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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 8/19/2024 and 2/16/2026. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
1. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/16/2026.
Specification
2. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (US 20200348970 A1).
6. Regarding Claim 1, Nakagawa teaches a system, comprising: one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems, each comprising (Nakagawa: [0026]):
A field equipment propulsion system that is configured to propel said autonomous mobile field equipment system throughout a deployment location (Nakagawa: [0047]);
One or more sets of task-based actuators that are each configured to perform a set of tasks (Nakagawa: [0047]);
One or more field equipment sensors that are configured to collect sensor data (Nakagawa: [0040]);
A field equipment computing system that is configured to control and coordinate at least one of the field equipment propulsion system or the one or more sets of task-based actuators, based at least in part on sensor data collected by the one or more field equipment sensors (Nakagawa: [0050]);
A field equipment communications system that is configured to handle communications between the field equipment computing system and a system orchestrator, the communications including receiving instructions to perform tasks within the deployment location and sending status updates and sensor data (Nakagawa: [0027] and [0044]);
And a field equipment power supply system that is configured to supply power to at least one of the field equipment propulsion system, the one or more sets of task-based actuators, the one or more field equipment sensors, the field equipment computing system, or the field equipment communications system (Nakagawa: [0047]);
And the system orchestrator that is configured to deploy, control, and coordinate each of the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems to perform the tasks within the deployment location (Nakagawa: [0044], [0060], and [0061]).
7. Regarding Claim 9, Nakagawa remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the one or more sets of task-based actuators are modular systems that are configured to be interchangeable (Nakagawa: [0047]).
8. Regarding Claim 10, Nakagawa remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the deployment location comprises one of an agricultural site, an emergency site, a nature site, a recreational site, or an event venue, wherein the agricultural site includes at least one of an agricultural field, a farm, a plot of land, a ranch, an orchard, a crop field, or a sod field, wherein the emergency site includes one of a site of a natural disaster, an accident site, a hazardous waste spill site, or a search and rescue site, wherein the nature site includes one of a forest, a field, a meadow, an aquatic site, or an orbital site, wherein the recreational site includes one of a park, a plant garden, a flower garden, a plant nursery, a botanical garden, a residential lawn, a commercial lawn, a residential garden, a commercial garden, a greenway, or a recreational center, wherein the event venue includes one of a stadium, a concert hall, an arena, or a festival site (Nakagawa: [0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 20200348970 A1) in view of Anderson (US 20090298539 A1).
13. Regarding Claim 2, Nakagawa remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Nakagawa fails to explicitly teach an equipment transport system that is configured to transport the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems and to traverse from one deployment location to another deployment location, the equipment transport system including a loading section that is configured to load, deploy, and receive the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Anderson teaches an equipment transport system that is configured to transport the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems and to traverse from one deployment location to another deployment location (Anderson: [0015] and [0036]),
The equipment transport system including a loading section that is configured to load, deploy, and receive the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems (Anderson: [0018] and [0089]).
Nakagawa and Anderson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Anderson to include an equipment transport system to transport and load the autonomous mobile field equipment to deployment locations because it provides the benefit of efficient transport of the unmanned vehicles used in the agricultural fields based on the current season. This motivation can be explicitly found in [0036] of Anderson.
14. Regarding Claim 3, Nakagawa and Anderson remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Anderson teaches one or more field equipment docking stations, each configured to provide electrical power to one of the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems via connection with a power source, each field equipment docking station comprising: at least one docking port each configured to electrically couple with one of the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems (Anderson: [0014] and [0031]).
15. Regarding Claim 4, Nakagawa and Anderson remain as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Anderson teaches the power source includes one of at least one onsite power source that is disposed within the deployment location, wherein each field equipment docking station further comprises: at least one power connector each configured to electrically couple with the one of the at least one onsite power source that is disposed within the deployment location (Anderson: [0065]);
And a docking station propulsion system that is configured to propel the at least one docking station between the equipment transport system and the one of the at least one onsite power source (Anderson: [0036] Note that the docking station propulsion system is equivalent to the truck that transports the mobile station to different work sites.).
16. Regarding Claim 5, Nakagawa and Anderson remain as applied above in Claim 4, and further, Anderson teaches the at least one onsite power source comprises an array of solar panels that is permanently installed at the deployment location (Anderson: [0065]).
17. Regarding Claim 6, Nakagawa and Anderson remain as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Anderson teaches the power source includes one of at least one deployable power source, each deployable power source comprising a solar powered generator that is configured to be deployed, by the equipment transport system, to at least one docking position within the deployment location (Anderson: [0031], [0036], and [0065] Note that mobile station 11 is equivalent to the deployable power source and is deployed by the truck.),
Wherein each of the one or more field equipment docking stations is coupled with a corresponding one of the at least one deployable power source before or after being deployed to the at least one set position (Anderson: [0031] Note that the mobile station 11 is equivalent to the deployable power source and the recharging system is equivalent to the field equipment docking stations, and therefore, the mobile station and recharging system are coupled to each other.),
Wherein at least one of each field equipment docking station or each deployable power source comprises a propulsion system that is configured to propel the at least one of each field equipment docking station or each deployable power source between the equipment transport system and the at least one docking position within the deployment location (Anderson: [0036] Note that the truck picking up or sending the mobile station to another location is equivalent to a propulsion system configured to propel the deployable power source between the equipment transport system and docking position within the deployment location.).
18. Regarding Claim 7, Nakagawa and Anderson remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Anderson teaches the system orchestrator is disposed within the equipment transport system, wherein the equipment transport system comprises a vehicle (Anderson: [0036]).
19. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 20200348970 A1), in view of Anderson (US 20090298539 A1), and in further view of Chrysanthakopoulos (US 20190200510 A1).
20. Regarding Claim 8, Nakagawa and Anderson remain as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Nakagawa teaches the system orchestrator is external to the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems… and is configured to communicatively couple with each of the one or more autonomous mobile field equipment systems… via at least one network connection (Nakagawa: [0047] and [0060]).
Nakagawa fails to explicitly teach the system orchestrator… is configured to communicatively couple with... the equipment transport system via at least one network connection.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chrysanthakopoulos teaches the system orchestrator… is configured to communicatively couple with... the equipment transport system via at least one network connection (Chrysanthakopoulos: [0051]).
Nakagawa, Anderson, and Chrysanthakopoulos are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakagawa and Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Chrysanthakopoulos for the system orchestration to be communicatively coupled with the equipment transport system via a network connection because it provides the benefit of the signaling that the transport vehicle has arrived to take the autonomous mobile field equipment systems to the next location (e.g., field) as explicitly stated in [0051].
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ehrenhalt (US 20220258632 A1)
Gonzalez (US 20160268823 A1)
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights