METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTI-MACHINE COLLABORATIVE FARMING

§101 §103

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims Claims 21-40 are pending in this instant application per preliminary amendment filed on 09/17/2024. Claims 1, 10 and 17 are independent claims reciting method, apparatus and computer readable medium claims. Claims 2-9/21-22, 11-16 and 18-20 are dependent claims. The claim amendments have amended claims 1, 5, 10, 17-18 and 20. Claims 3, 9, 12 and 19 have been cancelled. This Office Action is a non-final rejection in response to the preliminary claim amendments and the remarks of 17 SEPTEMBER 2024 for its application of 09/12/2023 that is titled: “Method and Apparatus for Multi-Machine Collaborative Farming”. Accordingly, amended Claims 21-40 are now being rejected herein. Claim Objections Claim 29-35 are objected to because of the following informalities: In particular, claim 29, line 1 recites a typographical error, “An machine” in its preamble. Examiner notes that claim 21, line 1 correctly recites “A machine” in its preamble. Examiner suggests modifying the preamble of claim 29, line 1 to read as “A machine” similar to what is recited in claim 21, line 1. Claim 30-35 are rejected based on their dependency. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP §717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office Action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §706.07(e) and §714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 21-40 of the instant application (18/883049) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,117,846 (parent application no. 17/015109), as shown in Comparison Table of independent Claims, as exemplary analysis, for both applications are copied below. Comparison of Independent Claims for child 18/883049 and parent 17/015109 child 18/883029 of 09/17/2024 parent 17/015109 of 07/18/2023 36. (New) A method comprising: receiving, at a device of a first machine, data from a second machine, wherein the data from the second machine pertains to functional capabilities of the second machine; determining a collaborative plan to complete a task using the first machine and the second machine based on the received data and a location at which the task will be performed; and transmitting the collaborative plan to the second machine, wherein the collaborative plan pertains to a portion of a task to be completed by the second machine. 21. (New) A machine comprising: an implement; a transceiver configured to receive data from a second machine, wherein the data from the second machine pertains to functional capabilities of the second machine; and a device comprising: a processor configured to: determine a collaborative plan to complete a task using the machine and the second machine based on the received data and a location at which the task will be performed, the transceiver further configured to transmit a portion of the collaborative plan to the second machine, wherein the portion of the collaborative plan pertains to a task to be completed by the second machine. 29. (New) An machine comprising: an implement; a processor; and a memory to store computer program instructions, which, when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving data from a second machine, wherein the data from the second machine pertains to functional capabilities of the second machine; determining a collaborative plan to complete a task using the machine and the second machine based on the received data and a location at which the task will be performed; and transmitting the collaborative plan to the second machine, wherein the collaborative plan pertains to a portion of a task to be completed by the second machine. 1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising: establishing a plurality of communication channels between a plurality of agricultural machines located in a geographic area, each of the plurality of agricultural machines having functional capabilities, physical aspects, and a physical tangible resource; receiving, by at least one device located on one of the plurality of agricultural machines, data pertaining to the functional capabilities, the physical aspects, and a quantity, a quality, and a type of the physical tangible resource of each of the plurality of agricultural machines; determining, by the at least one device, a collaborative plan to complete a task using the plurality of agricultural machines based on the received data and a location at which the task will be performed; and transmitting, from the at least one device, at least a portion of the collaborative plan to each of the plurality of agricultural machines via the plurality of communication channels, the portion of the collaborative plan for controlling a respective one of the plurality of agricultural machines to perform its portion of the collaborative plan. 17. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer program instructions, which, when executed on a processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: establishing a plurality of communication channels between a plurality of agricultural machines located in a geographic area, each of the plurality of agricultural machines having functional capabilities, physical aspects, and a physical tangible resource; receiving data pertaining to the functional capabilities, the physical aspects, and a quantity, a quality, and a type of the physical tangible resource of each of the plurality of agricultural machines; determining a collaborative plan to complete a task using the plurality of agricultural machines based on the received data and a location at which the task will be performed; and transmitting at least a portion of the collaborative plan to each of the plurality of agricultural machines via the plurality of communication channels, the portion of the collaborative plan for controlling a respective one of the plurality of agricultural machines to perform its portion of the collaborative plan. 10. (Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory to store computer program instructions, which, when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: establishing a plurality of communication channels between a plurality of agricultural machines located in a geographic area, each of the plurality of agricultural machines having functional capabilities, physical aspects, and a physical tangible resource; receiving data pertaining to the functional capabilities, the physical aspects, and a quantity, a quality, and a type of the physical tangible resource of each of the plurality of agricultural machines; determining a collaborative plan to complete a task using the plurality of agricultural machines based on the received data and a location at which the task will be performed; and transmitting at least a portion of the collaborative plan to each of the plurality of agricultural machines via the plurality of communication channels, the portion of the collaborative plan for controlling a respective one of the plurality of agricultural machines to perform its portion of the collaborative plan. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because both applications describe similar limitations as shown in the attached exemplary comparison table above. 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 21, 29 and 36 are independent machine, machine and method claims respectively. Exemplary Analysis Claim 36: Ineligible. The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1--YES). The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of a method: determining a collaborative plan to complete a task based on the received data and a location at which the task will be performed; and transmitting the collaborative plan, wherein the collaborative plan pertains to a portion of a task to be completed. In other words, the claim applies generally to multiple machines participating in the same task, and more particularly to multi-machine collaborative farming (per Field of the Disclosure, in para [0002] of the Specification). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the plurality of machines. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES). Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: using the first machine and the second machine as in:-- receiving, at a device of a first machine, data from a second machine, wherein the data from the second machine pertains to functional capabilities of the second machine. These elements are considered extra-solution activities. The plurality of machines and devices in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors in said plurality of machines perform functions of processing data. These plurality of machines and devices with generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, this method claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO). Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements (of the plurality of machines and devices) in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because additional elements of the plurality of machines, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these plurality of machines and devices with generic processors are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) 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 (as it is here). Also, the instant application’s own Specification in paras [0021]-[0022] discloses --- {“[0021] Coordination among machines requires communication among those machines. Because of the mobility of the machines, communication among the machines is wireless. In one embodiment, communication among machines is facilitated by each machine communicating via a device to devices of other machines within range of a wireless transceiver of each device. A collaborative plan for a plurality of machines to complete a task (e.g., farming, construction, surface modification, etc.) can be determined by a device located one of the plurality of machines. A collaborative plan can also be determined by using two or more of the devices associated with the plurality of machines (e.g., distributed computing). Alternatively, a collaborative plan can be determined by a computing device located remote from each of the plurality of machines. For example, a computer that is in wireless communication with one or more of the plurality of machines can determine a collaborative plan. FIG. 4 depicts a flowchart of method 400 for MMCF. At step 402, a plurality of communication channels between a plurality of machines located in a geographic area are established. Machines, such as agricultural or construction machines, typically have trouble communicating over significant distances and cannot transmit through obstacles. ………………. [0022] FIG. 5 shows device 502 which includes a transceiver and is associated with an agricultural machine. Device 502 has signal range 520 which is the furthest distance at which device 502 can communicate with one of the other devices via one of a plurality of communication channels between device 502 and one of the other devices. In one embodiment, the signal range of device 502 is fixed (e.g., device 502 can communication in a range of approximately 3 kilometers). Device 502 is shown in FIG. 5 as having established a communication channel with each device 504, 506, 508, 510, and 512 within signal range 520 of device 502. Devices 514, 516, and 518 are located outside signal range 520 and device 502 is unable to establish a communication channel with each of those devices. In one embodiment, device 502 is also in communication with cloud 500 which, in one embodiment, is one or more computers located remote from device 502. In one embodiment, the area in which all of the devices that are in communication with each other are located is referred to as a geographic area. In one embodiment, the range of a particular device can be extended by using a plurality of additional devices located remote from the particular device.”} --- indicates that the concept of wireless communication between the plurality of machines is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent machine Claim 21 and independent machine Claim 29, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 36. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 37-40, further narrow the independent method Claim 36 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the data further pertains to physical aspects of the second machine, and a quantity, a quality, and a type of a physical tangible resource of the second machine; wherein the data further pertains to a location of the second machine; wherein the determining the collaborative pl further comprises: determining a plurality of operations for the first machine and the second machine; wherein the determining a plurality of operations comprises: determining a path for the first machine and a path for the second machine; ……; etc.) and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 36. Similarly, dependent machine Claims 22-28 and dependent machine Claims 30-35 also further narrow their respective independent Claims 21 and 29, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis. Therefore, said Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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 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. 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. The 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. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over a combination of references (Hurd and Ploeg for all independent claims, plus Walker, Halder and Kellner references for some dependent claims) as described below for each claim/ limitation. (NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 09/17/2024 are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.) With respect to Claim 21, Hurd teaches --- 21. (New) A machine comprising: an implement; (see at least: Hurd Abstract; and para [0009] about {“…… The system takes user inputs, or pre-configured data to create geographical field maps, machine and equipment settings and operation protocols then converts them into commands which can be used by the machine's controller to control all core aspects of mobility and operation remotely. Furthermore, the system gathers data from multiple machine controllers and other attached sensors which it uses to display relevant information, … which can be turned into commands to assist in the navigation or operation of the machine in real time. Lastly, the disclosure provides users with tools to define boundaries of operation, …”}; and para [0029] about {“…the user is asked to select from a list of agricultural vehicle or machine types …… the user can also add agricultural equipment (102) (such as a tillage tool, mower, grain cart or the like …”}; and para [0048] about {“…… a user will navigate to the machine tool in the cloud based server application (13). The user will be asked to choose the type of machine which will be used, …}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above per BRI rules to include ‘a machine’ and ‘an implement’) Hurd teaches --- a transceiver configured to receive data from a second machine, wherein the data from the second machine pertains to functional capabilities of the second machine; and (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a machine’; and para [0163] about {“…… along with the devices to communicate the data, whether they are in the vehicle as a transceiving device or transmitter …”}; and para [0025] about {“ …… local user interface (7) which when connected to first agricultural vehicle (1) and/or second agricultural vehicle (2) will allow for direct machine to machine connectivity and control through local Wi-Fi connection …”}; and para [0026] about {“….. which allows users to monitor and control the connected first agricultural vehicle (1), second agricultural vehicle (2) and any other vehicle as well as their associated agricultural equipment (102). …”}; and para [0031] about {“…… using the field creator tool with a mapping function that allows polygons to be drawn on a digital map interface then saved as a field. …”}; and para [0032] about {“…… the system (100) combines all of the saved data to generate an executable command(s) which is uploaded to the agricultural vehicle's (1,2) executive controller unit (3,9) and/or controlling computer or systems of computers and a series of checks and tests are completed to ensure functionality and safe operation. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above per BRI rules to include ‘a transceiver’ and ‘a second machine’ and ‘functional capabilities’) Hurd teaches --- a device comprising: a processor configured to: determine (a collaborative plan) to complete a task using the machine and the second machine based on the received data and a location at which the task will be performed, the transceiver further configured to transmit a portion of (the collaborative plan) to the second machine, wherein the portion of (the collaborative plan) pertains to a task to be completed by the second machine. (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a second machine’; and para [0009] about {“…… The system takes user inputs, or pre-configured data to create geographical field maps, machine and equipment settings and operation protocols then converts them into commands which can be used by the machine's controller to control all core aspects of mobility and operation remotely. … Lastly, the disclosure provides users with tools to define boundaries of operation, path plans based on the geographical area of use and operation protocols based on the field task to be done.”}; and para [0222] about {“The local 1208 box is a remote monitoring gateway computer capable of receiving data, managing it and storing it either locally and/or transferring it to other locations the local or other parts of the network are reached either through wire or wireless communication components housed in the protected PFN. PE is to indicate its double wall structure. …”}; and para [0412] about {“…… at least one two-way communication device capable of transmitting and receiving any specific signal responsively connectable to at least one processor stored in any fashion onboard, with off-board control options, data transfer options and memory storage for any purpose to at least at one remote location; any global positioning system, multi-tasking cellular phone with tracking or RF signal locating device responsively connectable to at least one processor capable of providing time, date and geographic data for any monitoring; and/or automated and remote control functions and/or robotics as well as to transfer this data to at least one remote location.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a device’ and ‘a processor’ and ‘a location’ and ‘a task’) Hurd teaches as disclosed above, but it may not explicitly disclose about ‘a collaborative plan’ (to complete a task). However, Ploeg teaches them explicitly. (see at least: Ploeg Abstract and Brief Summary of the Invention in paras [0005]-[0008]; and para [0045] about {“…… These task types may be segregated into groups, or placed in an order of importance, either by the project manager 230 or by the project plan collaboration module 100. The project manager 230 may set the threshold value to be membership in a group of tasks, or to be a certain duration a task may take to complete.”}; and para [0047] about {“… number of hours estimated for a certain task; number of team members allowed to charge time to a task; actual completion dates for a task; and cost, equipment, purchases, procurements, collaborations, or dependencies of or for the tasks within a the master project plan 126.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above including ‘a collaborative plan’ (to complete a task)) It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the teachings of Hurd with the teachings of Ploeg. The motivation to combine these references would be to allow the connection of any compatible device via the internet and connecting it to autonomous machinery the system presented herein gives users an easy and seamlessly way to configure, control, monitor and access data from their equipment while gaining a great deal of efficiency when conducting field operations (see para [0006] of Hurd), and to provide a project plan that also include dates or times when certain tasks are scheduled to be completed in order for the project to be completed on schedule and within an estimated budget (see para [0003] of Ploeg). Dependent Claim 22 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Hurd in view of Ploeg as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 21 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2008/ 0091309 filed by Walker, Richard C. (hereinafter “Walker”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation. With respect to Claim 22, Hurd and Ploeg teach --- 22. (New) The machine of claim 21, wherein the data further pertains to (physical aspects) of the second machine, and a quantity, a quality, and a type of (a physical tangible resource) of the second machine. (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a second machine’) (see at least: Ploeg ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a collaborative plan (to complete a task’)) Hurd and Ploeg teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘physical aspects’ and ‘a physical tangible resource’. However, Walker teaches them explicitly. (see at least: Walker Abstract and Field of the invention in paras [0003]-[0009]; and para [0091] about {“…… The prototype example system are GM Delco parts, that can be utilized even on other vehicles if so desired, but in no-means are they the only parts that can be utilized in this innovative manner. This Guidance System is the physical guidance system to create the second generation of PASSS and PAGSSS.”}; and para [0278] about {“Because this technology foresees the use of other energy sources that will create an inevitable and commercial turn towards the electric vehicle development in the near future, the need for a mechanical accelerator pedal transducer to convert physical pedal position into an electrical signal will have increased value. It will be the most ideal way to send a signal through a module or circuit to control drive motors or an Electric Wheel Configuration or electric flywheel transferring final drive system etc. to control motor RPMs and/or a power-train's RPM output in vehicles and/or any other so configured piece of equipment. …… All of this will also be controlled through TRAC's programmable and modular software in the PFN.”}; and para [0313] about {“…… In the motor or solenoid version C1, the seal could be reduced in its physical structure to be merely a wiper and guide device for the motor or solenoid applications. The pressure power could be provided by any number of systems but the sealing surfaces would naturally have to chemically and physically comply to the system chosen to perform this operation, e.g., coolant, power steering, automated brake systems, shock absorbent compressed air systems, and/or any compressed and/or accumulating system that can provide a safe regulated pressurized energy source and can be electrically controlled to deliver the power source by a specific electrical signal and incrementally in both directions, i.e., spindle and solenoid valves, motorized valves.….”}; and para [0394] about {“……The phone call cost or any charge for the look-see on arrival together with business ID for referral for the troubled motorist on their towed return home or decision to change service repair servers not stuck on the road the motorists availed to his own personal and social resources to pick his vehicle up and review his first offer and cost of repair. This freedom for the motorist is easily achieved, with all other equipped vehicles for tow with the same ability to couple and report on any mechanical and/or physical changes upon their hook up and record. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘physical aspects’ and ‘a physical tangible resource’) It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the teachings of Hurd and Ploeg with the teachings of Walker. The motivation to combine these references would be to allow the connection of any compatible device via the internet and connecting it to autonomous machinery the system presented herein gives users an easy and seamlessly way to configure, control, monitor and access data from their equipment while gaining a great deal of efficiency when conducting field operations (see para [0006] of Hurd), and to provide a project plan that also include dates or times when certain tasks are scheduled to be completed in order for the project to be completed on schedule and within an estimated budget (see para [0003] of Ploeg), and to work with all willing technologies to develop a secure and accountable communication and control systems for every piece of Machinery through a Machine Messaging Network/ MMN (see para [0012] of Walker). Dependent Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Hurd in view of Ploeg as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 21 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation. With respect to Claim 23, Hurd and Ploeg teach --- 23. (New) The machine of claim 21, wherein the data further pertains to a location of the second machine. (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a second machine’ and ‘a location’) (see at least: Ploeg ibidem and citations listed above) With respect to Claim 24, Hurd and Ploeg teach --- 24. (New) The machine of claim 21, wherein the determining the collaborative plan further comprises: determining a plurality of operations for the machine and the second machine. (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a second machine’) (see at least: Ploeg ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a collaborative plan (to complete a task’)) With respect to Claim 25, Hurd and Ploeg teach --- 25. (New) The machine of claim 24, wherein the determining a plurality of operations comprises: determining a path for the machine and a path for the second machine; determining a speed for the machine and the second machine to traverse their respective paths; and determining operation of the implement of the machine and an implement of the second machine. (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a second machine’; and para [0008] about {“The system presented in this disclosure uses devices connected to a server via the internet to send and receive data, configure operational settings, design operations and define geographical areas of operation which can be used to control systems onboard the machine that enable the electronic control of speed, steering and other components giving users the ability to have complete oversight and control of unmanned systems.”}; and para [0009] about {“…… operation protocols then converts them into commands which can be used by the machine's controller to control all core aspects of mobility and operation remotely. Furthermore, the system gathers data from multiple machine controllers and other attached sensors which it uses to display relevant information, such as position, on a graphical user interface to the user while also using the data to make calculations which can be turned into commands to assist in the navigation or operation of the machine in real time. Lastly, the disclosure provides users with tools to define boundaries of operation, path plans based on the geographical area of use and operation protocols based on the field task to be done.”}; and para [0011] about {“FIG. 2. is a plan view of a flowchart of one example of use of the system presented herein, the view showing a flowchart of one manner of operation of the agricultural operation and control application presented herein, the view showing a flowchart as to how to set up agricultural vehicles (machines), agricultural equipment, agricultural fields, agricultural operations, among other settings in the agricultural operation and control application presented herein;”}; and para [0031] about {“…… This action creates an field specific configuration file that is saved to a database then used by a connected machine during autonomous navigation and operation to define parameters and behaviors of the machine such as max turning radius, path planning goals, headland turning styles, or equipment settings.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a plurality of operations’; AND para [0031] about {“…… This action creates an field specific configuration file that is saved to a database then used by a connected machine during autonomous navigation and operation to define parameters and behaviors of the machine such as max turning radius, path planning goals, headland turning styles, or equipment settings.”}; and para [0040] about {“…… In doing so, the user may still find the system (100) is useful for monitoring a manned machine to log and view, machine position, speed, engine settings, operation progress and a variety of other data which can be gathered by connecting the necessary components to an agriculture vehicles (1,2) and associated agricultural equipment (102).”}; and para [0046] about {“For example, when designing a tillage operation, the user can define areas of the route to increase or decrease depth or speed of the tillage operation. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a path’ and ‘a speed’ and ‘respective paths’) (see at least: Ploeg ibidem and citations listed above) Dependent Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Hurd in view of Ploeg as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 21 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2020/ 0150687 filed by Halder et al. (hereinafter “Halder”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation. With respect to Claim 26, Hurd and Ploeg teach --- 26. (New) The machine of claim 25, wherein the determining the path for the machine and the path for the second machine comprises: determining (a start time) and (a start location) for the machine and the second machine. (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a second machine’ and ‘a path’) (see at least: Ploeg ibidem and citations listed above) Hurd and Ploeg teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘a start time’ and ‘a start location’. However, Halder teaches them explicitly. (see at least: Halder Abstract and Brief Summary in paras [0004]-[0013]; and para [0060] (a) about {“Task information 214 identifying the parameters of the task that describe information about particular of a task to be performed. …… In certain instances, a start time and an end time for the task may be provided.”}; and para [0109] about {“The example shown in FIG.10 illustrates three tasks T1 1002, T2 1004, and T3 1006 to be started at the same time and to be performed or executed by a set of AMs (i.e., trucks) managed by the FMS 102. …”}; AND para [0035] about {“… Other examples of an AM include, without limitation, a compactor, a digger, a spreader, surveying equipment, and the like. The AMs 106 may include one or more autonomous vehicles (AVs), where an AV is capable of autonomously sensing its environment and navigating or driving along a path from a starting location to a destination autonomously and substantially free of any human user or manual input. …”}; and para [0073](b) about {“The sequence of unit tasks performed autonomously by the dozer may involve (1) receiving and acknowledging by the dozer to the excavator that it has received information indicating that the excavator has finished its subtask and the dozer is ready to start its subtask, and (2) communicating with the truck to cause the truck to arrive at Location A, …”}; and para [0073](c) about {“The sequence of unit tasks performed autonomously by the truck may involve (1) receiving and responding to the dozer's communication that it is ready for loading the truck at Location A, …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a start time’ AND ‘a start location’) It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the teachings of Hurd and Ploeg with the teachings of Halder. The motivation to combine these references would be to allow the connection of any compatible device via the internet and connecting it to autonomous machinery the system presented herein gives users an easy and seamlessly way to configure, control, monitor and access data from their equipment while gaining a great deal of efficiency when conducting field operations (see para [0006] of Hurd), and to provide a project plan that also include dates or times when certain tasks are scheduled to be completed in order for the project to be completed on schedule and within an estimated budget (see para [0003] of Ploeg), and present tasks that are allocated and controlled, and how the tasks are performed by a set (or fleet) of autonomous machines, either individually or cooperatively (see para [0003] of Halder). With respect to Claim 27, Hurd, Ploeg and Halder teach --- 27. (New) The machine of claim 26, wherein the determining the path for the machine and the path for the second machine comprises: determining a period of time for the machine and the second machine to complete their respective paths. (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a second machine’ and ‘a path’ and ‘respective paths’) (see at least: Ploeg ibidem and citations listed above) (see at least: Halder ibidem and citations listed above; and para [0011] about {“In certain examples, the control system is configured to perform a method that determines an expected time of completion for each task in the set of one or more tasks and determines an availability of each AM in the set of AMs over a period of time to perform the set of one or more tasks. …”}; and para [0059] about {“… The task information 214 may identify a set of tasks to be performed within a certain time period. …”}; and para [0060](a) about {“… Information may also be provided identifying a time period within which the task is to be completed.”}; & para [0060](b) about {“… The resource information 216 may include information about the availability of resources for executing the set of tasks during different time periods.”}; and para [0096] about {“Differing availabilities of the resources over different time periods. …”}; and para [0102] about {“At 806, the FMS determines the resources(e.g., AMs) available at the site for performing the tasks and, for each resource, the availability of the resource over a period of time (referred to as a “shift”). …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations to include ‘a period of time’) Dependent Claim 28 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Hurd in view of Ploeg as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 21 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2016/ 0134994 filed by Kellner et al. (hereinafter “Kellner”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation. With respect to Claim 28, Hurd and Ploeg teach --- 28. (New) The machine of claim 21, the processor further configured to: establish a communication channel between the device and the second machine; determine that the (device cannot communicate) with the second machine; and establish a communication channel between the device and the second machine using a third device located on a third machine in response to determining that the (device cannot communicate) with the device of the second machine. (see at least: Hurd ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a second machine’; and para [0006] about {“Currently, the only way for users to simultaneously configure, control and monitor their equipment remotely is through machine to machine communication systems which do not allow full control of machinery and require human operators to be physically located in the machine. …”}; and para [0009] about {“…The system allows users to communicate directly to and coordinate the operation of multiple manned or unmanned machines simultaneously.…”}; and para [0034] about {“… The software program is in wireless communication with a controller (such as executive controller unit (3,9) and/or a controlling computer) on agricultural vehicle (1,2). …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a communication channel’) (see at least: Ploeg ibidem and citations listed above) Hurd, Walker and Ploeg teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘two devices cannot communicate’. However, Kellner teaches it explicitly. (see at least: Kellner Abstract and Brief Description in paras [0006]-[0009]; and para [0051] about {“For example, a determination may be made as to whether at least two or more communication devices 204 onboard the vehicle are operational. If only one or none of the communication devices 204 onboard the vehicle are operational, then the vehicle may not be capable of communication with other vehicles.”}; and para [0067] about {“For example, a determination may be made as to whether at least two or more communication devices 204 onboard one or more of the remote vehicles are operational. If only one or none of the communication devices 204 onboard one or more of the remote vehicles is operational, then that remote vehicle may not be capable of communication with the lead vehicle.”}; and para [0076] about {“the method also can include wirelessly communicating a first off-board message from the first communication device to one or more third communication devices disposed onboard the one or more second vehicles, determining receipt of the first off-board message at the one or more third communication devices, wirelessly receiving a second off-board message at the second communication device from the one or more third communication devices, …”}; and para [0086] about {“In one aspect, the first communication device also is configured to wirelessly communicate a first off-board message to one or more third communication devices disposed onboard the one or more second vehicles and the second communication device also is configured to wirelessly receive a second off-board message at the second communication device from the one or more third communication devices. The one or more processors can be configured to determine receipt of the first off-board message at the one or more third communication devices and receipt of the second off-board message at the second communication device. The one or more processors also may be configured to determine one or more third operative states of the one or more third communication devices based at least in part on the receipt of the first off-board message at the one or more third communication devices and the receipt of the second off-board message at the second communication device.”}; and Claims 6, 14 and 20; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘two devices cannot communicate’) It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the teachings of Hurd and Ploeg with the teachings of Kellner. The motivation to combine these references would be to allow the connection of any compatible device via the internet and connecting it to autonomous machinery the system presented herein gives users an easy and seamlessly way to configure, control, monitor and access data from their equipment while gaining a great deal of efficiency when conducting field operations (see para [0006] of Hurd), and to provide a project plan that also include dates or times when certain tasks are scheduled to be completed in order for the project to be completed on schedule and within an estimated budget (see para [0003] of Ploeg), and to provide known vehicle systems that use wireless communication between the locomotives for coordinating the tractive and/or braking efforts, and the remote locomotives receive the commands and implement the tractive efforts and/or braking efforts directed by the commands (see para [0003] of Kellner). With respect to Claims 29-35, the limitations of these machine claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 based on the exemplary analysis above for the rejection of machine Claims 21-28 as described above using cited references of Hurd and Ploeg for independent claim and some dependent claims, plus Walker, Halder and Kellner references for dependent claims, because the limitations of these machine Claims 29-35 are commensurate in scope to limitations, and thus duplicates, of the above rejected machine Claims 21-28 as described above. With respect to Claims 36-40, the limitations of these method claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 based on the exemplary analysis above for the rejection of machine Claims 21-28 as described above using cited references of Hurd and Ploeg for independent claim and some dependent claims, plus Walker, Halder and Kellner references for dependent claims, because the limitations of these method Claims 36-40 are commensurate in scope to limitations, and thus duplicates, of the above rejected machine Claims 21-28 as described above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Please Note that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application that form a part of the body of prior art. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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. Electronic Communications Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action. /S.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3691 sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov /HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691