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
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-20 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 7/31/24 and 12/30/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 1-3, 5-7 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over as applied to McPeek (US 20170016870 A1), in further view of Anderson (US 20240040965 A1), in further view of Vandike (US 20220110259 A1);
Regarding claim 1 McPeek teaches the method comprising: receiving, from a sensor of the first agricultural vehicle, sensor data associated with at least one parameter of a swath of a plant material formed by the first agricultural vehicle in the field; (McPeek [0009] reads “The collection vehicle may transport modular sensors through rows of plants in an orchard. As the collection vehicle travels through the rows in the orchard, the volume measurement module measures the volume of a windrow formed in the row using a Light Detection and Ranging (“LiDAR”) sensor.”);
receiving, from a location sensor, location data indicative of a location of the swath of the plant material; (McPeek [0011] reads “While the volume measurement module is calculating volume, and the three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module is assembling three-dimensional point cloud representations, the inertial navigation system may calculate a geodetic position of the collection vehicle. The inertial navigation system may include an Inertial Measurement Unit (“IMU”), and a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) unit.”);
[[and]] generating, based on the sensor data and the location data, the swath parameter map indicating the at least one parameter of the swath of the plant material at the location of the swath of the plant material, (McPeek [0059] reads “For example, each vertice of the three-dimensional point cloud may be associated with a geodetic position. Thus, the three-dimensional point clouds may be mapped onto a geodetic coordinate system and rendered using mapping interfaces described below. Similarly, the volume cross-sections of the windrows may be mapped onto a geodetic coordinate system, and also may be rendered using a mapping interface as described below.”);
McPeek does not teach A method of generating a swath parameter map of a field worked by a first [[an]] agricultural vehicle, identifying a configuration of a second agricultural vehicle configured to perform an operation on the swath of plant material using the swath parameter map, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of agricultural vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one parameter indicated by the swath parameter map; providing a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second agricultural vehicle using the swath parameter map; and controlling the operation of the second agricultural vehicle based on the control signal.
Anderson in analogous art, teaches A method of generating a swath parameter map of a field worked by a first [[an]] agricultural vehicle, (Anderson [0061] reads “Information regarding field properties, including, for example, soil content and topography, can be obtained in a variety of manners, including, for example, by one more cameras or sensors that are attached to an aerial vehicle, including, for example, an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone 706.” And [0030] reads “With respect to the exemplary agricultural machine 100 shown in FIG. 1, a front end of the agricultural machine 100 can be pivotally coupled to a feeder house 110 that supports a harvesting head 112. As the agricultural machine 100 moves along the ground surface 104 while performing an agricultural operation, such as, for example, harvesting a crop”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek with that of Anderson to include a method for allowing multiple agricultural vehicles to share information. This would allow the system to better monitor the crops while limiting the amount of crop damage. (Anderson [0002] reads “With respect to at least certain types of agricultural crops, including, but not limited to, alfalfa and sod grass, soil compaction and stand damage can relatively significantly adversely impact crop yields. Further, the adverse effects of soil compaction to crop yields, including compaction of topsoil, an upper part of the subsoil, and a lower portion of the subsoil can last for years. A primary cause of crop compaction can be attributed to the travel of agricultural machines in the fields containing the crops. For example, soil compaction can be attributed to wheels or tracks of agricultural machines compacting the soil as the agricultural machines are performing agricultural operations, including planting seed, spraying crops, cutting crops, baling crops, and/or foraging operations, among other operations. Yet, while soil compaction by such agricultural machines remains a concern, the average weight of modern agricultural machines has steadily increased at least over the last fifty years.”);
McPeek/Anderson does not teach identifying a configuration of a second agricultural vehicle configured to perform an operation on the swath of plant material using the swath parameter map, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of agricultural vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one parameter indicated by the swath parameter map; providing a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second agricultural vehicle using the swath parameter map; and controlling the operation of the second agricultural vehicle based on the control signal.
Vandike in analogous art, teaches identifying a configuration of a second agricultural vehicle configured to perform an operation on the swath of plant material using the swath parameter map, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of agricultural vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one parameter indicated by the swath parameter map; (Vandike [0132] reads “Agricultural harvester 100, or other work machines, may have a wide variety of different types of controllable actuators that perform different functions. The controllable actuators on agricultural harvester 100 or other work machines are collectively referred to as work machine actuators (WMAs). Each WMA may be independently controllable based upon values on a functional predictive map, or the WMAs may be controlled as sets based upon one or more values on a functional predictive map.” And [0133] reads “WMA selector 486 selects a WMA or a set of WMAs for which corresponding control zones are to be generated. Control zone generation system 488 then generates the control zones for the selected WMA or set of WMAs. For each WMA or set of WMAs, different criteria may be used in identifying control zones. For example, for one WMA, the WMA response time may be used as the criteria for defining the boundaries of the control zones. In another example, wear characteristics (e.g., how much a particular actuator or mechanism wears as a result of movement thereof) may be used as the criteria for identifying the boundaries of control zones.”);
providing a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second agricultural vehicle using the swath parameter map; and controlling the operation of the second agricultural vehicle based on the control signal. (Vandike [0058] reads “Predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both are provided to control system 214, which generates control signals based upon the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both. In some examples, communication system controller 229 controls communication system 206 to communicate the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or control signals based on the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 to other agricultural harvesters that are harvesting in the same field.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson with that of Vandike to include a method for selecting which agricultural vehicle to perform a task. This would allow the system to have improved harvest efficiency. (Vandike [0002 – 0003] reads “There are a wide variety of different types of agricultural machines. Some agricultural machines include harvesters, such as combine harvesters, sugar cane harvesters, cotton harvesters, self-propelled forage harvesters, and windrowers. Some harvesters can also be fitted with different types of heads to harvest different types of crops. A variety of different conditions in fields have a number of deleterious effects on the harvesting operation. Therefore, an operator may attempt to modify control of the harvester upon encountering such conditions during the harvesting operation.”);
Regarding claim 2 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 1, wherein prior to generating the swath parameter map, the method further comprises: associating, using the location data, the at least one parameter of the swath of the plant material with at least one point of a point cloud corresponding to the field; (McPeek [0010 - 0011] reads “While the volume measurement module is calculating volume and as the collection vehicle travels through the rows in the orchard, the three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module may assemble three-dimensional point cloud representations of each plant in the orchard. The assembled three-dimensional point cloud may be a set of three dimensional vertices that represent the external surface of each plant in the orchard. … The three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module may then associate the three-dimensional point cloud representation of each plant in the orchard with a time-stamp generated by its clock. In this way, the three-dimensional point cloud representations may be fused with other data collected in real-time. While the volume measurement module is calculating volume, and the three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module is assembling three-dimensional point cloud representations, the inertial navigation system may calculate a geodetic position of the collection vehicle. The inertial navigation system may include an Inertial Measurement Unit (“IMU”), and a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) unit.”);
and wherein the swath parameter map is generated based on the point cloud. (McPeek [0059] reads “For example, each vertice of the three-dimensional point cloud may be associated with a geodetic position. Thus, the three-dimensional point clouds may be mapped onto a geodetic coordinate system and rendered using mapping interfaces described below. Similarly, the volume cross-sections of the windrows may be mapped onto a geodetic coordinate system, and also may be rendered using a mapping interface as described below.”);
Regarding claim 3 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one parameter of the swath of the plant material is associated the at least one point of the point cloud by matching a global position associated with the at least one point of the point cloud with the global position of the location of the swath of the plant material. (McPeek [0010 - 0011] reads “While the volume measurement module is calculating volume and as the collection vehicle travels through the rows in the orchard, the three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module may assemble three-dimensional point cloud representations of each plant in the orchard. The assembled three-dimensional point cloud may be a set of three dimensional vertices that represent the external surface of each plant in the orchard. … The three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module may then associate the three-dimensional point cloud representation of each plant in the orchard with a time-stamp generated by its clock. In this way, the three-dimensional point cloud representations may be fused with other data collected in real-time. While the volume measurement module is calculating volume, and the three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module is assembling three-dimensional point cloud representations, the inertial navigation system may calculate a geodetic position of the collection vehicle. The inertial navigation system may include an Inertial Measurement Unit (“IMU”), and a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) unit.”);
Regarding claim 5 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing the swath parameter map to [[a]] the second agricultural vehicle configured to perform an operation associated with the swath of the plant material. (Vandike [0058] reads “Predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both are provided to control system 214, which generates control signals based upon the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both. In some examples, communication system controller 229 controls communication system 206 to communicate the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or control signals based on the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 to other agricultural harvesters that are harvesting in the same field.”);
Regarding claim 6 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 5, further comprising: operating the second agricultural vehicle to perform the operation associated with the swath of the plant material based on the swath parameter map. (Vandike [0058] reads “Predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both are provided to control system 214, which generates control signals based upon the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both. In some examples, communication system controller 229 controls communication system 206 to communicate the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or control signals based on the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 to other agricultural harvesters that are harvesting in the same field.”);
Regarding claim 7 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter of the swath of the plant material includes at least one of a moisture content of the swath of the plant material, a shape of the swath of the plant material, or a conditioning of the swath of the plant material. (McPeek [0099] reads “In another aspect of the invention, the first LiDAR sensor can also be used to measure the moisture content of the crop.”);
Regarding claim 12 McPeek teaches sensor data associated with at least one parameter of a swath of a plant material formed by the first vehicle in a field; (McPeek [0009] reads “The collection vehicle may transport modular sensors through rows of plants in an orchard. As the collection vehicle travels through the rows in the orchard, the volume measurement module measures the volume of a windrow formed in the row using a Light Detection and Ranging (“LiDAR”) sensor.”);
receiving, from a location sensor, location data indicative of a location of the swath of the plant material; determining, based on the sensor data and the location data, the at least one parameter and the location of the swath of the plant material; (McPeek [0011] reads “While the volume measurement module is calculating volume, and the three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module is assembling three-dimensional point cloud representations, the inertial navigation system may calculate a geodetic position of the collection vehicle. The inertial navigation system may include an Inertial Measurement Unit (“IMU”), and a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) unit.”);
McPeek does not teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations comprising: receiving, from a sensor of a first vehicle, [[and]] providing the at least one parameter and the location of the swath of the plant material to a second vehicle configured to perform an operation associated with the swath of the plant material; identifying a configuration of the second vehicle, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one parameter; providing a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second vehicle; and controlling the operation of the second vehicle based on the control signal.
Anderson in analogous art, teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations comprising: receiving, from a sensor of a first vehicle, (Anderson [0061] reads “Information regarding field properties, including, for example, soil content and topography, can be obtained in a variety of manners, including, for example, by one more cameras or sensors that are attached to an aerial vehicle, including, for example, an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone 706.” And [0030] reads “With respect to the exemplary agricultural machine 100 shown in FIG. 1, a front end of the agricultural machine 100 can be pivotally coupled to a feeder house 110 that supports a harvesting head 112. As the agricultural machine 100 moves along the ground surface 104 while performing an agricultural operation, such as, for example, harvesting a crop”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek with that of Anderson to include a method for allowing multiple agricultural vehicles to share information. This would allow the system to better monitor the crops while limiting the amount of crop damage. (Anderson [0002] reads “With respect to at least certain types of agricultural crops, including, but not limited to, alfalfa and sod grass, soil compaction and stand damage can relatively significantly adversely impact crop yields. Further, the adverse effects of soil compaction to crop yields, including compaction of topsoil, an upper part of the subsoil, and a lower portion of the subsoil can last for years. A primary cause of crop compaction can be attributed to the travel of agricultural machines in the fields containing the crops. For example, soil compaction can be attributed to wheels or tracks of agricultural machines compacting the soil as the agricultural machines are performing agricultural operations, including planting seed, spraying crops, cutting crops, baling crops, and/or foraging operations, among other operations. Yet, while soil compaction by such agricultural machines remains a concern, the average weight of modern agricultural machines has steadily increased at least over the last fifty years.”);
McPeek/Anderson does not teach [[and]] providing the at least one parameter and the location of the swath of the plant material to a second vehicle configured to perform an operation associated with the swath of the plant material; identifying a configuration of the second vehicle, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one parameter; providing a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second vehicle; and controlling the operation of the second vehicle based on the control signal.
Vandike in analogous art, teaches [[and]] providing the at least one parameter and the location of the swath of the plant material to a second vehicle configured to perform an operation associated with the swath of the plant material; identifying a configuration of the second vehicle, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one parameter; (Vandike [0132] reads “Agricultural harvester 100, or other work machines, may have a wide variety of different types of controllable actuators that perform different functions. The controllable actuators on agricultural harvester 100 or other work machines are collectively referred to as work machine actuators (WMAs). Each WMA may be independently controllable based upon values on a functional predictive map, or the WMAs may be controlled as sets based upon one or more values on a functional predictive map.” And [0133] reads “WMA selector 486 selects a WMA or a set of WMAs for which corresponding control zones are to be generated. Control zone generation system 488 then generates the control zones for the selected WMA or set of WMAs. For each WMA or set of WMAs, different criteria may be used in identifying control zones. For example, for one WMA, the WMA response time may be used as the criteria for defining the boundaries of the control zones. In another example, wear characteristics (e.g., how much a particular actuator or mechanism wears as a result of movement thereof) may be used as the criteria for identifying the boundaries of control zones.”);
providing a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second vehicle; and controlling the operation of the second vehicle based on the control signal. (Vandike [0058] reads “Predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both are provided to control system 214, which generates control signals based upon the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both. In some examples, communication system controller 229 controls communication system 206 to communicate the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or control signals based on the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 to other agricultural harvesters that are harvesting in the same field.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson with that of Vandike to include a method for selecting which agricultural vehicle to perform a task. This would allow the system to have improved harvest efficiency. (Vandike [0002 – 0003] reads “There are a wide variety of different types of agricultural machines. Some agricultural machines include harvesters, such as combine harvesters, sugar cane harvesters, cotton harvesters, self-propelled forage harvesters, and windrowers. Some harvesters can also be fitted with different types of heads to harvest different types of crops. A variety of different conditions in fields have a number of deleterious effects on the harvesting operation. Therefore, an operator may attempt to modify control of the harvester upon encountering such conditions during the harvesting operation.”);
Regarding claim 13 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the at least one parameter of the swath of the plant material includes at least one of a moisture content of the swath of the plant material, a shape of the swath of the plant material, or a conditioning of the swath of the plant material. (McPeek [0099] reads “In another aspect of the invention, the first LiDAR sensor can also be used to measure the moisture content of the crop.”);
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to McPeek/Anderson/Vandike in further view of Sasamoto (US 20220201921 A1).
Regarding claim 4 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 2,
McPeek/Anderson/Vandike does not teach wherein the at least one parameter of the swath of the plant material is associated with the at least one point of the point cloud by comparing the location of the swath of the plant material to a reference location of the field.
Sasamoto in analogous art, teaches wherein the at least one parameter of the swath of the plant material is associated with the at least one point of the point cloud by comparing the location of the swath of the plant material to a reference location of the field. (Sasamoto [0008] reads “A farming support system according to an illustrative preferred embodiment of the present disclosure includes a first position detector provided in one of a work vehicle and a rake implement attachable to the work vehicle, and a processor configured or programmed to obtain, based on rake implement information about the rake implement, a first positional relationship between a reference point to be positioned by the first position detector and a swath to be formed by the rake implement, in a local coordinate system that is defined for the work vehicle and the rake implement which is attached to the work vehicle. The processor is configured or programmed to generate swath position information indicating a position of the swath in a geographic coordinate system, based on information indicating a position of the reference point in the geographic coordinate system detected by the first position detector during a work of forming the swath, and the first positional relationship.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson/Vandike with that of Sasamoto to include a method for comparing coordinates in a working field. This would allow the system to more efficiently manage farmland. (Sasamoto [0003] reads “Among the smart agriculture technologies being researched and developed is a farming support system that manages information about fields in a centralized manner on a cloud, and provides support in agriculture using data on the cloud. The farming support system allows efficient performance of general tasks required for agricultural operations, such as field management, work scheduling, work recording, management of work progress, and determination of a travel path of a work vehicle.”);
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to McPeek/Anderson/Vandike, in further view of Kemmer (US 20180188366 A1).
Regarding claim 8 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 1.
McPeek/Anderson/Vandike does not teach further comprising: generating, based on the swath parameter map, a recommendation associated with harvesting the swath of the plant material.
Kemmer in analogous art, teaches further comprising: generating, based on the swath parameter map, a recommendation associated with harvesting the swath of the plant material. (Kemmer [0027] reads “The GUI software 66 provides feedback, alerts, and/or recommendations to an operator based on data received from the network 40 of FIG. 2A (e.g., via I/O interfaces 52) and/or from the software modules of the application software 62. For instance, the steering software 68 may detect (or receive an indication) that performance of the positioning system 48 (FIG. 2A) may not meet certain predetermined criteria (e.g., poor accuracy, insufficient satellite signal strength or quality, etc.). … The steering software 68 receives, or in some embodiments computes based on the swath profile, a guided curvature command, and communicates the command to the steering circuit 46 for adjustment of direction and/or movement of the combine harvester 10 relative to the swath profile determinations.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson/Vandike with that of Kemmer to include a method for generating recommendations based on the data collected by the system. This would allow the system to improve the path planning of farm equipment. (Kemmer [0002] reads “The selection of an optimal drive path to pick up windrows may depend on the machine that is used to pick up the windrow. For instance, a combine harvester equipped with a pickup header may be guided to follow a windrow such that the observable center of the windrow is aligned with the center of the header. A baler, on the other hand, may be guided to follow a windrow in a way that enables the material compaction pressure to be distributed equally across the width of the bale. A typical method to achieve the equal distribution is to follow a somewhat zig-zag pattern along the windrow direction. Improvements in the way of picking up windrow are desired.”);
Regarding claim 10 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 1.
McPeek/Anderson/Vandike does not teach further comprising: generating, based on the swath parameter map, a recommended route for [[a]] second agricultural vehicle to manipulate the swath of the plant material.
Kemmer in analogous art, teaches further comprising: generating, based on the swath parameter map, a recommended route for [[a]] second agricultural vehicle to manipulate the swath of the plant material. (Kemmer [0027] reads “The GUI software 66 provides feedback, alerts, and/or recommendations to an operator based on data received from the network 40 of FIG. 2A (e.g., via I/O interfaces 52) and/or from the software modules of the application software 62. For instance, the steering software 68 may detect (or receive an indication) that performance of the positioning system 48 (FIG. 2A) may not meet certain predetermined criteria (e.g., poor accuracy, insufficient satellite signal strength or quality, etc.).“ and [0010] reads “A steering system of the machine may use a guidance curvature command derived from the swath profile to autonomously guide the machine along a collection path in a manner that ensures efficient collection and processing of the windrow”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson/Vandike with that of Kemmer to include a method for generating recommendations based on the data collected by the system. This would allow the system to improve the path planning of farm equipment. (Kemmer [0002] reads “The selection of an optimal drive path to pick up windrows may depend on the machine that is used to pick up the windrow. For instance, a combine harvester equipped with a pickup header may be guided to follow a windrow such that the observable center of the windrow is aligned with the center of the header. A baler, on the other hand, may be guided to follow a windrow in a way that enables the material compaction pressure to be distributed equally across the width of the bale. A typical method to achieve the equal distribution is to follow a somewhat zig-zag pattern along the windrow direction. Improvements in the way of picking up windrow are desired.”);
Regarding claim 11 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Kemmer teaches The method of claim 10, further comprising: operating the second agricultural vehicle along the recommended route to manipulate the swath of the plant material. (Vandike [0058] reads “Predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both are provided to control system 214, which generates control signals based upon the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both. In some examples, communication system controller 229 controls communication system 206 to communicate the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or control signals based on the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 to other agricultural harvesters that are harvesting in the same field.”);
Regarding claim 14 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12 for the second vehicle to harvest the swath of the plant material. (Anderson [0061] reads “Information regarding field properties, including, for example, soil content and topography, can be obtained in a variety of manners, including, for example, by one more cameras or sensors that are attached to an aerial vehicle, including, for example, an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone 706.” And [0030] reads “With respect to the exemplary agricultural machine 100 shown in FIG. 1 , a front end of the agricultural machine 100 can be pivotally coupled to a feeder house 110 that supports a harvesting head 112. As the agricultural machine 100 moves along the ground surface 104 while performing an agricultural operation, such as, for example, harvesting a crop”);
McPeek/Anderson does not teach wherein the operations further comprise: generating, based on the at least one parameter and the location of the swath of the plant material, a recommended route.
Kemmer in analogous art, teaches wherein the operations further comprise: generating, based on the at least one parameter and the location of the swath of the plant material, a recommended route (Kemmer [0027] reads “The GUI software 66 provides feedback, alerts, and/or recommendations to an operator based on data received from the network 40 of FIG. 2A (e.g., via I/O interfaces 52) and/or from the software modules of the application software 62. For instance, the steering software 68 may detect (or receive an indication) that performance of the positioning system 48 (FIG. 2A) may not meet certain predetermined criteria (e.g., poor accuracy, insufficient satellite signal strength or quality, etc.).“ and [0010] reads “A steering system of the machine may use a guidance curvature command derived from the swath profile to autonomously guide the machine along a collection path in a manner that ensures efficient collection and processing of the windrow”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of McPeek with that of Kemmer to provide a system for improving the path planning of farm equipment. (Kemmer [0002] reads “The selection of an optimal drive path to pick up windrows may depend on the machine that is used to pick up the windrow. For instance, a combine harvester equipped with a pickup header may be guided to follow a windrow such that the observable center of the windrow is aligned with the center of the header. A baler, on the other hand, may be guided to follow a windrow in a way that enables the material compaction pressure to be distributed equally across the width of the bale. A typical method to achieve the equal distribution is to follow a somewhat zig-zag pattern along the windrow direction. Improvements in the way of picking up windrow are desired.”);
Regarding claim 15 McPeek teaches and a location sensor configured to provide location data indicative of a current location of the first agricultural vehicle; and[[a]] at least one controller configured to operatively couple operatively coupled to the sensor and the location sensor and configured to: determine, based on the sensor data and the location data, at least one first parameter associated with a first swath of the plant material at a first location; (McPeek [0011] reads “While the volume measurement module is calculating volume, and the three-dimensional point-cloud scanning module is assembling three-dimensional point cloud representations, the inertial navigation system may calculate a geodetic position of the collection vehicle. The inertial navigation system may include an Inertial Measurement Unit (“IMU”), and a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) unit.”);
[[and]] determine, based on the sensor data and the location data, at least one second parameter associated with a second swath of the plant material at a second location; (McPeek [0087] reads “ For example, as shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B, each plant rendered on the map may visually indicate the aggregate weight or volume associated with that plant. In this way, the map may then be used to analyze the productivity of plants within the orchard or across a whole growing operation.”);
McPeek does not teach A farming system comprising:[[an]] a first agricultural vehicle including: a chassis; a tractive element coupled to the chassis; a drive motor configured to drive the tractive element to propel the first agricultural vehicle; a manipulator coupled to the chassis, the manipulator configured to perform an operation associated with a plant material, a sensor configured to provide sensor data associated with at least one parameter of a swath of the plant material formed by the first agricultural vehicle; identify a configuration of a second agricultural vehicle configured to perform an operation on the swath of plant material, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of agricultural vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one first parameter or the at least one second parameter; provide a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second agricultural vehicle; and control the operation of the second agricultural vehicle based on the control signal.
Anderson in analogous art, teaches A farming system comprising:[[an]] a first agricultural vehicle including: (Anderson [0061] reads “Information regarding field properties, including, for example, soil content and topography, can be obtained in a variety of manners, including, for example, by one more cameras or sensors that are attached to an aerial vehicle, including, for example, an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone 706.” And [0030] reads “With respect to the exemplary agricultural machine 100 shown in FIG. 1, a front end of the agricultural machine 100 can be pivotally coupled to a feeder house 110 that supports a harvesting head 112. As the agricultural machine 100 moves along the ground surface 104 while performing an agricultural operation, such as, for example, harvesting a crop”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek with that of Anderson to include a method for allowing multiple agricultural vehicles to share information. This would allow the system to better monitor the crops while limiting the amount of crop damage. (Anderson [0002] reads “With respect to at least certain types of agricultural crops, including, but not limited to, alfalfa and sod grass, soil compaction and stand damage can relatively significantly adversely impact crop yields. Further, the adverse effects of soil compaction to crop yields, including compaction of topsoil, an upper part of the subsoil, and a lower portion of the subsoil can last for years. A primary cause of crop compaction can be attributed to the travel of agricultural machines in the fields containing the crops. For example, soil compaction can be attributed to wheels or tracks of agricultural machines compacting the soil as the agricultural machines are performing agricultural operations, including planting seed, spraying crops, cutting crops, baling crops, and/or foraging operations, among other operations. Yet, while soil compaction by such agricultural machines remains a concern, the average weight of modern agricultural machines has steadily increased at least over the last fifty years.”);
McPeek/Anderson does not teach a chassis; a tractive element coupled to the chassis; a drive motor configured to drive the tractive element to propel the first agricultural vehicle; a manipulator coupled to the chassis, the manipulator configured to perform an operation associated with a plant material, a sensor configured to provide sensor data associated with at least one parameter of a swath of the plant material formed by the first agricultural vehicle; identify a configuration of a second agricultural vehicle configured to perform an operation on the swath of plant material, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of agricultural vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one first parameter or the at least one second parameter; provide a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second agricultural vehicle; and control the operation of the second agricultural vehicle based on the control signal.
Vandike in analogous art, teaches identify a configuration of a second agricultural vehicle configured to perform an operation on the swath of plant material, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of agricultural vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one first parameter or the at least one second parameter; (Vandike [0132] reads “Agricultural harvester 100, or other work machines, may have a wide variety of different types of controllable actuators that perform different functions. The controllable actuators on agricultural harvester 100 or other work machines are collectively referred to as work machine actuators (WMAs). Each WMA may be independently controllable based upon values on a functional predictive map, or the WMAs may be controlled as sets based upon one or more values on a functional predictive map.” And [0133] reads “WMA selector 486 selects a WMA or a set of WMAs for which corresponding control zones are to be generated. Control zone generation system 488 then generates the control zones for the selected WMA or set of WMAs. For each WMA or set of WMAs, different criteria may be used in identifying control zones. For example, for one WMA, the WMA response time may be used as the criteria for defining the boundaries of the control zones. In another example, wear characteristics (e.g., how much a particular actuator or mechanism wears as a result of movement thereof) may be used as the criteria for identifying the boundaries of control zones.”);
provide a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second agricultural vehicle; and control the operation of the second agricultural vehicle based on the control signal. (Vandike [0058] reads “Predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both are provided to control system 214, which generates control signals based upon the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both. In some examples, communication system controller 229 controls communication system 206 to communicate the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or control signals based on the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 to other agricultural harvesters that are harvesting in the same field.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson with that of Vandike to include a method for selecting which agricultural vehicle to perform a task. This would allow the system to have improved harvest efficiency. (Vandike [0002 – 0003] reads “There are a wide variety of different types of agricultural machines. Some agricultural machines include harvesters, such as combine harvesters, sugar cane harvesters, cotton harvesters, self-propelled forage harvesters, and windrowers. Some harvesters can also be fitted with different types of heads to harvest different types of crops. A variety of different conditions in fields have a number of deleterious effects on the harvesting operation. Therefore, an operator may attempt to modify control of the harvester upon encountering such conditions during the harvesting operation.”);
McPeek/Anderson/Vandike does not teach a chassis; a tractive element coupled to the chassis; a drive motor configured to drive the tractive element to propel the first agricultural vehicle; a manipulator coupled to the chassis, the manipulator configured to perform an operation associated with a plant material, a sensor configured to provide sensor data associated with at least one parameter of a swath of the plant material formed by the first agricultural vehicle;
a chassis; a tractive element coupled to the chassis; a drive motor configured to drive the tractive element to propel the first agricultural vehicle; a manipulator coupled to the chassis, the manipulator configured to perform an operation associated with a plant material, a sensor configured to provide sensor data associated with at least one parameter of a swath of the plant material formed by the first agricultural vehicle; (Kemmer figure 2b shows a piece of farming equipment with sensors.);
PNG
media_image1.png
157
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kemmer figure 2b
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson/Vandike with that of Kemmer to include a method for generating recommendations based on the data collected by the system. This would allow the system to improve the path planning of farm equipment. (Kemmer [0002] reads “The selection of an optimal drive path to pick up windrows may depend on the machine that is used to pick up the windrow. For instance, a combine harvester equipped with a pickup header may be guided to follow a windrow such that the observable center of the windrow is aligned with the center of the header. A baler, on the other hand, may be guided to follow a windrow in a way that enables the material compaction pressure to be distributed equally across the width of the bale. A typical method to achieve the equal distribution is to follow a somewhat zig-zag pattern along the windrow direction. Improvements in the way of picking up windrow are desired.”);
Regarding claim 16 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Kemmer teaches The farming system of claim 15, wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: generate, based on the sensor data and the location data, a swath parameter map indicating the at least one first parameter associated with the first swath of the plant material at the first location and the at least one second parameter associated with the second swath of the plant material at the second location. (McPeek [0059] reads “For example, each vertice of the three-dimensional point cloud may be associated with a geodetic position. Thus, the three-dimensional point clouds may be mapped onto a geodetic coordinate system and rendered using mapping interfaces described below. Similarly, the volume cross-sections of the windrows may be mapped onto a geodetic coordinate system, and also may be rendered using a mapping interface as described below.”);
Regarding claim 17 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Kemmer teaches The farming system of claim 15, wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: generate, based on the at least one first parameter and the at least one second parameter, a recommended route for [[a]] the second agricultural vehicle to harvest the first swath of the plant material and the second swath of the plant material. (Kemmer [0027] reads “The GUI software 66 provides feedback, alerts, and/or recommendations to an operator based on data received from the network 40 of FIG. 2A (e.g., via I/O interfaces 52) and/or from the software modules of the application software 62. For instance, the steering software 68 may detect (or receive an indication) that performance of the positioning system 48 (FIG. 2A) may not meet certain predetermined criteria (e.g., poor accuracy, insufficient satellite signal strength or quality, etc.).“ and [0010] reads “A steering system of the machine may use a guidance curvature command derived from the swath profile to autonomously guide the machine along a collection path in a manner that ensures efficient collection and processing of the windrow”);
Regarding claim 18 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Kemmer teaches The farming system of claim 15, wherein the at least one controller is configured to determine that the at least one first parameter is associated with the first swath of the plant material and the at least one second parameter is associated with the second swath of the plant material based on a difference between the at least one first parameter and the at least one second parameter being above a difference threshold. (McPeek [0084] reads “For example, the post-processing server 106 may use the aggregate windrow volume and the aggregate windrow weight measurements described above to determine that a specific plant or specific region of a plant has yielded a low amount of crop. The post-processing server may be configured to determine that a yield below a predetermined threshold is classified as underperforming. The post-processing server may then update the variable rate fertilizer map to increase the amount of fertilizer applied to the underperforming plant.”);
Regarding claim 20 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Kemmer teaches The farming system of claim 15, wherein the at least one controller is configured to generate a first recommendation to harvest the first swath of the plant material with the second agricultural a first harvest vehicle based on the at least one first parameter being below a parameter threshold; and wherein the at least one controller is configured to generate a second recommendation to harvest the second swath of the plant material with an additional agricultural a second harvest vehicle based on the at least one second parameter being above the parameter threshold. (Anderson [0097] reads “Using information regarding the crop properties that were attained at block 1104, the control system 500, including, for example, the path planner 538, can determine a moisture content of the crop material of the windrow 144 at block 1108. The level of moisture content can be compared to one or more thresholds levels, or ranges of levels, in connection with determining the amount of crop material that is to be included in a later formed, and associated crop bale 212. Moreover, the density the crop bale 212 is to have can be determined based on the detected moisture content of the crop material. By controlling the density of the crop bale 212, the method 1100 can form crop bales 212 with density levels that can accommodate further drying, if needed, of the crop bale 212, and/or prevent damage to the crop bale 212 that could otherwise be attributed to too high of a density of relatively wet crop material being bound together in the bale 212.”);
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to McPeek/Anderson/Vandike, in further view of Madsen (US 20190124819 A1), in further view of Suzuki (US 20240184294 A1);
Regarding claim 9 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike teaches The method of claim 1.
McPeek/Anderson/Vandike does not teach wherein the swath parameter map is a first swath parameter map of a first field; and wherein the method further comprises: generating, based on comparing the first swath parameter map of the first field with a second swath parameter map of a second field, a recommendation to harvest the second field prior to harvesting the first field.
Madsen in analogous art, teaches wherein the swath parameter map is a first swath parameter map of a first field; and wherein the method further comprises: generating, based on comparing the first swath parameter map of the first field with a second swath parameter map of a second field, (Madsen [0048] reads “ For example, the system may identify a first level of moisture in a first portion of the section of terrain (e.g., a relatively dry portion of a field), and identify a second level of moisture in a second portion of the section of terrain (e.g., a relatively wet portion of a field).”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson/Vandike with that of Madsen to include a method for comparing statistic across the field of plant material. This would allow the system to better route an agricultural vehicles in a way that takes into account the topology of the area and other obstacles. (Madsen [0004] reads “Vehicle control systems may be used to automatically or semi-automatically move a vehicle along a desired path. Three-dimensional terrain maps are maps that depict the topography of an area of terrain, including natural features (such as rivers, mountains, hills, ravines, etc.) and other objects associated with the terrain (such as vehicles, fences, power transmission lines, etc.). Among other things, embodiments of the present disclosure describe the generation and use of three-dimensional terrain maps in conjunction with vehicle control systems.”);
McPeek/Anderson/Vandike /Madsen does not teach a recommendation to harvest the second field prior to harvesting the first field.
Suzuki in analogous art, teaches a recommendation to harvest the second field prior to harvesting the first field. (Suzuki [0063] reads “The field selection unit 46 manually or automatically selects the field, which is a work target of autonomous travel, … For example, the field selection unit 46 displays, on the display unit 44, a field selection screen (not illustrated) for selecting the field that is a work target. When the terminal-side storage 42 already stores the field information including the field outline 50, the field selection screen enables selection of the field corresponding to the field information. When any field is selected on the field selection screen in response to a manual operation, the field selection unit 46 selects the field, which has been operated for selection, as a work target and reads the field information corresponding to the selected field from the terminal-side storage 42.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Madsen with that of Suzuki to include a method for recommending which field to harvest. This would allow the system to have an improved method of routing an piece of agricultural equipment. (Suzuki [0005] reads “The work vehicle performs reaping work while autonomously traveling along a work route in an unworked region of the field and autonomously turns along a turning route toward the subsequent work route in the worked region. However, in some positional relationships between the field outline and the unworked region, the work vehicle may come too close to the field outline or move out of the field during autonomous turning. Therefore, there is a need to stop the work vehicle in the middle of the autonomous travel or to correct the autonomous travel route, which reduces the work efficiency.”);
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Kemmer, in further view of Suzuki (US 20240184294 A1).
Regarding claim 19 McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Kemmer teaches The farming system of claim 18.
McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Kemmer does not teach wherein responsive to the difference being above the difference threshold, the controller is configured to generate a recommendation to harvest the second swath of the plant material prior to harvesting the first swath of the plant material.
Suzuki in analogous art, teaches wherein responsive to the difference being above the difference threshold, the controller is configured to generate a recommendation to harvest the second swath of the plant material prior to harvesting the first swath of the plant material. (Suzuki [0063] reads “The field selection unit 46 manually or automatically selects the field, which is a work target of autonomous travel, … For example, the field selection unit 46 displays, on the display unit 44, a field selection screen (not illustrated) for selecting the field that is a work target. When the terminal-side storage 42 already stores the field information including the field outline 50, the field selection screen enables selection of the field corresponding to the field information. When any field is selected on the field selection screen in response to a manual operation, the field selection unit 46 selects the field, which has been operated for selection, as a work target and reads the field information corresponding to the selected field from the terminal-side storage 42.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of McPeek/Anderson/Vandike/Madsen with that of Suzuki to include a method for recommending which field to harvest. This would allow the system to have an improved method of routing an piece of agricultural equipment. (Suzuki [0005] reads “The work vehicle performs reaping work while autonomously traveling along a work route in an unworked region of the field and autonomously turns along a turning route toward the subsequent work route in the worked region. However, in some positional relationships between the field outline and the unworked region, the work vehicle may come too close to the field outline or move out of the field during autonomous turning. Therefore, there is a need to stop the work vehicle in the middle of the autonomous travel or to correct the autonomous travel route, which reduces the work efficiency.”);
Response to arguments
Applicant argues < First, Application respectfully submits that McPeek does not disclose "identifying a configuration of a second agricultural vehicle configured to perform an operation on the swath of plant material using the swath parameter map, wherein the configuration is identified from a plurality of configurations of a plurality of agricultural vehicles based on a correspondence between the configuration and the at least one parameter indicated by the swath parameter map," as in claim 1, and the Office Action does not assert otherwise. (Emphasis added). > [Page 9 4th paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner asserts that this is amended language it and was not present in the previous office action. Vandike clearly teaches this limitation in the quoted section. (Vandike [0132] reads “Agricultural harvester 100, or other work machines, may have a wide variety of different types of controllable actuators that perform different functions. The controllable actuators on agricultural harvester 100 or other work machines are collectively referred to as work machine actuators (WMAs). Each WMA may be independently controllable based upon values on a functional predictive map, or the WMAs may be controlled as sets based upon one or more values on a functional predictive map.” And [0133] reads “WMA selector 486 selects a WMA or a set of WMAs for which corresponding control zones are to be generated. Control zone generation system 488 then generates the control zones for the selected WMA or set of WMAs. For each WMA or set of WMAs, different criteria may be used in identifying control zones. For example, for one WMA, the WMA response time may be used as the criteria for defining the boundaries of the control zones. In another example, wear characteristics (e.g., how much a particular actuator or mechanism wears as a result of movement thereof) may be used as the criteria for identifying the boundaries of control zones.”); Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant argues < Second, Application respectfully submits that McPeek does not disclose "providing a control signal configured to control the operation performed by the second agricultural vehicle using the swath parameter map," and "controlling the operation of the second agricultural vehicle based on the control signal," as in claim 1.> [page 10 spanning paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner asserts that this is amended language it and was not present in the previous office action. Vandike clearly teaches this limitation in the quoted section. (Vandike [0058] reads “Predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both are provided to control system 214, which generates control signals based upon the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or both. In some examples, communication system controller 229 controls communication system 206 to communicate the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 or control signals based on the predictive map 264 or predictive control zone map 265 to other agricultural harvesters that are harvesting in the same field.”);Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,12 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Ikonen (WO 2020193157 A1); Gook-hwan (KR 102691520 B1); Maeder (US 20200352082 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658