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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “determination criteria setting unit” in claim 1, “measurement data acquisition unit”, “boulder determination unit” in claims 1 and 9, “warning control unit” in claims 1, 8, and 9, “warning criteria setting unit” in claims 8 and 9, “standard value storage unit” in claims 5 and 16, “input data acquisition unit” in claims 6 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See at least [0049], [0206], [0219], Fig. 30 of the as-filed specification (e.g. processor and sensor).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claims 1 is indefinite because of the recited limitation: “… based on determination on the presence or absence of the boulder” It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the previous limitation reciting “... configured to determine the presence or absence of the boulder …” or not?
Claims 8 is indefinite because of the recited limitation: “… based on determination of the presence or absence of the boulder” It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the previous limitations reciting “... configured to determine the presence or absence of the boulder …” and “determination on the presence or absence of the boulder” in claim 1 or not?
Claims 9 is indefinite because of the recited limitation: “ based on determination on the presence or absence of the boulder …” It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the previous limitation reciting “... configured to determine presence or absence of a boulder …” or not?
Claims 19 is indefinite because of the recited limitation: “ based on determination on the presence or absence of the boulder” It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the previous limitation reciting “determining the presence or absence of the boulder …” or not?
Claims 2-7 and 10-18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 9 is directed to a system, and claim 19 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1, 9, and 19 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A monitoring system for a work machine, comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground;
a determination criteria setting unit configured to set a determination criterion for determining presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data;
a boulder determination unit configured to determine the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in the measurement data based on the determination criterion; and
a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on determination on the presence or absence of the boulder.
Claim 9 recites:
A monitoring system for a work machine, comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground;
a boulder determination unit configured to determine presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data;
a warning criteria setting unit configured to set a warning criterion for outputting a warning from an output device; and
a warning control unit configured to output the warning from the output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the boulder and a relationship between the boulder and the warning criterion.
Claim 19 recites:
A method for monitoring a work machine, comprising:
acquiring measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground;
setting a determination criterion for determining presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data;
determining the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in the measurement data based on the determination criterion; and
outputting a warning from an output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the boulder.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, setting ... and determining … in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A monitoring system for a work machine, comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground;
a determination criteria setting unit configured to set a determination criterion for determining presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data;
a boulder determination unit configured to determine the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in the measurement data based on the determination criterion; and
a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on determination on the presence or absence of the boulder.
Claim 9 recites:
A monitoring system for a work machine, comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground;
a boulder determination unit configured to determine presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data;
a warning criteria setting unit configured to set a warning criterion for outputting a warning from an output device; and
a warning control unit configured to output the warning from the output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the boulder and a relationship between the boulder and the warning criterion.
Claim 19 recites:
A method for monitoring a work machine, comprising:
acquiring measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground;
setting a determination criterion for determining presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data;
determining the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in the measurement data based on the determination criterion; and
outputting a warning from an output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the boulder.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of acquiring ... and outputting … the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring ... step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of acquiring data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting … step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying information from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, and 9 further recite the “A monitoring system for a work machine, comprising: a measurement data acquisition unit configured to … ; a determination criteria setting unit configured to … ; a boulder determination unit configured to … ; and a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on determination on the presence or absence of the boulder ...” (claim 1), “A monitoring system for a work machine, comprising: a measurement data acquisition unit configured to … ; a boulder determination unit configured to … ; a warning criteria setting unit configured to … ; and a warning control unit configured to output the warning from the output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the boulder and a relationship between the boulder and the warning criterion” (claim 9), “A method for monitoring a work machine, comprising: … outputting a warning from an output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the boulder” (claim 19) which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1, 9, and 19 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of acquiring … is well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of outputting ... is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1, 9 and 19.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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, 5-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott (US 20210024062 A1) in view of Middelberg (US 20220000025 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schott discloses a monitoring system for a work machine, comprising (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0008-0010], [0012-0022] An appropriate technical design of a suitable device makes it possible to warn the driver of the tractor of an obstacle in good time on the basis of at least one of the above parameters): a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0011], [0020-0022], [0030-0035], [0039-0041] FIG. 1 shows a tractor 10, with an attached implement 14 (e.g., rotary harrow, seed drill) that is towed by it along a direction of travel 12. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). It detects, within a detection range 20, any objects 22 located on a work area 24 on which work is to be performed. As shown in FIG. 1, arranged in a rear region of the driver's cab 16 is a second detection unit 26 (e.g., camera, optical sensor) that detects, within a detection range 28, any objects 22 located on a work area 30 that has already been worked. To execute the method, a suitable device is provided on the tractor. This device has, in particular, at least one detection unit that detects an object on a work area. The detection unit(s) has/have an optical detection device (e.g., a camera, mono or stereo camera, lidar sensor, other optical sensors) that observe a work area yet to be worked (e.g., in front of the tractor) or a work area that has already been worked (e.g., behind the tractor)); a determination criteria setting unit configured to set a determination criterion for determining presence or absence of an object on the ground in the measurement data ([0003-0010], [0034-0040] The control unit 38 receives the signals from the detection units 18, 26, for the purpose of image processing. In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals—automatically from a tractor-side or implement-side control system or manually—the values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP. When work is being performed on work areas, especially on arable land, stones or other objects on the surface of the work area can interfere with the work operation. . The individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement.); a boulder determination unit configured to determine the presence or absence of the object on the ground in the measurement data based on the determination criterion ([0011-0015], [0030-0041] Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. In the case of classification on the basis of a size of the detected object, one or more size categories may be provided. The detected object is then assigned to the applicable size category. The individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement. A control unit may then decide whether the applicable size category, and thus the detected object, represents an obstacle during the current work operation. In the example shown in FIG. 2, the first detection unit 18 detects two objects 22 in the work area 24 on which work is to be performed. Of these, one object 22 is located within the working width B_a and, if at least one further condition is fulfilled (e.g., a certain minimum size of object 22), it can be identified as an obstacle 22-H. The control unit 38 receives the signals from the detection units 18, 26, for the purpose of image processing. In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals—automatically from a tractor-side or implement-side control system or manually—the values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP. A variant of the method sequence is described with reference to FIG. 4. After an initialization step S1, the signals from the detection unit 18 are checked in the control unit 38 to determine whether there is an object 22 located on the work area 24 (step S2). This step S2 is performed until an object 22 has been detected. Then, in step S3, it is checked, on the basis of the predefined classification parameter KP, whether the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as a predefined volume limit value V_gr. Alternatively, another suitable physical quantity may be used instead of the volume for a size classification of the detected objects 22. If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v. If, however, it is determined in step S3 that the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as the volume limit value V_gr, it is checked in a further step S4 whether the detected object 22 is within the working width B_a); and a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on determination on the presence or absence of the object ([0016-0018], [0038-0041] In another embodiment, a warning signal is emitted when an object is identified as an obstacle. The driver is thus warned in an appropriate manner. This can be acoustically (e.g., warning tone) or visually (e.g., warning lamp). If a distance between the tractor and the object is also ascertained, the warning signal may also be output in differing intensity levels, depending on the distance ascertained in each case. This signaling may be, for example, information or a representation on a screen, display, head-up display or the like, to warn the driver. In the event of an object 22 being identified, or classified, as obstacle 22-H, the control unit 38 sends warning signals S_w to an optical or acoustic warning unit 42 to warn the driver. After an initialization step S1, the signals from the detection unit 18 are checked in the control unit 38 to determine whether there is an object 22 located on the work area 24 (step S2). If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v).
Schott does not explicitly teach the object being a boulder. However, Middelberg teaches the object being a boulder (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0050-0056] Rigid and movable ground features 45 and objects 51 ... This includes trees, tree trunks, boulders, rocks, buildings, protruding sewer lines, animals, or suchlike). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Schott to incorporate the teachings of Middelberg which teaches the object being a boulder since they are directed to detecting obstacles, and incorporation of Middelberg would improve the applicability and reliability of the object detection and warning system by expressly identifying boulders as another kind of objects that a work machine should consider.
Regarding claim 2, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein the determination criterion includes a dimension of the boulder (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 1 & 5, [0011-0015], [0036-0041] Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. In this case, the size is detected with sufficient accuracy in a technically simple manner, in particular by a suitable optical detection unit (e.g., optical sensor, camera). The values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP; see claim 1 above with regards to the object being a boulder).
Regarding claim 3, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein the boulder determination unit determines that the boulder exists when the dimension of the boulder is greater than a threshold, and determines that no boulder exists when the dimension of the boulder is less than or equal to the threshold (See at least Schott abstract, [0011-0015], [0030-0041] Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. In the case of classification on the basis of a size of the detected object, one or more size categories may be provided. The detected object is then assigned to the applicable size category. The individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement. A control unit may then decide whether the applicable size category, and thus the detected object, represents an obstacle during the current work operation. In the example shown in FIG. 2, the first detection unit 18 detects two objects 22 in the work area 24 on which work is to be performed. Of these, one object 22 is located within the working width B_a and, if at least one further condition is fulfilled (e.g., a certain minimum size of object 22), it can be identified as an obstacle 22-H. The control unit 38 receives the signals from the detection units 18, 26, for the purpose of image processing. In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals—automatically from a tractor-side or implement-side control system or manually—the values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP. A variant of the method sequence is described with reference to FIG. 4. After an initialization step S1, the signals from the detection unit 18 are checked in the control unit 38 to determine whether there is an object 22 located on the work area 24 (step S2). This step S2 is performed until an object 22 has been detected. Then, in step S3, it is checked, on the basis of the predefined classification parameter KP, whether the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as a predefined volume limit value V_gr. Alternatively, another suitable physical quantity may be used instead of the volume for a size classification of the detected objects 22. If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v. If, however, it is determined in step S3 that the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as the volume limit value V_gr, it is checked in a further step S4 whether the detected object 22 is within the working width B_a; see claim 1 above with regards to the object being a boulder).
Regarding claim 5, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses further comprising a standard value storage unit configured to store a standard value related to the determination criterion (Se at least Schott abstract, Fig. 4, [0010], [0011] [0033-0036] “the respective specific work operation”, “individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement”, Of these, one object 22 is located within the working width B_a and, if at least one further condition is fulfilled (e.g., a certain minimum size of object 22), it can be identified as an obstacle 22-H. The values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22), wherein the determination criteria setting unit sets the determination criterion based on the standard value (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 4, [0010], [0011], [0036-0041] “the respective specific work operation”, “individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement”, Then, in step S3, it is checked, on the basis of the predefined classification parameter KP, whether the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as a predefined volume limit value V_gr. If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v. If, however, it is determined in step S3 that the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as the volume limit value V_gr, it is checked in a further step S4 whether the detected object 22 is within the working width B_a.).
Regarding claim 6, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses further comprising an input data acquisition unit configured to acquire input data from an input device (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 1 & 4, [0010], [0011], [0034-0040] The device 34 includes the two above-mentioned detection units 18, 26, and a control unit 38. The control unit 38 receives the signals from the detection units 18, 26, for the purpose of image processing. In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals ... the values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP), wherein the determination criteria setting unit sets the determination criterion based on the input data (See at least Schott abstract, [0010], [0011], [0034-0041] “individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement”, The device 34 includes the two above-mentioned detection units 18, 26, and a control unit 38. The control unit 38 receives the signals from the detection units 18, 26, for the purpose of image processing. In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals—automatically from a tractor-side or implement-side control system or manually—the values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP. If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v.).
Regarding claim 8, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses further comprising a warning criteria setting unit configured to set a warning criterion for outputting the warning from the output device (See at least Schott abstract, [0015-0020] In another embodiment, a warning signal is emitted when an object is identified as an obstacle. The driver is thus warned in an appropriate manner. This can be acoustically (e.g., warning tone) or visually (e.g., warning lamp). If a distance between the tractor and the object is also ascertained, the warning signal may also be output in differing intensity levels, depending on the distance ascertained in each case. This signaling may be, for example, information or a representation on a screen, display, head-up display or the like, to warn the driver), wherein the warning control unit outputs the warning from the output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the boulder and a relationship between the boulder and the warning criterion (See at least Schott abstract, [0015-0020], [0038-0040] In another embodiment, a warning signal is emitted when an object is identified as an obstacle. The driver is thus warned in an appropriate manner. This can be acoustically (e.g., warning tone) or visually (e.g., warning lamp). If a distance between the tractor and the object is also ascertained, the warning signal may also be output in differing intensity levels, depending on the distance ascertained in each case. This signaling may be, for example, information or a representation on a screen, display, head-up display or the like, to warn the driver. In the event of an object 22 being identified, or classified, as obstacle 22-H, the control unit 38 sends warning signals S_w to an optical or acoustic warning unit 42 to warn the driver. If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v. The control unit 38 then causes the control signals S_w and S_v to be emitted (step S6).).
Regarding claim 9, Schott discloses a monitoring system for a work machine (See at least abstract, Fig. 1 & 4, [0011-0018], [0038-0041]), comprising: a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0011], [0020-0022], [0030-0035], [0039-0041] FIG. 1 shows a tractor 10, with an attached implement 14 (e.g., rotary harrow, seed drill) that is towed by it along a direction of travel 12. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). It detects, within a detection range 20, any objects 22 located on a work area 24 on which work is to be performed. As shown in FIG. 1, arranged in a rear region of the driver's cab 16 is a second detection unit 26 (e.g., camera, optical sensor) that detects, within a detection range 28, any objects 22 located on a work area 30 that has already been worked. To execute the method, a suitable device is provided on the tractor. This device has, in particular, at least one detection unit that detects an object on a work area. The detection unit(s) has/have an optical detection device (e.g., a camera, mono or stereo camera, lidar sensor, other optical sensors) that observe a work area yet to be worked (e.g., in front of the tractor) or a work area that has already been worked (e.g., behind the tractor)); a boulder determination unit configured to determine presence or absence of an object on the ground in the measurement data ([0011-0015], [0030-0041] Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. In the case of classification on the basis of a size of the detected object, one or more size categories may be provided. The detected object is then assigned to the applicable size category. The individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement. A control unit may then decide whether the applicable size category, and thus the detected object, represents an obstacle during the current work operation. In the example shown in FIG. 2, the first detection unit 18 detects two objects 22 in the work area 24 on which work is to be performed. Of these, one object 22 is located within the working width B_a and, if at least one further condition is fulfilled (e.g., a certain minimum size of object 22), it can be identified as an obstacle 22-H. The control unit 38 receives the signals from the detection units 18, 26, for the purpose of image processing. In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals—automatically from a tractor-side or implement-side control system or manually—the values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP. A variant of the method sequence is described with reference to FIG. 4. After an initialization step S1, the signals from the detection unit 18 are checked in the control unit 38 to determine whether there is an object 22 located on the work area 24 (step S2). This step S2 is performed until an object 22 has been detected. Then, in step S3, it is checked, on the basis of the predefined classification parameter KP, whether the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as a predefined volume limit value V_gr. Alternatively, another suitable physical quantity may be used instead of the volume for a size classification of the detected objects 22. If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v. If, however, it is determined in step S3 that the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as the volume limit value V_gr, it is checked in a further step S4 whether the detected object 22 is within the working width B_a); a warning criteria setting unit configured to set a warning criterion for outputting a warning from an output device (See at least Schott abstract, [0015-0020] In another embodiment, a warning signal is emitted when an object is identified as an obstacle. The driver is thus warned in an appropriate manner. This can be acoustically (e.g., warning tone) or visually (e.g., warning lamp). If a distance between the tractor and the object is also ascertained, the warning signal may also be output in differing intensity levels, depending on the distance ascertained in each case. This signaling may be, for example, information or a representation on a screen, display, head-up display or the like, to warn the driver); and a warning control unit configured to output the warning from the output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the object and a relationship between the boulder and the warning criterion ([0016-0018], [0038-0041] In another embodiment, a warning signal is emitted when an object is identified as an obstacle. The driver is thus warned in an appropriate manner. This can be acoustically (e.g., warning tone) or visually (e.g., warning lamp). If a distance between the tractor and the object is also ascertained, the warning signal may also be output in differing intensity levels, depending on the distance ascertained in each case. This signaling may be, for example, information or a representation on a screen, display, head-up display or the like, to warn the driver. In the event of an object 22 being identified, or classified, as obstacle 22-H, the control unit 38 sends warning signals S_w to an optical or acoustic warning unit 42 to warn the driver. After an initialization step S1, the signals from the detection unit 18 are checked in the control unit 38 to determine whether there is an object 22 located on the work area 24 (step S2). If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v).
Schott does not explicitly teach the object being a boulder. However, Middelberg teaches the object being a boulder (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0050-0056] Rigid and movable ground features 45 and objects 51 are to be understood here as obstacles 65, which could damage the agricultural work machine 1, or lead to a contamination of the harvested crop. This includes trees, tree trunks, boulders, rocks, buildings, protruding sewer lines, animals, or suchlike). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Schott to incorporate the teachings of Middelberg which teaches the object being a boulder since they are all directed to detecting obstacles, and incorporation of Middelberg would improve the applicability and reliability of the object detection and warning system by expressly identifying boulders as another kind of objects that a work machine should consider.
Regarding claim 10, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein the warning criterion includes a warning area set in at least a part of the ground (See at least Schott abstract, [0013-0016], [0032-0036] The predefined work parameter is a working width in the transverse direction of the tractor. The working width depends on the width of the tractor or the width of the attached implement. It corresponds in particular to one of the two latter widths. Depending on whether the detected object is inside or outside of the working width, a suitable control unit can then decide whether or not it is an obstacle. The working width may be specified manually, for example. Alternatively, the working width is determined automatically in dependence on tractor-side settings or by identification of the attached implement. FIG. 2 shows a working width B_a in a transverse direction 32 of the tractor 10. The working width B_a serves as a work parameter AP. With this work parameter AP being taken into account, it is decided in the course of the method whether a detected object 22 in the work area 24 that is yet to be worked is actually an obstacle.).
Regarding claim 11, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein the warning control unit outputs the warning when it is determined that the boulder exists in the warning area (See at least Schott abstract, [0032-0036], [0039-0041] FIG. 2 shows a working width B_a in a transverse direction 32 of the tractor 10. The working width B_a serves as a work parameter AP. With this work parameter AP being taken into account, it is decided in the course of the method whether a detected object 22 in the work area 24 that is yet to be worked is actually an obstacle. Of these, one object 22 is located within the working width B_a and, if at least one further condition is fulfilled (e.g., a certain minimum size of object 22), it can be identified as an obstacle 22-H. The other object 22 is located within the work area 24, but is outside of the working width B_a. It is therefore not classified, or identified, as a current obstacle. If, on the other hand, the object 22 is located within the working width B_a, this object 22 is identified as an obstacle 22-H (step S5).).
Regarding claim 12, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein setting of the warning criterion includes setting of a dimension of the warning area (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 1 & Fig. 4, [0032-0036], [0039-0041] FIG. 2 shows a working width B_a in a transverse direction 32 of the tractor 10. The working width B_a serves as a work parameter AP. With this work parameter AP being taken into account, it is decided in the course of the method whether a detected object 22 in the work area 24 that is yet to be worked is actually an obstacle. The other object 22 is located within the work area 24, but is outside of the working width B_a. It is checked in a further step S4 whether the detected object 22 is within the working width B_a. If, on the other hand, the object 22 is located within the working width B_a, this object 22 is identified as an obstacle 22-H (step S5). After step S6 has been completed, the method sequence may be terminated or the system returns automatically to step S2 in order to detect further objects 22.).
Regarding claim 14, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein setting of the warning criterion includes setting of a position of the warning area (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 1 & 4, [0018-0020], [0038-0041] In the event of an object being detected as an obstacle, in particular a position, or location, of the detected object is signaled. This signaling may be, for example, information or a representation on a screen, display, head-up display or the like, to warn the driver. In addition, the control unit 38 causes the position data POS to be stored in a memory unit 44. If not, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v. If, on the other hand, the object 22 is located within the working width B_a, this object 22 is identified as an obstacle 22-H (step S5). The control unit 38 then causes the control signals S_w and S_v to be emitted (step S6). Optionally, at this point in time the control unit 38 may also cause the position data POS of this detected obstacle 22-H to be stored. After step S6 has been completed, the method sequence may be terminated or the system returns automatically to step S2 in order to detect further objects 22.).
Regarding claim 15, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein the warning criteria setting unit sets the warning area in a part of the ground in a traveling direction of the rotating member (See at Schott least abstract, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, [0011], [0021-022], [0030-0036] This device has, in particular, at least one detection unit that detects an object on a work area. The detection unit(s) has/have an optical detection device (e.g., a camera, mono or stereo camera, lidar sensor, other optical sensors) that observe a work area yet to be worked (e.g., in front of the tractor) or a work area that has already been worked (e.g., behind the tractor). Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). It detects, within a detection range 20, any objects 22 located on a work area 24 on which work is to be performed. As shown in FIG. 1, arranged in a rear region of the driver's cab 16 is a second detection unit 26 (e.g., camera, optical sensor) that detects, within a detection range 28, any objects 22 located on a work area 30 that has already been worked. FIG. 2 shows a working width B_a in a transverse direction 32 of the tractor 10. The working width B_a serves as a work parameter AP. In the example shown in FIG. 2, the first detection unit 18 detects two objects 22 in the work area 24 on which work is to be performed. Of these, one object 22 is located within the working width B_a. ).
Regarding claim 16, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses further comprising a standard value storage unit configured to store a standard value related to the warning criterion (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 1 & 4, [0016-0018], [0039-0041] In another embodiment, a warning signal is emitted when an object is identified as an obstacle. The driver is thus warned in an appropriate manner. This can be acoustically (e.g., warning tone) or visually (e.g., warning lamp). If a distance between the tractor and the object is also ascertained, the warning signal may also be output in differing intensity levels, depending on the distance ascertained in each case. In the event of an object 22 being identified, or classified, as obstacle 22-H, the control unit 38 sends warning signals S_w to an optical or acoustic warning unit 42 to warn the driver), wherein the warning criteria setting unit sets the warning criterion based on the standard value (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 1 & 4, [0039-0041] In the event of an object 22 being identified, or classified, as obstacle 22-H, the control unit 38 sends warning signals S_w to an optical or acoustic warning unit 42 to warn the driver. In addition, the control unit 38 intervenes, via emitted control signals S_v, in an engine control unit or in the drive train of the tractor 10. f the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v. he control unit 38 then causes the control signals S_w and S_v to be emitted (step S6). Optionally, at this point in time the control unit 38 may also cause the position data POS of this detected obstacle 22-H to be stored. ).
Regarding claim 19, Schott discloses a method for monitoring a work machine (See at least abstract, Fig. 1 & 4, [0005-0010], [0021-0022] To execute the method, a suitable device is provided on the tractor. This device has, in particular, at least one detection unit that detects an object on a work area.), comprising: acquiring measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine and contacting the ground (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0011], [0020-0022], [0030-0035], [0039-0041] FIG. 1 shows a tractor 10, with an attached implement 14 (e.g., rotary harrow, seed drill) that is towed by it along a direction of travel 12. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). It detects, within a detection range 20, any objects 22 located on a work area 24 on which work is to be performed. As shown in FIG. 1, arranged in a rear region of the driver's cab 16 is a second detection unit 26 (e.g., camera, optical sensor) that detects, within a detection range 28, any objects 22 located on a work area 30 that has already been worked. To execute the method, a suitable device is provided on the tractor. This device has, in particular, at least one detection unit that detects an object on a work area. The detection unit(s) has/have an optical detection device (e.g., a camera, mono or stereo camera, lidar sensor, other optical sensors) that observe a work area yet to be worked (e.g., in front of the tractor) or a work area that has already been worked (e.g., behind the tractor)); setting a determination criterion for determining presence or absence of an object on the ground in the measurement data ([0003-0010], [0034-0040] The control unit 38 receives the signals from the detection units 18, 26, for the purpose of image processing. In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals—automatically from a tractor-side or implement-side control system or manually—the values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP. When work is being performed on work areas, especially on arable land, stones or other objects on the surface of the work area can interfere with the work operation. . The individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement.); determining the presence or absence of the object on the ground in the measurement data based on the determination criterion ([0011-0015], [0030-0041] Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. In the case of classification on the basis of a size of the detected object, one or more size categories may be provided. The detected object is then assigned to the applicable size category. The individual size categories may be classified, or defined, as obstacle or non-obstacle, depending on the specific work operation or type of tractor or type of attached implement. A control unit may then decide whether the applicable size category, and thus the detected object, represents an obstacle during the current work operation. In the example shown in FIG. 2, the first detection unit 18 detects two objects 22 in the work area 24 on which work is to be performed. Of these, one object 22 is located within the working width B_a and, if at least one further condition is fulfilled (e.g., a certain minimum size of object 22), it can be identified as an obstacle 22-H. The control unit 38 receives the signals from the detection units 18, 26, for the purpose of image processing. In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals—automatically from a tractor-side or implement-side control system or manually—the values of a classification parameter KP (e.g., a volume-related size) of the object 22, and the values of the already mentioned work parameter AP. A variant of the method sequence is described with reference to FIG. 4. After an initialization step S1, the signals from the detection unit 18 are checked in the control unit 38 to determine whether there is an object 22 located on the work area 24 (step S2). This step S2 is performed until an object 22 has been detected. Then, in step S3, it is checked, on the basis of the predefined classification parameter KP, whether the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as a predefined volume limit value V_gr. Alternatively, another suitable physical quantity may be used instead of the volume for a size classification of the detected objects 22. If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v. If, however, it is determined in step S3 that the detected volume V_obj is at least as great as the volume limit value V_gr, it is checked in a further step S4 whether the detected object 22 is within the working width B_a); and outputting a warning from an output device based on determination of the presence or absence of the object ([0016-0018], [0038-0041] In another embodiment, a warning signal is emitted when an object is identified as an obstacle. The driver is thus warned in an appropriate manner. This can be acoustically (e.g., warning tone) or visually (e.g., warning lamp). If a distance between the tractor and the object is also ascertained, the warning signal may also be output in differing intensity levels, depending on the distance ascertained in each case. This signaling may be, for example, information or a representation on a screen, display, head-up display or the like, to warn the driver. In the event of an object 22 being identified, or classified, as obstacle 22-H, the control unit 38 sends warning signals S_w to an optical or acoustic warning unit 42 to warn the driver. After an initialization step S1, the signals from the detection unit 18 are checked in the control unit 38 to determine whether there is an object 22 located on the work area 24 (step S2). If the control unit 38 determines that the detected volume V_obj is less than the predefined volume limit value V_gr, the procedure returns to step S2, and the control unit 38 does not emit control signals S_w, S_v).
Schott does not explicitly teach the object being a boulder. However, Middelberg teaches the object being a boulder (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0050-0056] Rigid and movable ground features 45 and objects 51 are to be understood here as obstacles 65, which could damage the agricultural work machine 1, or lead to a contamination of the harvested crop. This includes trees, tree trunks, boulders, rocks, buildings, protruding sewer lines, animals, or suchlike). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Schott to incorporate the teachings of Middelberg which teaches the object being a boulder since they are all directed to detecting obstacles, and incorporation of Middelberg would improve the applicability and reliability of the object detection and warning system by expressly identifying boulders as another kind of objects that a work machine should consider.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott (US 20210024062 A1) in view of Middelberg (US 20220000025 A1) and further in view of Sakashita (US 20190279477 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein the measurement data includes image data of the ground (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 1, [0011], [0020-0022], [0030-0035], [0039-0041] FIG. 1 shows a tractor 10, with an attached implement 14 (e.g., rotary harrow, seed drill) that is towed by it along a direction of travel 12. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). It detects, within a detection range 20, any objects 22 located on a work area 24 on which work is to be performed. As shown in FIG. 1, arranged in a rear region of the driver's cab 16 is a second detection unit 26 (e.g., camera, optical sensor) that detects, within a detection range 28, any objects 22 located on a work area 30 that has already been worked. To execute the method, a suitable device is provided on the tractor. This device has, in particular, at least one detection unit that detects an object on a work area. The detection unit(s) has/have an optical detection device (e.g., a camera, mono or stereo camera, lidar sensor, other optical sensors) that observe a work area yet to be worked (e.g., in front of the tractor) or a work area that has already been worked (e.g., behind the tractor)),
Schott as modified by Middelberg does not explicitly disclose the dimension of the boulder includes a number of pixels of the boulder in the image data. However, Sakashita teaches the dimension of the boulder/object includes a number of pixels of the boulder/object in the image data (See at least abstract, [0029 - 0031] More specifically, the obstacle determination section 131 sequentially selects each pixel from all pixels forming the first photographed image G1. Consequently, the obstacle determination section 131 calculates a pixel count C21 (or C22) as the one which indicates the size of the image region ΔG21 (or ΔG22) not viewed in the first photographed image G1.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Schott as modified by Middelberg to incorporate the teachings of Sakashita which teaches the dimension of the boulder/object includes a number of pixels of the boulder/object in the image data since they are all directed to determining the size and dimension of objects through image analysis, and incorporation of Sakashita would improve the accuracy and applicability to provide a quantifiable metric for measuring boulder size.
Regarding claim 13, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses wherein the measurement data includes image data of the ground (See at least Schott abstract, Fig. 1, [0011], [0020-0022], [0030-0035], [0039-0041] FIG. 1 shows a tractor 10, with an attached implement 14 (e.g., rotary harrow, seed drill) that is towed by it along a direction of travel 12. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). Classification of the detected object is effected in that a classification parameter is a size of the object. The size may be defined, for example, on the basis of a detected volume or other suitable geometric-physical parameter. Arranged in a front region of a driver's cab 16 of the tractor 10 is a first detection unit 18 (e.g., camera, optical sensor). It detects, within a detection range 20, any objects 22 located on a work area 24 on which work is to be performed. As shown in FIG. 1, arranged in a rear region of the driver's cab 16 is a second detection unit 26 (e.g., camera, optical sensor) that detects, within a detection range 28, any objects 22 located on a work area 30 that has already been worked. To execute the method, a suitable device is provided on the tractor. This device has, in particular, at least one detection unit that detects an object on a work area. The detection unit(s) has/have an optical detection device (e.g., a camera, mono or stereo camera, lidar sensor, other optical sensors) that observe a work area yet to be worked (e.g., in front of the tractor) or a work area that has already been worked (e.g., behind the tractor)),
Schott as modified by Middelberg does not explicitly disclose the dimension of the warning area includes a number of pixels of the warning area in the image data. However, Sakashita teaches disclose the dimension of the warning area includes a number of pixels of the warning area in the image data (See at least abstract, [0029-0033] The obstacle determination section 131 performs the selection, comparison, and counting of the pixels only for all the pixels forming the first photographed image G1 and the second photographed image G21 (or G22) (may be performed only for the pixels in a predetermined partial region in the first photographed image G1 and the second photographed image G21 (or G22)). The obstacle determination section 131 calculates a pixel count C21 (or C22) as the one which indicates the size of the image region ΔG21 (or ΔG22). The pixel count G22 indicating the size of the image region ΔG22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Schott as modified by Middelberg to incorporate the teachings of Sakashita which teaches the dimension of the warning area includes a number of pixels of the warning area in the image data since they are all directed to determining the size and dimension of objects through image analysis, and incorporation of Sakashita would improve the accuracy and applicability to provide a quantifiable metric for measuring boulder size.
Claim(s) 7, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott (US 20210024062 A1) in view of Middelberg (US 20220000025 A1) and further in view of Grevinga (US 20140053094 A1) .
Regarding claim 7, Schott as modified by Middelberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination criteria setting unit displays, on a display device, a setting screen of the determination criterion. However, Grevinga teaches wherein the determination criteria setting unit displays, on a display device, a setting screen of the determination criterion (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0009-0014], [0036-0044] The particular mark is activated via the touchscreen function of a display, which is designed as a touchscreen marker, or via control elements assigned to the display, preferably rotate-and-press switches. Flexible handling of the parameter adjustment is thereby achieved since the touchscreen function of a monitor and available control switches are used to change the particular parameter. The activation of the virtual adjusting elements is simplified in the invention when editing buttons in the display for editing the particular parameter are assigned to the virtual sliding switch or the virtual rotary switch. Editing is carried out by touching the editing button on a display (designed as a touchscreen monitor), or via control elements assigned to the display. One or more of the icons can be changed using the editing elements. Such configuration and function ensure that parameters can be set in highly diverse working phases of the agricultural working machine. In analogy to the previously described changing of the display structure, a plurality of editing options 62, such as the editing of a metal detector and the editing of a stone detector in this case, are available in the pop-up window 53.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Schott as modified by Middelberg to incorporate the teachings of Grevinga which teaches wherein the determination criteria setting unit displays, on a display device, a setting screen of the determination criterion since they are all directed to agricultural machine interfaces, and incorporation of Grevinga would improve the usability and configurability of parameter settings in work machines.
Regarding claim 17, Schott as modified by Middelberg discloses further comprising an input data acquisition unit configured to acquire input data from an input device (See at least Schott abstract, [0011-0016], [0036], [0038-0041] In addition, the control unit 38 receives as input signals—automatically from a tractor-side or implement-side control system or manually. a warning signal is emitted when an object is identified as an obstacle. The driver is thus warned in an appropriate manner. This can be acoustically (e.g., warning tone) or visually (e.g., warning lamp). If a distance between the tractor and the object is also ascertained, the warning signal may also be output in differing intensity levels, depending on the distance ascertained in each case. In the event of an object 22 being identified, or classified, as obstacle 22-H, the control unit 38 sends warning signals S_w to an optical or acoustic warning unit 42 to warn the driver).
Schott as modified by Middelberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the warning criteria setting unit sets the warning criterion based on the input data. However, Grevinga teaches wherein the warning criteria setting unit sets the warning criterion based on the input data (See at least abstract, [0042-0048] The operator 24 then selects the desired editing option 62, namely changing parameters of the metal detector in this case, by touching the icon 57 representing the editing option 62. The selected icon 57 changes color to indicate selection thereof. The invention also allows for only one change mode to be available on the display 18, wherein the virtual sliding switch 66 must indicate the change not only in a qualitative manner, e.g. + means higher and − means lower, but also in a quantitative manner. The virtual adjusting elements 65 assigned to the display 18 also can be activated by actuating the control elements 39 (see description of FIG. 2), preferably by actuating the rotate-and-press switch 40. the parameters 64 that are set using the control and display unit 8 can be of any type, such as machine parameters, quality parameters of the agricultural working machine, quality parameters of the crop, and crop parameters.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Schott as modified by Middelberg to incorporate the teachings of Grevinga which teaches wherein the warning criteria setting unit sets the warning criterion based on the input data since they are all directed to agricultural machine interfaces, and incorporation of Grevinga would improve the applicability and configurability of the warning criterion based on input data,
Regarding claim 18, Schott as modified by Middelberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the warning criteria setting unit displays, on a display device, a setting screen of the warning criterion. However, Grevinga teaches wherein the warning criteria setting unit displays, on a display device, a setting screen of the warning criterion (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0009-0014], [0036-0044] The particular mark is activated via the touchscreen function of a display, which is designed as a touchscreen marker, or via control elements assigned to the display, preferably rotate-and-press switches. Flexible handling of the parameter adjustment is thereby achieved since the touchscreen function of a monitor and available control switches are used to change the particular parameter. The activation of the virtual adjusting elements is simplified in the invention when editing buttons in the display for editing the particular parameter are assigned to the virtual sliding switch or the virtual rotary switch. Editing is carried out by touching the editing button on a display (designed as a touchscreen monitor), or via control elements assigned to the display. One or more of the icons can be changed using the editing elements. Such configuration and function ensure that parameters can be set in highly diverse working phases of the agricultural working machine. In analogy to the previously described changing of the display structure, a plurality of editing options 62, such as the editing of a metal detector and the editing of a stone detector in this case, are available in the pop-up window 53. As shown, the pop-up window 63 (which is now open), comprises a plurality of icons 57 used for editing parameters 64 of the agricultural working machine 1 (designed as a forage harvester 49), namely, the sensitivity of the metal detector in this case.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Schott as modified by Middelberg to incorporate the teachings of Grevinga which teaches wherein the warning criteria setting unit displays, on a display device, a setting screen of the warning criterion since they are all directed to agricultural machine interfaces, and incorporation of Grevinga would improve usability and configurability of parameter settings in work machines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LABIBAH I. ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/LABIBAH ILMA ALI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights