indicative to the plurality of agricultural work machines to at least partly automatically perform one or more operations in performing the forage harvesting process” does not represent an additional element that causes the claim as-a-whole to be integrated into a practical application or cause the claim as-a-whole to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this claim is a “wherein” claim that merely describes features of the data (“…are indicative to…”) that is being processed in the “automatically generat[ing]…” limitation (which itself represents the judicial exception). Put succinctly, the data itself (and therefore the claimed invention) does not perform any active control of the agricultural work machines, rather the data merely indicates to said agricultural work machines that they should autonomously perform the route plan. Therefore, the step of active control is performed solely by elements not included in the claimed invention (the “agricultural work machines” are not part of the claimed subject matter and are instead independent elements with which the claimed invention interacts) and thus do not represent additional elements sufficient to either incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application or cause the claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent Claims: no dependent claims include any additional elements sufficient to either incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application or cause the claim as-a-whole to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diekhans (US 2007/0233374).
As per Claim 1:
Diekhans discloses all of the following limitations:
“A route planning system comprising: at least one communication interface configured to communicate with a plurality of agricultural work machines; and at least one computing device configured to: automatically generate one or both of a common route plan that is common for the plurality of the agricultural work machines of a forage harvesting process chain or an individualized route plan for each of the plurality of agricultural work machines, wherein the forage harvesting process chain comprises the plurality of agricultural work machines configured to perform a forage harvesting process in a predetermined order, wherein the forage harvesting process comprises successive process steps and each process step being performed by a number of the plurality of agricultural work machines;”
Diekhans Paragraph [0011] discloses generating a shared route plan based on created individual route data for agricultural vehicles. Paragraph [0067] discloses that the route planning incorporates a coordinated sequence of steps to be completed by the agricultural work machines.
“and at least partly automatically transmit, via the at least one communication interface, the one or both of common route plan that is common for the plurality of the agricultural work machines of a forage harvesting process chain or the individualized route plan for each of the plurality of agricultural work machines”
Diekhans Paragraphs [0013-[0020] discloses transmitting route planning data to and from a central server to individual work vehicles.
“and wherein the one or both of common route plan the individualized route plan are indicative to the plurality of agricultural work machines to at least partly automatically perform one or more operations in performing the forage harvesting process”
Diekhans Paragraph [0021] discloses autonomous control of the individual work vehicles being exercised.
With regards to Claim 2, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the one or both of common route plan the individualized route plan are indicative of coordinated operation of agricultural work machines with each other in such a way that the plurality of agricultural work machines automatically operating together on territory to be worked for performing the forage harvesting process automatically collaborate in a coordinated manner and do not hinder or collide with each other.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0022] discloses planning coordinated routes such that collision between working vehicles is prevented.
With regards to Claim 3, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the route planning system is further configured to automatically and dynamically adapt the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan based on one or both of: operation of one or more of the plurality of agricultural work machines; or identification of at least one aspect of the territory to be worked.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0034] discloses dynamically adjusting a route plan based on the addition (and subtraction) of new work vehicles which represent "operation of one or more of the plurality of agricultural work machines".
With regards to Claim 4, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the route planning system is further configured to receive location data for the plurality of the agricultural work machines; and wherein the route planning system is configured to dynamically adapt the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan by: automatically determining, based on the location data for some or all the plurality of the agricultural work machines, whether there is one or both of a conflict in routes or in operations for the some or all the plurality of the agricultural work machines; responsive to automatically determining that there is the one or both of the conflict in routes or in the operations for the some or all the plurality of the agricultural work machines, automatically generate one or both of an updated common route plan or at least one updated individualized route plan; and automatically transmit the one or both of the updated common route plan or the at least one updated individualized route plan to at least one of the plurality of agricultural work machines.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0022] discloses planning routes such that collisions are avoided. The broadest reasonable interpretation of "dynamically adapt" includes the initial formation of the route plan therefore the disclosure of Paragraph [0022] discloses a system that dynamically adjusts any route plan within which collisions occur (i.e. "conflict in routes") between vehicles such that said collisions do not occur.
