Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the words “in”, “of”, “firstly”, and “secondary” when used as introductory words in the claim language are unnecessary and/or grammatically incorrect. For example, claim 1 states the following: “the method comprising:… in automatically…”, “for one robot in question arriving at the end of a row, and likely to find itself in a waiting situation, of continuing and completing the work…”, “then in moving backwards…”, and “in remaining in place until the conditions or cause of the waiting situation has/have disappeared, and then in resuming the rest of its work on the plot”. The exemplary, underlined uses of the words in the claim language included above serve no grammatical purpose, and are recommended to be removed as necessary from all of the claims that have been objected to. Note that removing these terms will not change the metes and bounds of the claim language.
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 1-11 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The steps which make up the process must be clearly and positively specified in a coherent manner that begins each step with a verb. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Specifically, claims 1-6, 8, and 10-11 contain antecedent issues. These claims recite the words "given" and “in question” in reference to a “robot” and/or an “edge portion”. The words “given” and “in question” are insufficient to establish an antecedent basis for which robot or edge portion is being referred to in the claim language. It is recommended to instead use the terms “first”, “second”, etc., as the delineating term to resolve the antecedent issues created by the presently filed claims.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-10 contain exemplary language. The phrases "for example", “preferably”, “in particular”, “advantageously”, and “namely” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 11 contain relative terminology. The terms “if necessary”, “likely”, and “possibly” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, in claim 1, it is unclear when it would be “necessary” to perform evaluations during the progress of the work in the plot, and it is unclear when a robot might be “likely” to find itself in a waiting situation. This language is thus considered indefinite as the degree in which one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain when it is “necessary” to perform operations and when a robot is “likely” in a waiting scenario is not constrained through the claim language in a significant manner.
Claim 11 makes reference to the limitations of claim 1 as the appratus is described to be “for the implementation of the automated method of working plots of land according to claim 1”. However, it is indefinite if the system of claim 11 performing the method of claim 1 is part of the metes and bounds of claim 11, or whether the reference to the method of claim 1 is part of the preamble of claim 11 and is not otherwise part of the metes and bounds of claim 11. It is the interpretation of the examiner that the method of claim 1 is not part of the operations of which the system of claim 11 is required to perform.
Appropriate correction is required for all presently filed claims. For the best practice of compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitations added by the present exemplary language to be part of the metes and bounds of the claims, and has interpreted the present relative terminology as best able, and will be subsequently described in the given prior art rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the entirety of the language in the presently filed claim 8 is that of a contingent limitation. It is recognized that the invention of claim 1 may be practiced without “at least one front-mounted tool” as only “at least one rear-mounted tool” is required by claim 1. As “at least one front-mounted tool” is not required, and as the operations of claim 8 are only performed “if the robot in question also has at least one front-mounted tool…”, the operations of claim 8 are not required to be mapped in a prior art rejection. However, for the best practice of compact prosecution, the examiner has rejected claim 8 below as though said the robot does necessarily comprise “at least one front-mounted tool”. Applicant is recommended to amend the claim language so that the robot does necessarily comprise “at least one front-mounted tool” to ensure that any subsequently performed operations are a required part of the claimed method. See MPEP § 2111.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (US 20240345603 A1) in view of Matsuzaki et al. (JP2019141103A).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii teaches method for working a plot of land by an autonomously operating and mutually independent agricultural robot, which is equipped with at least one rear-mounted tool in the direction of advance (see Fig. 2, implement 300 is mounted on the rear), the robot operating under the control of a central common planning, management and drive system ([0065]), the plot comprising at least one headland zone associated with and bordering at least part of one side of the main field (see Fig. 7), the method comprising:
prior to the start of, and if necessary during the progress of the work in the plot, and after prior evaluation and planning of the work to be carried out on the plot in question, in automatically and/or manually programming each robot with instructions, settings and/or control sequences before starting work in the plot, including in particular movement trajectories for each robot ([0065], where the robot creates a work plan for the field in question, then a path for said work plan),
for one robot in question arriving at the a conditionally permissible area, and likely to find itself in a waiting situation, of continuing and completing the work in progress in the main field in its current row ([0049] and [0147], where conditionally permissible areas are recognized by the vehicle, and the work of the vehicle continues until the vehicle passes into a conditionally permissible area),
then in moving backwards in the main field, at least until the robot and its tool(s) are once again located entirely in the main field ([0049], where the robot reverses back into the previous field if it enters a conditionally permissible area),
in remaining in place until the conditions or cause of the waiting situation has/have disappeared, and then in resuming the rest of its work on the plot ([0155], where the robot remains until it satisfies the condition of the permissible area, then it is allowed to continue into said area).
The main embodiment of Fujii is for one robot. Although this embodiment does not teach a fleet of at least two autonomously operating agricultural robots, Fujii teaches that the invention can be alternatively embodied by a plurality of work vehicles, i.e. a fleet of at least two autonomously operating agricultural robots ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to use a fleet of robots based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to decrease the time it takes for an operation to be performed on a field.
Fujii teaches the designating of areas as conditionally permitted areas where vehicles must reverse out of these areas until the condition is satisfied. However, it doesn't explicitly apply this to the headland areas so that the reversal occurs when a vehicle is arriving at the end of a row.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsuzaki, as included by the applicant, discloses controlling a pair of agricultural vehicles as they work a field, including specific control of the vehicles being enacted as the vehicles arrive at the end of a row and are approaching into a headland region, with the control being enacted so that one vehicle “does not interfere with the travel of the [other] work vehicle” ([0013]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to designate the headland region as a conditionally permitted area with specific control and conditions for entrance into said area being required. It would have been obvious to modify Fujii with this teaching to designate the headland region as a conditionally permitted area based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of enacting specific control of the pair of work vehicles, advantageously realizing the work vehicle cooperative control system for efficient working of the field as disclosed by Matsuzaki.
Fujii doesn’t explicitly teach that the method includes the vehicle bringing its tool(s) to the end of the row and therefore to the edge portion in question of the main field, encroaching on the headland portion adjoining this edge portion. However, it does teach that the entirety of the row is part of the working breadth of the implement, and that the path generated for the vehicle “covers the entire work area 72 in the field” ([0132] and see Fig. 7, where the edges of the field are also covered by the vehicle). Therefore, when the vehicle is entering a conditionally permissible area, i.e. a headland region, where reversal will subsequently be performed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bring the vehicle’s tool(s) to the end of the row and therefore to the edge portion in question of the main field, encroaching on the headland portion adjoining this edge portion based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that the entirety of the work area in the field is covered, thus ensuring no part of the field remains unworked as a result of the reversing operation.
Regarding claim 2, Fujii teaches:
wherein the fulfillment of the conditions or the existence of a cause leading to a waiting situation for a given robot is verified by this same robot when it reaches the end of the current row and approaches an adjoining headland portion ([0214] and [0220], where the robot assesses if it meets a condition as it enters a conditionally permissible area, i.e. a headland region),
and in the subsequent execution by this robot of actions in relation to a proven waiting situation is dependent on prior safety checks carried out by this robot ([0224], where the execution of the robot to meet the condition for traveling in the headland region is dependent on the prior safety checks determining that the robot does not meet the condition for traveling in the headland region).
Regarding claim 3, Fujii teaches:
wherein a given robot is informed of the existence of a waiting situation ([0220] and [0224]).
This operation is performed by the robot vehicle itself checking if it meets the conditions necessary for travel, and is not performed by the robot being informed by the central common planning, management and drive system. However, Fujii alternatively discloses that this operation can be performed by the central common planning, management and drive system ([0225]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Fujii by having the central common planning, management, and drive system perform this operation based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation per the needs of the inventor, as this would advantageously reduce the hardware and processing required in the robots and allow for operations to be centrally performed for multiple robots at once.
Regarding claim 4, Fujii is not privy to the specifics of the reversal operation performed, and does not teach wherein the reverse movement of the robot in question takes the same trajectory as the one taken to complete the work at the end of its current row in the opposite direction. It is noted, however, that the movement of the robots of Fujii is in straight lines so as to cover linear rows as shown in Fig. 7, and as well understood in the art of how agricultural vehicles move when performing work on a field.
Per the prior combination, there is multiple vehicle performing operations on the field at once, with Matsuzaki disclosing how one vehicle is controlled to follow the other work vehicle ([0007] and [0016]). These vehicles also operate in adjacent rows as shown in Fig. 1 of Matsuzaki.
Therefore, absent any showing to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the vehicles reverse in the same trajectory as the one taken to complete the work at the end of its current row in the opposite direction based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the vehicles safely perform their operations in the field, and to hasten any reversal operation necessary. Any reversal operation that is not in the same trajectory and opposite direction to the one taken to complete the work at the end of its current row would result in the vehicle traveling into one of the adjacent rows of travel. When the vehicles are traveling in a configuration as shown in Fig. 1 of Matsuzaki, this would result in the forward vehicle traveling in the path of the oncoming vehicle behind it, risking a potential collision. Reversing in this simple manner would also require less time than other reversing transversals, resulting in a faster continuing of operations of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Fujii teaches:
wherein the at least one tool is inactive, and raised if necessary, when the robot in question moves backwards ([0159] and [0220], where a condition for traveling in the permissibly allowed area is that the implement is inactive and raised, and if said condition is not achieved, the implement is depowered and raised as it reverses out of the conditionally permissible area.
Regarding claim 7, Fujii teaches that the method is further comprising:
prior to the start of work in the plot and if necessary during the progress of the work in the plot, in sub-dividing the main field into work zones in the form of strips, at least one end of which, corresponding to an edge portion of the main field, extends by a portion of the or of one of the headland zone(s) ([0132] and Fig. 7, where a path is created for a vehicle to travel along rows of the field),
and each of which is assigned to one of the robots to be worked by it in its longitudinal direction in one or more pass(es) or row(s), advantageously in at least one round trip ([0132], where the path is transmitted to a vehicle so that it travels and operates along the rows set by the path).
Regarding claim 8, Fujii does disclose that the vehicle can also include has at least one front-mounted tool ([0061). It does not explicitly teach that when the tool is front-mounted, that the method is further comprising moving backwards in the main field, if necessary in the work zone in question, at least until the at least one front-mounted tool is located entirely within the main field or the zone.
However, Fujii does disclose that the vehicle is controlled so that the at least one front-mounted tool is located entirely within the main field or the zone ([0230], where the vehicle is controlled to ensure that the implement does not extend beyond the main field.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would apply when the tool is front-mounted on the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the moving backwards in the main field, if necessary in the work zone in question by ensuring that the front-mounted tool is within the main field based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Fujii, of ensuring that the implement does not stick out of the field so as to avoid hitting obstacles ([0230]).
Regarding claim 10, Fujii teaches:
wherein the possible conditions or causes of a waiting situation for a given robot in a fleet are multiple ([0157] and [0159], where multiple conditions of the implement cause the vehicle to have to reverse and wait before entering the conditionally permissible area),
and are, for example, linked to the robot in question itself, to the organization of the fleet, to the progress and state of work in the plot and/or to instructions from the central common planning, management and drive system or from an operator ([0159], where the conditions are tied to the implement of the robot itself).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Matsuzaki as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kakkar et al. (US 20210339768 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Fujii is not privy to the specifics of the reversal operation performed, and does not teach wherein the reverse movement of the robot in question follows a different trajectory to that taken to complete the work at the end of its current row, preferably laterally offset by at least the width of the track of a means of moving said robot.
In the same field of endeavor, Kakkar teaches controlling an agricultural robot using a variety of reversal techniques, wherein the reverse movement of the robot in question follows a different trajectory to that taken to complete the work at the end of its current row, preferably laterally offset by at least the width of the track of a means of moving said robot ([0055-0056] and see Figs. 7A-7B, where the robot reverses along a different trajectory when it encounters a headland region, said reversal allowing it to travel in a row that is laterally offset by the width of the track of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the reversal of Fujii based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kakkar, of adjusting the trajectory so as to not travel over and damage crops ([0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Fujii teaches programming each robot with instructions and/or control sequences prior to starting work in the plot ([0132]). However, Fujii does not teach that these instructions and/or control sequences are also defined with the features of the reversing operations that may be carried out in a waiting situation, in particular their extent and the type of their trajectory, namely a reversing trajectory that is coincident with or offset from the immediately preceding forward trajectory used to finish the row.
In the same field of endeavor, Kakkar teaches determining a path for a agricultural robot to take, including defining for each robot the features of the reversing operations that may be carried out in a waiting situation, in particular their extent and the type of their trajectory, namely a reversing trajectory that is coincident with or offset from the immediately preceding forward trajectory used to finish the row ([0092-0093], where the trajectory, namely a type of reversal, where the reversal is to be performed, and where the vehicle is expected be after the reversal, is determined for the robot as it approaches the headland at the end of a row; [0055-0056] and see Figs. 7A-7B, where a type of trajectory results in the vehicle reversing along a row offset from the immediately preceding forward trajectory used to finish the row).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the determining and planning of the routes of the vehicles prior to their operation of Fujii to include the type and extent of reversing trajectories as taught by Kakkar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Fujii with this determination of a reversal trajectory on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the vehicles are planned with the turning extent and type necessary to effectively perform their operations in a field. This also allows the trajectories to be coordinated for multiple robots at once, thereby allowing for reversal operations into other rows of the field without risking a collision with or otherwise interfering in the operations of another robot.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (US 20240345603 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Fujii teaches an agricultural machinery assembly for the implementation of the automated method of working plots of land according to claim 1, this assembly comprising:
firstly an autonomously operating and mutually independent mobile agricultural robot, which is equipped with at least one suitable work tool mounted at the rear in the direction of advance (see Fig. 2, where implement 300 is mounted in the rear),
and secondly a central common planning, management and drive system capable of and intended to evaluate and plan the work to be carried out on a plot in question and to communicate with the robots in order to send them instructions and/or control orders ([0065], where the management device 600 sends work plans and travel routes to the robot),
and if necessary receive in return operating and/or status information from said robots ([0088], where the robot communicates with the network of the terminal device and management device),
prior to the start of and if necessary during the work on the plot in question, each robot furthermore being provided with a positioning device and, possibly, provided with input stock and autonomy measuring means based on its current and estimated future consumption ([0080-0081], where the vehicle is provided a GNSS unit, i.e. positioning device; [0085-0086] and [0120], where the implement, such as an implement that disperses input stock, e.g. a spreader, autonomously performs operations on the field as it autonomously travels),
wherein each robot is configured and programmed to perform a predetermined sequence of actions when it finds itself in a waiting situation ([0049], where the robot stops, reverses, and attempts to satisfy conditions of a conditionally permissible area when it encounters a waiting situation caused by it entering said conditionally permissible area).
The main embodiment of Fujii is for one robot. Although this embodiment does not teach a fleet of at least two autonomously operating agricultural robots, Fujii teaches that the invention can be alternatively embodied by a plurality of work vehicles, i.e. a fleet of at least two autonomously operating agricultural robots ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to use a fleet of robots based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to decrease the time it takes for an operation to be performed on a field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663