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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The amendment filed 07/29/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/SE2023/050080 and of the Swedish patent application 2250095-3 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 02/01/2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 07/29/2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims (26-37) have been renumbered to (25-36).
Claim 19 and Renumbered claim 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, line 3, “UAV” should be changed to –unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)--
In renumbered claim 33 (original claim 34), line 1, “is moving” should be changed to --moves--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-24, and renumbered claims 25-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, It is unclear how said harvesting tool is being released within the limitation “releasing said harvesting tool (105) in a first mode from said UAV”.
Regarding claims 20-24 and renumbered claims 25-35, claims 20-24 and renumbered claims 25-35 are subsequently rejected for containing the same limitation (See claim 19 rejection above) because claims 20-24 and renumbered claims 25-35 are dependent on rejected claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, It is unclear what is detecting within the limitation “further comprising the step of detecting a relative position of said tree top (131) of said tree to be harvested and said UAV”.
It is unclear how detecting occurs within the limitation “further comprising the step of detecting a relative position of said tree top (131) of said tree to be harvested and said UAV”.
Regarding claim 21, It is unclear if applicant is claiming detecting three or detecting one stereo image within the limitation “wherein said tree top (131) of said tree to be harvested is detected by means of at least one out of at least three different stereo images”.
Regarding renumbered claim 26 (misnumbered claim 27), It is unclear how the harvesting tool is capable of triggering to be set into a second mode within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is triggered to be set into said second mode (The second mode is when the harvesting tool has the tree top within the tree receiving area) by at least one of the group of following triggers: at a predetermined distance between said UAV (100) and said harvesting tool (105), when a tree is detected to be within said tree receiving area (177) of said harvesting tool (105), a predetermined speed of said harvesting tool (105) and/or within a predetermined time interval after said harvesting tool (105) is released from said UAV (100).” It is unclear how a predetermined speed of the harvesting tool triggers the tree top within the tree receiving area. It is also unclear how a predetermined distance between the UAV and the harvesting tool triggers the tree top within the tree receiving area.
It is unclear what structure is being claimed to perform the triggering of the harvesting tool within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is triggered to be set into said second mode by at least one of the group of following triggers: at a predetermined distance between said UAV (100) and said harvesting tool (105), when a tree is detected to be within said tree receiving area (177) of said harvesting tool (105), a predetermined speed of said harvesting tool (105) and/or within a predetermined time interval after said harvesting tool (105) is released from said UAV (100).”
It is unclear how the triggers listed are sensed within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is triggered to be set into said second mode by at least one of the group of following triggers: at a predetermined distance between said UAV (100) and said harvesting tool (105), when a tree is detected to be within said tree receiving area (177) of said harvesting tool (105), a predetermined speed of said harvesting tool (105) and/or within a predetermined time interval after said harvesting tool (105) is released from said UAV (100).”
It is unclear what structure is being claimed to sense the triggers listed within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is triggered to be set into said second mode by at least one of the group of following triggers: at a predetermined distance between said UAV (100) and said harvesting tool (105), when a tree is detected to be within said tree receiving area (177) of said harvesting tool (105), a predetermined speed of said harvesting tool (105) and/or within a predetermined time interval after said harvesting tool (105) is released from said UAV (100).”
Regarding renumbered claim 33 (misnumbered claim 34), It is unclear what essentially in parallel means within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is moving in a direction essentially in parallel with the tree trunk of said tree to be harvested with a speed greater than 1 m/s when said switching from said first mode to said second mode is performed”.
It is unclear how switching from said first mode to said second mode (when the harvesting tool has the tree top within the tree receiving area) is performed within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is moving in a direction essentially in parallel with the tree trunk of said tree to be harvested with a speed greater than 1 m/s when said switching from said first mode to said second mode is performed”. The tree would already be within the tree receiving area.
It is unclear what structure is being claimed to switch the harvesting tool from the first mode to the second mode within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is moving in a direction essentially in parallel with the tree trunk of said tree to be harvested with a speed greater than 1 m/s when said switching from said first mode to said second mode is performed”.
It is unclear how the harvesting tool is switching from the first mode to the second mode when the harvesting tool is moving at a speed greater than 1 m/s (see claim 19) within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is moving in a direction essentially in parallel with the tree trunk of said tree to be harvested with a speed greater than 1 m/s when said switching from said first mode to said second mode is performed”.
It is unclear how a speed of 1 m/s triggers a tree top being received in the receiving area of the harvesting tool (see claim 19) within the limitation “wherein said harvesting tool (105) is moving in a direction essentially in parallel with the tree trunk of said tree to be harvested with a speed greater than 1 m/s when said switching from said first mode to said second mode is performed”.
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.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the subject matter is software per se. (See MPEP 2106.03)
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.
Claims 19-24, and renumbered claims 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalifoux et al., (hereinafter Chalifoux)(US 6263932 B1) in view of Farrand et al. (hereinafter Farrand)(WO 2020263163 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Chalifoux discloses: A method for harvesting a tree from air, [Abstract, line 1] said method comprising the steps of: positioning a harvesting tool (10)(figs. 1 and 4, harvesting apparatus (10) having a first body (12) and second body (14)) comprising delimbing means (36)(fig. 4) carried by a hovering aerial body, [col. 2, lines 62-67] releasing said harvesting tool [col. 3, lines 45-48] in a first mode from said hovering aerial body from a distance H above a canopy of said tree to be harvested, [col. 3, lines 45-48](fig. 6)(The hovering aerial body hovers at least a height (H) above the canopy of said tree to be harvested before the position in fig. 6 in order to properly be able to lower the harvesting assembly onto the tree top.) and setting said harvesting tool in a second mode when said harvesting tool has the tree top of said tree to be harvested within its tree receiving area, (fig. 3)[col. 3, lines 47-53] wherein: at least a portion of said harvesting tool is below said tree top of said tree to be harvested (fig. 6) while said harvesting tool has a certain speed >0 in a downward direction, (figs. 6-7 show movement positions of the harvesting tool, the harvesting tool moving in a downward direction with a certain speed >0.)[col. 3, lines 55-58] said first (fig. 2) and second mode (fig. 3) differ with respect to said tree receiving area of said delimbing means in said harvesting tool, and said tree receiving area refers to the area in between open and closed delimbing means. (figs. 2-3)[col. 3, lines 3-8]
Chalifoux fails to disclose: A method for remotely and/or autonomously harvesting a tree from air, said method comprising the steps of: detecting by at least one sensor on a UAV a tree to be harvested, positioning a harvesting tool comprising delimbing means carried by said UAV, by using information from said at least one sensor, at a predetermined distance H above a canopy of said tree to be harvested, releasing said harvesting tool in a first mode from said UAV from said predetermined distance H above said canopy of said tree to be harvested.
Farrand teaches: A method for remotely and/or autonomously [Abstract, lines 1-2][page 5, lines 14-15][page 8, lines 5-6] harvesting a tree from air, said method comprising the steps of: detecting by at least one sensor (120)(fig. 5a) on a UAV (100)(figs. 3 and 5a) a tree to be harvested, [page 2, lines 20-28](The sensor obtains information about objects such as trees and assigns object identities to the objects based on the sensor information thereby detecting by at least one sensor on a UAV a tree to be harvested.)[page 6, line 30 – page 7, line 5] positioning a harvesting tool (150)(fig. 3)[page 14, lines 30-31] comprising cutting means [page 22, line 17](Since the harvester cuts the tree, it has to have some means for cutting and delimbing.) by using information from said at least one sensor, (fig. 8)(The harvesting tool gets positioned and performs a harvesting action based on sensor information)(fig. 7a)[page 20, line 32 – page 21, line 11] and identifying a predetermined distance H above a canopy of said tree to be harvested. (fig. 8)[page 13, lines 26-31](One of the steps is to make a harvesting decision and the harvesting decision can include avoiding an object by being at least a predetermined distance to the object thereby identifying a predetermined distance H above a canopy of said tree to be harvested.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the hovering aerial craft of Chalifoux with the autonomous UAV containing sensors of Farrand in order to reduce human risk in dangerous situations, and to reduce operation costs.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add to the harvesting tool of Chalifoux with the sensors of Farrand in order to automate data collection and to minimize crop waste.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Chalifoux with the teachings of Farrand (such as an autonomous UAV and autonomous harvesting tool), since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
After modification, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: A method for remotely and/or autonomously harvesting a tree from air, said method comprising the steps of: detecting by at least one sensor on a UAV a tree to be harvested, positioning a harvesting tool comprising delimbing means carried by said UAV, by using information from said at least one sensor, at a predetermined distance H above a canopy of said tree to be harvested, releasing said harvesting tool in a first mode from said UAV from said predetermined distance H above said canopy of said tree to be harvested, and setting said harvesting tool in a second mode when said harvesting tool has the tree top of said tree to be harvested within its tree receiving area, wherein: at least a portion of said harvesting tool is below said tree top of said tree to be harvested while said harvesting tool has a certain speed >0 in a downward direction, said first and second mode differ with respect to said tree receiving area of said delimbing means in said harvesting tool, and said tree receiving area refers to the area in between open and closed delimbing means.