With regards to Claim 6, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the route planning system is configured to: determine whether there is an obstacle along a respective route of at least one of the plurality of agricultural work machines; determine, based on the obstacle along the respective route, whether this is a potential collision with another of the plurality of agricultural work machines; responsive to determining the potential collision, updating the respective route of the another of the plurality of agricultural work machines; and transmitting, to the another of the plurality of agricultural work machines, the updated respective route of the another of the plurality of agricultural work machines.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0043] discloses a system in which a route plan is checked to see if routes "intersect", such an intersection would represent an "obstacle" on both routes which further represent a potential collision between said vehicles. Determining that such an intersection exists results in a changing of said routes to precent said potential for collision.
With regards to Claim 7, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein one of the plurality of the agricultural work machines are configured to perform one process step and another of the plurality of the agricultural work machines is configured to perform a successive process step; and wherein the route planning system is configured to generate the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan for the one of the plurality of the agricultural work machines and the another of the plurality of the agricultural work machines in a temporal and geographical sequence so that no collisions occur between the one of the plurality of the agricultural work machines and the another of the plurality of the agricultural work machines.”
Diekhans Paragraphs [0068]-[0069] disclose a process in which limits of a field are delineated by autonomous vehicles before the step of harvesting said fields occurs thus resulting in a process where sequential steps are performed by different autonomous vehicles.
With regards to Claim 8, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein at least two of the plurality of agricultural work machines are used in a single process step; and wherein the route planning system is configured to generate the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan for the at least two of the plurality of agricultural work machines in order for the at least two of the plurality of agricultural work machines to work in a coordinated manner in automatically performing the single process step.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0068] discloses two autonomous machines performing the step of demarcating the harvesting field.
With regards to Claim 9, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the route planning system is configured to generate one or both of the common route plan for the agricultural work machines for a respective process step of the forage harvesting process chain or the individualized route plan for each agricultural work machine for the respective process step of the forage harvesting process chain.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0021] discloses generating route plans for any of an arbitrary number of vehicles for performing the steps of a process of harvesting.
With regards to Claim 10, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the route planning system is configured to generate one or both of the common route plan for the agricultural work machines for each process step of the forage harvesting process chain or the individualized route plan for each agricultural work machine for each process step of the forage harvesting process chain.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0021] discloses generating route plans for any of an arbitrary number of vehicles for performing the steps of a process of harvesting.
With regards to Claim 11, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein respective common route plans and respective individualized route plans comprise travel routes; and wherein each of the plurality of agricultural work machines is assigned an individualized route in at least one of the respective common route plans and the respective individualized route plans.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0021] discloses generating route plans for any of an arbitrary number of vehicles for performing the steps of a process of harvesting.
With regards to Claim 12, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the route planning system is further configured to receive the forage harvesting process chain that is generated by an assistance system; and wherein the assistance system is configured to create the forage harvesting process chain from a description of an agricultural job transferred to the assistance system.”
Diekhan Paragraph [0021] discloses assigning routes as a part of an overall route plan based on a working plan for a territory that would necessarily be "described" to such a system in order to perform said tasks. The broadest reasonable interpretation of "description" would any and all plans that facilitate a function.
With regards to Claim 13, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the forage harvesting process to be optimized is described as an agricultural job; wherein the agricultural job comprises the process steps and a sequence of execution of the process steps; wherein the sequence of execution of the process steps forms a respective forage harvesting process chain; and wherein the route planning system is configured to create one or both of the route plan for a respective process step or the route plan for all of the process steps.”
Diekhans Paragraphs [0068]-[0069] disclose a process in which limits of a field are delineated by autonomous vehicles before the step of harvesting said fields occurs thus resulting in a process where sequential steps are performed by different autonomous vehicles.
With regards to Claim 14, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the route planning system is configured to create both the route plan for the respective process step and the route plan for all of the process steps.”
Diekhans Paragraphs [0068]-[0069] disclose a process in which limits of a field are delineated by autonomous vehicles before the step of harvesting said fields occurs thus resulting in a process where sequential steps are performed by different autonomous vehicles. Such a system produces a route plan for all levels of the harvesting process.
With regards to Claim 15, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the plurality of agricultural work machines active on a territory to be worked each have a data transmission device; wherein the data transmission devices are configured to enable a data exchange between the plurality of agricultural work machines and the route planning system; and wherein the route planning system is configured to automatically and dynamically adapt the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan based on the data exchange.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0034] discloses communication between autonomous vehicles which is used for overall route planning including dynamic adjustments.
With regards to Claim 16, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the plurality of agricultural work machines comprise at least two agricultural work machines configured to perform a same task of respective process step; and wherein the route planning systemis configured to generate the common route plan or the individualized route plan for the at least two agricultural work machines in order to automatically perform at least a part of the same task of the respective process step but at different times.”
Diekhans Paragraphs [0068]-[0069] disclose a process in which limits of a field are delineated by autonomous vehicles before the step of harvesting said fields occurs thus resulting in a process where sequential steps are performed by different autonomous vehicles.
With regards to Claim 17, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the route planning system is configured to generate the common route plan or the individualized route plan for the at least two agricultural work machines in order to automatically and simultaneously perform different parts of the same task.”
Diekhans Paragraph [0019] discloses a central route planning device that plans the routes in accordance with the needed tasks of the harvesting process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekhans, directed towards autonomous systems for agricultural vehicles (See Paragraph [0002]), in view of Rusciolelli (US 2017/0316692) which is directed towards autonomous systems for agricultural operations (See Paragraph [0001]), which is a similar field of endeavor.
With regards to Claim 5, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 but does not disclose the following limitations that Rusciolelli does disclose:
“wherein the route planning system is configured to: determine, based on GPS data for the some or all the plurality of the agricultural work machines, whether at least one of the plurality of agricultural work machines is stopped or interrupted in its processing along its respective route; determine, based on the at least one of the plurality of agricultural work machines being stopped or interrupted in its processing along its respective route, whether this is a potential collision with another of the plurality of agricultural work machines; responsive to determining the potential collision, updating the respective route of the another of the plurality of agricultural work machines; and transmitting, to the another of the plurality of agricultural work machines, the updated respective route of the another of the plurality of agricultural work machines.”
Rusciolelli Paragraph [0008] discloses determining that an autonomous agricultural vehicle has performed a "collision avoidance maneuver" (which correlates to said vehicle being interrupted) and upon a positive determination the route plan is dynamically updated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Diekhans with the interruption determination disclosed by Rusciolelli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing a check against fault conditions.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekhans, directed towards autonomous systems for agricultural vehicles (See Paragraph [0002]), in view of Jertberg (US 2019/0094857) which is directed towards autonomous systems for agricultural operations (See Paragraph [0001]).
With regards to Claim 18, Diekhans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17 but does not disclose the following limitations that Claim 17 does disclose:
“wherein the at least two agricultural work machines comprise transport vehicles; and wherein the route planning system is configured to generate the common route plan or the individualized route plan for the transport vehicles so that a filled transport vehicle is automatically driven to a silo at least partly simultaneously while an empty transport vehicle is automatically driven to a forage harvester.”
Jertberg Paragraph [0028] discloses a system in which autonomously operating vehicles go back and forth from a collection facility (representative of a silo ). These delivery vehicles are arbitrarily numerous and operate independently and therefore the arbitrary scenario of one going to the collection facility to empty its contents whilst another comes from said facility with an empty container is contained within its disclosure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Diekhans with the simultaneous emptying and filling routes disclosed by Jerberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by increasing the productivity of the system by performing multiple process steps at the same time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658