Regarding claim 20, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, further comprising the step of detecting a relative position of said tree top of said tree to be harvested and said UAV. [page 20, line 32 – page 21, line 11 of Farrand](Figs. 7a and 7b of Farrand illustrate the features detected of an object (tree) including a relative position of a tree top of a tree to be harvested. Since the UAV is able to detect a relative position of said tree top of said tree to be harvested via sensors on the UAV, the UAV is able to detect the UAV relative to said tree top of said tree.)
Regarding claim 21, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 20, wherein said tree top of said tree to be harvested is detected by means of at least one out of at least three different stereo images. [page 17, lines 14-16 of Farrand][page 20, line 26 – page 21, line 11 of Farrand](The sensor is able to detect features of an object, such as a tree top, (See claim 20 rejection) via a stereoscopic camera therefore is detected by means of at least one out of at least three different stereo images.)
Regarding claim 22, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, further comprising the step of delimbing said tree to be harvested by the gravity force induced by said harvesting tool when released from said UAV. [col. 1, lines 58-60 of Chalifoux] [col. 4, lines 49-58 of Chalifoux] [col. 4, lines 39-43 of Chalifoux] (The harvesting tool is lowered from the UAV via force of weight (gravity) because of the orientation of the harvesting tool and the UAV. The force of gravity lowers harvesting tool via cables and delimbs the tree to be harvested via the harvesting tool.)
Regarding claim 23, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, further comprising the step of detecting with at least one detector a portion of a tree within said tree receiving area of said harvesting tool. [page 19, lines 4-9 of Farrand][ page 20, line 32 – page 21, line 11 of Farrand](fig. 3 of Chalifoux illustrates a portion of a tree within said tree receiving area of said harvesting tool.)(figs. 6a-6c, and 7a-7b of Farrand illustrate the features detected of a tree including a portion of the tree within said tree receiving area of a tree to be harvested. Since the sensor (or detector) on the UAV is able to detect the portions of the tree as illustrated in figs. 7a-7b of Farrand, the sensor is able to detect a portion of a tree within said tree receiving area of said harvesting tool as illustrated in fig. 3 of Chalifoux.)
Regarding claim 24, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 22, further comprising the step of stopping said release of said harvesting tool in case of failure to detect any portion of a tree within said tree receiving area. (The prior art does not disclose failure to detect any portion of a tree within said tree receiving area therefore stopping said release of said harvesting tool is not needed.)
Regarding renumbered claim 25, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 24, wherein said stopping is occurring within a predetermined time interval after the start of releasing said harvesting tool from said UAV and/or within a predetermined speed interval of said harvesting tool without detection of any tree top within said tree receiving area of said harvesting tool. (The prior art does not disclose failure to detect any portion of a tree within said tree receiving area therefore stopping said release of said harvesting tool is not needed.)
Regarding renumbered claim 26, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, wherein said harvesting tool is triggered to be set into said second mode by at least one of the group of following triggers: at a predetermined distance between said UAV and said harvesting tool, when a tree is detected to be within said tree receiving area of said harvesting tool, a predetermined speed of said harvesting tool [col. 4, lines 39-43 of Chalifoux] [col. 3, lines 55-56 of Chalifoux](The harvesting tool moves downwards by virtue of its weight, and the harvesting tool has the tree top of said tree to be harvested within its tree receiving area, thereby the harvesting tool is triggered to be set into said second mode.)) and/or within a predetermined time interval after said harvesting tool is released from said UAV.
Regarding renumbered claim 27, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 23, wherein said detection of a tree within said tree receiving area of said harvesting tool is made by at least one optical device provided on said UAV. [page 17, lines 14-16 of Farrand](fig. 3 of Chalifoux)(The sensor on said UAV may comprise a stereoscopic camera which is an optical device.)
Regarding renumbered claim 28, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 23, wherein said detection of a tree within said tree receiving area of said harvesting tool is made by at least one optical device provided on said harvesting tool. [page 17, lines 14-16 of Farrand] [page 25, lines 4-5 of Farrand](fig. 8 of Farrand)(The sensors of Farrand were added to the harvesting tool of Chalifoux – see claim 19 rejection. The sensor on the harvester is able to identify markers corresponding to different areas of an object (or tree) (See fig. 7a-7b) and a sensor can be an optical device such as a stereoscopic camera, thereby said detection of a tree within said tree receiving area of said harvesting tool is made by at least one optical device provided on said harvesting tool.)
Regarding renumbered claim 29, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, wherein a switching from said first mode to said second mode is performed autonomously. [page 5, lines 14-15 of Farrand][page 8, lines 5-6 of Farrand](The device of Chalifoux in view of Farrand which performs the method according to the rejection of claim 19 is able to perform the functions of said first mode and said second mode. (see claim 19 rejection) Since the UAV and the harvesting tool may both be autonomous, and the device which performs the method of claim 19 comprises the UAV and harvesting tool along with subcomponents of the UAV and harvesting tool, switching from said first mode to said second mode is performed autonomously.)
Regarding renumbered claim 30, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches the claimed invention except for “said tree receiving area in said first mode is at least twice as big as said tree receiving area in said second mode”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the size of the tree receiving area to accommodate for larger tree diameters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
After modification, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, wherein said tree receiving area in said first mode is at least twice as big as said tree receiving area in said second mode.
Regarding renumbered claim 31, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, wherein said tree receiving area in said second mode is adapted to the diameter of the tree trunk of said tree to be harvested. (fig. 3 of Chalifoux)
Regarding renumbered claim 32, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, wherein said harvesting tool is attached to said UAV (see claim 19 rejection) with at least two cables (32)(fig. 1 of Chalifoux) each provided with a winch mechanism (34)(fig. 1 of Chalifoux) during said first and second mode. (Since the harvesting tool is attached to said UAV with at least two cables each provided with a winch mechanism at all times throughout the method of harvesting, it is also done during said first and second mode.)
Regarding renumbered claim 33, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, wherein said harvesting tool [moves] in a direction essentially in parallel with the tree trunk of said tree to be harvested (figs. 6-7 of Chalifoux) with a speed greater than 1 m/s when said switching from said first mode to said second mode is performed. [col. 4, lines 39-43 of Chalifoux](Since the harvesting tool moves downwards by virtue of its weight, (dependent on gravity force) the acceleration of an object due to gravity is approximately 9.81m/s^2 in the downward direction. After approximately 0.102 seconds or approximately 5.1cm of accelerating downwards due to gravity from a rested position, the harvesting tool is moving in a direction essentially in parallel with the tree trunk of said tree to be harvested with a speed greater than 1m/s when switching from first mode to second mode is performed. The tree trunk is within the tree receiving area and thus the tool is in the second mode)
Regarding renumbered claim 34, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: The method according to claim 19, wherein one or more of the recited steps (fig. 8 of Farrand) are implemented via at least one control unit (210)(figs. 3, 5a, and 5b of Farrand) containing one or more computer processors. [page 18, lines 14- 18 of Farrand][page 16, lines 1-7 of Farrand]
Regarding renumbered claim 35, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches: A computer program comprising program code means for performing the method according to claim 19. [page 18, lines 14-18 of Farrand] (see the rejection of claim 19 above)
Regarding renumbered claim 36, Chalifoux discloses:
A method for harvesting a tree from air, [Abstract, line 1] said method comprising the steps of: positioning a harvesting tool (10)(figs. 1 and 4, harvesting apparatus (10) having a first body (12) and second body (14)) comprising delimbing means (36)(fig. 4) carried by a hovering aerial body, [col. 2, lines 62-67] releasing said harvesting tool [col. 3, lines 45-48] in a first mode from said hovering aerial body from a distance H above a canopy of said tree to be harvested, [col. 3, lines 45-48](fig. 6)(The hovering aerial body hovers at least a height (H) above the canopy of said tree to be harvested before the position in fig. 6 in order to properly be able to lower the harvesting assembly onto the tree top.) and setting said harvesting tool in a second mode when said harvesting tool has the tree top of said tree to be harvested within its tree receiving area, (fig. 3)[col. 3, lines 47-53] wherein: at least a portion of said harvesting tool is below said tree top of said tree to be harvested (fig. 6) while said harvesting tool has a certain speed >0 in a downward direction, (figs. 6-7 show movement positions of the harvesting tool, the harvesting tool moving in a downward direction with a certain speed >0.)[col. 3, lines 55-58] said first (fig. 2) and second mode (fig. 3) differ with respect to said tree receiving area of said delimbing means in said harvesting tool, and said tree receiving area refers to the area in between open and closed delimbing means. (figs. 2-3)[col. 3, lines 3-8]
Chalifoux fails to disclose: A computer-implemented method for harvesting a tree from air, said method comprising the steps of: detecting with at least one sensor a tree to be harvested, positioning, via execution of at least one control unit, a harvesting tool comprising delimbing means carried by a UAV, by using information from said at least one sensor, at a predetermined distance above a canopy of said tree to be harvested, releasing, via execution of at least one control unit said harvesting tool in a first mode from said UAV from said predetermined distance above said canopy of said tree to be harvested, and setting, via execution of at least one control unit, said harvesting tool in a second mode when said harvesting tool has the tree top of said tree to be harvested within its tree receiving area.
Farrand teaches: A computer-implemented [Abstract, lines 1-2][page 18, lines 14-18][page 9, lines 4-14] method for harvesting a tree from air, said method comprising the steps of: detecting with at least one sensor a tree to be harvested [page 2, lines 20-24] (The sensor obtains information about objects such as trees and assigns object identities to the objects based on the sensor information thereby detecting by at least one sensor on a UAV a tree to be harvested.)[page 6, line 30 – page 7 line 5], positioning, via execution of at least one control unit (210)(figs. 3, 5a, 5b)[page 9, lines 4-14] (The control unit is able to communicate harvesting decisions for a harvester (or harvesting tool) to receive and use the information to position itself, therefore positioning via execution of at least one control unit) a harvesting tool (150)(fig. 3, harvester) comprising cutting means [page 22, lines 15-18] (Since the harvester cuts the tree, it has to have some means for cutting and delimbing.) by using information from said at least one sensor, (fig. 8)(The harvesting tool gets positioned and performs a harvesting action based on sensor information)(fig. 7a)[page 20, line 32 – page 21, line 11] at a predetermined distance above a canopy of said tree to be harvested, (fig. 8)[page 13, lines 24-31] (One of the steps is to make a harvesting decision and the harvesting decision can include avoiding an object by being at least a predetermined distance to the object thereby identifying a predetermined distance H above a canopy of said tree to be harvested.) releasing, via execution of at least one control unit, said harvesting tool from said predetermined distance, [page 14, lines 24-25] (fig. 3)((210) is a part of control unit 300)(From the obtained sensor information, the control unit is able to make harvesting decisions such as releasing said harvesting tool from said predetermined distance.) and setting, via execution of at least one control unit, [page 14, lines 24-25](fig. 3, control unit (300) is able to receive data from drone (100) and control harvesting tool (150) by making harvesting decisions via processing circuitry (210) within the drone thereby is able to set said harvesting tool in another mode.) said harvesting tool in another mode when said harvesting tool has said tree to be harvested within its tree receiving area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the hovering aerial craft of Chalifoux with the autonomous UAV containing sensors, the processing circuitry, and the control unit of Farrand in order to automate tasks and reduce operation costs.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Chalifoux with the teachings of Farrand (such as an autonomous UAV, processing circuitry, sensors, and control unit), since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
After modification, Chalifoux in view of Farrand teaches:
A computer-implemented method for harvesting a tree from air, said method comprising the steps of: detecting with at least one sensor a tree to be harvested, positioning, via execution of at least one control unit, a harvesting tool comprising delimbing means carried by a UAV, by using information from said at least one sensor, at a predetermined distance above a canopy of said tree to be harvested, releasing, via execution of at least one control unit, said harvesting tool in a first mode from said UAV from said predetermined distance above said canopy of said tree to be harvested, and setting, via execution of at least one control unit, said harvesting tool in a second mode when said harvesting tool has the tree top of said tree to be harvested within its tree receiving area, wherein: at least a portion of said harvesting tool is below said tree top of said tree to be harvested while said harvesting tool has a certain speed >0 in a downward direction, said first and second mode differ with respect to said tree receiving area of said delimbing means in said harvesting tool, and said tree receiving area refers to the area in between open and closed delimbing means.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US-20180257774-A1 teaches a method for harvesting a tree with a UAV comprising a telescoping arm and a harvesting tool.
US-20140163781-A1 teaches a method for identifying trees with UAVs and gathering information about the trees.
US-20190200534-A1 teaches a method for harvesting a tree with a UAV and a harvesting tool.
US-20030159757-A1 teaches a method for aerially harvesting trees.
US-11878440-B1 teaches a method for unmanned aerial vegetation trimming.
WO-9817099-A1 teaches a method for aerially detecting trees for forestry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/J.S.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights