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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: P[0001] recites, “EP 3 414 982 B1 describes a method for controlling an agricultural work machine in which an aerial drone for collision avoidance upon detecting an animal”. This sentence is missing an action for the aerial drone to perform for the collision avoidance.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0026], the acronym/abbreviation PLA is recited without the complete meaning of the acronym/abbreviation. The full wording should be included to clearly identify the meaning of the acronym/abbreviation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the phrase “area to be work” should be “area to be worked”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 thru 3 recite, “select the driving route such that the central part of the agricultural area is worked earlier at least two parts adjoining the central part on either side of the central part”. There appears to be a missing word or phrase. The examiner assumes it should be “select the driving route such that the central part of the agricultural area is worked earlier than at least two parts adjoining the central part on either side of the central part” for continued examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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 thru 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “store one or more strategies and environment data” in line 3. It is unclear what is to be stored, whether it is a strategy, or environment data, or strategy and environment data. The examiner assumes the line should add punctuation to recite, “store: one or more strategies, and environment data,” for continued examination (to store both strategy and environment data).
Claim 11 recites, “to select the strategy from the one or more strategies based on each of a season of year, an animal species to be protected, or a size of the agricultural area to be worked” in lines 1 thru 3. It is unclear because the strategies are selected based on “each of” the parameters and this would require that each parameter is needed for the selecting. The parameters are then separated by “or” which would require that only one are needed for the selecting. The examiner assumes the phrase should be “to select the strategy from the one or more strategies based on each of a season of year, an animal species to be protected, and a size of the agricultural area to be worked” for continued examination. This interpretation is based on the content of claim 10, and interpreted that claim 11 should be different from claim 10.
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 thru 8 and 10 thru 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A system configured to generate a driving route for one or more agricultural work machines and to automatically perform at least one operation with the driving route, the system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more strategies and environmental data regarding an agricultural area to be worked by the one or more agricultural work machines; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory configured to:
generate the driving route for the one or more agricultural work machines for working the agricultural area based on a strategy selected from the one or more strategies and based on the environmental data regarding the agricultural area so that the driving route guides one or more animals away from the agricultural area; and
automatically perform the at least operation with the driving route.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could determine a driving route for a vehicle to follow based on strategies and the environment. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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 such as 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system configured to generate a driving route for one or more agricultural work machines and to automatically perform at least one operation with the driving route (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more strategies and environmental data (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) regarding an agricultural area to be worked by the one or more agricultural work machines; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured to:
generate the driving route for the one or more agricultural work machines for working the agricultural area based on a strategy selected from the one or more strategies and based on the environmental data regarding the agricultural area so that the driving route guides one or more animals away from the agricultural area; and
automatically perform the at least operation with the driving route (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a memory and a processor, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of automatically perform the at least operation with the driving route, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). According to the specification P[0041], the automatic operation may include “automatically displaying the planned route on the display 14”. This is merely outputting of data and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the additional limitation of a memory and a processor, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of automatically perform the at least operation with the driving route, this additional limitation has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are not unconventional as they merely consist of data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a final step of performing an operation (displaying a route) to a process that only recites generating the driving route (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 8 and 10 thru 20 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims are directed to:
Claim 2 - environmental data regarding the agricultural area comprises a plurality of parcels adjacent to the agricultural area and which are not to be worked; and wherein the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to generate the driving route by: determining at least one parcel from the plurality of parcels that is suitable to guide the animals toward; and generating the driving route to guide the animals toward the at least one parcel.
Claim 3 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to determine the at least one parcel that is suitable to guide the animals to serve as an escape destination for animals from the agricultural area based on presence of vegetation on the at least one parcel and type of vegetation on the at least one parcel.
Claim 4 - the plurality of parcels cannot be traversed by the one or more agricultural work machines at least while the one or more agricultural work machines are working. (defining conditions)
Claim 5 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is further configured to: query the environmental data from one or both of a user or a database.
Claim 6 - the environmental data regarding the agricultural area comprises a plurality of parcels adjacent to the agricultural area and which are not to be worked; further comprising a user interface (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured to receive input from a user (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the input indicative of an expected escape direction for the animals; and wherein the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to generate the driving route by: determining at least one parcel from the plurality of parcels that is suitable to guide the animals toward; and generating the driving route to guide the animals toward the at least one parcel using the input from the user indicative of the expected escape direction for the animals.
Claim 7 - a display (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); wherein the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to automatically perform the at least operation with the driving route by automatically generating an output on the display indicative of an automatically suggested driving route and an indication of an automated expected escape direction for the animals (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); wherein, responsive to automatically generating the output on the display, the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to receive the input from the user indicative of the expected escape direction for the animals; and wherein, responsive to receiving the input from the user indicative of the expected escape direction for the animals, the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to modify the automatically suggested driving route to a different route.
Claim 8 - a display (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and wherein the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))is configured to automatically perform the at least operation with the driving route by automatically generating an output on the display indicative of an automatically suggested driving route and an indication of an automated expected escape direction for the animals (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is further configured to select the strategy from the one or more strategies based on one or more of a season of year, an animal species to be protected, or a size of the agricultural area to be worked.
Claim 11 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is further configured to select the strategy from the one or more strategies based on each of a season of year, an animal species to be protected, and a size of the agricultural area to be worked.
Claim 12 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to generate the driving route by: determining at least one parcel that is adjacent to the agricultural area to be work as a safe area for the animals to move to from the agricultural area; selecting at least one subsection of the agricultural area that is adjacent to the at least one parcel; and determining the driving route by working the at least one subsection of the agricultural area that is adjacent to the at least one parcel before at least one other subsection of the agricultural area.
Claim 13 - the at least one subsection of the agricultural area that is adjacent to the at least one parcel comprises a strip; and wherein the at least one other subsection of the agricultural area is perpendicular to the strip.
Claim 14 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to generate the driving route so that a subsection that is further away from the at least one parcel that is the safe area is worked prior to at least one subsection that is adjacent to the at least one parcel.
Claim 15 - the subsection that is further away from the at least one parcel comprises a central part of the agricultural area to be worked.
Claim 16 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to generate the driving route by: selecting the driving route such that the central part and one or more edge parts flanking the central part are worked prior to the at least one subsection that is adjacent to the at least one parcel.
Claim 17 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to select the driving route such that the central part of the agricultural area is worked later than the one or more edge parts.
Claim 18 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to select the driving route such that the central part of the agricultural area is worked earlier at least two parts adjoining the central part on either side of the central part.
Claim 19 - the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to select the driving route to run predominantly parallel to an edge of the agricultural area adjacent to which is a parcel suitable as a cover or way of escape for the animals.
Claim 20 - a user interface (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and wherein the at least one processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is further configured to: display on the user interface the driving route (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); receive input via the user interface from a user (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); revise the driving route based on the input from the user; and display the revised driving route on the user interface (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea (as indicated). They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim 9 is not included in the 101 rejection because the claimed “automatically control” is interpreted to be actual control of the vehicle to drive along the generated driving route (practical application of the abstract idea).
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.
Claim(s) 1 thru 3, 5, 6, 9 thru 12 and 14 thru 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santana et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0154694 A1 in view of Grundey et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0097023 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Santana et al teach the claimed system to generate a route for one or more agricultural work machines and to automatically perform at least one operation with the route, the livestock management system (Figure 1), “At step 205, the system may define routes to the selected AOIs combining UAV 105's autonomy and livestock autonomy.” (P[0044] and Figure 2), the system comprising:
the claimed at least one memory to store strategies and environmental data regarding the agricultural area to be worked by the agricultural work machine, the UAV includes a processor executing instructions stored in a memory P[0025], the main network node includes a processor executing instructions stored in a memory P[0041], and “At step 210, the system may create a model that can be instantiated in one or more UAVs 105. The model can be defined for a period of time (e.g., a day or week). The model specifies expected environmental characteristics (e.g., weather, precipitation), characteristics of individual animals, and actions to take when any of the characteristics change from the expected behavior. For example, the model may enable identification of metric outliers. Examples of ways to calculate outliers include, but are not restricted to, using mean plus/minus standard deviation measures and interquartile ranges.” (P[0045] and Figure 2); and
the claimed at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, the UAV includes a processor executing instructions stored in a memory P[0025], and the main network node includes a processor executing instructions stored in a memory P[0041], configured to:
the claimed generate the route for the agricultural work machine for working the agricultural area based on a selected strategy and based on the environmental data regarding the agricultural area to so that the route guides animals away from the agricultural area, “At step 205, the system may define routes to the selected AOIs combining UAV 105's autonomy and livestock autonomy.” P[0044], “At step 210, the system may create a model that can be instantiated in one or more UAVs 105. The model can be defined for a period of time (e.g., a day or week). The model specifies expected environmental characteristics (e.g., weather, precipitation), characteristics of individual animals, and actions to take when any of the characteristics change from the expected behavior.” P[0045], and “At step 220, the system may guide livestock according to the model.” (P[0047] and Figure 2); and
the claimed automatically perform the at least one operation with the route, “At step 235, the system may update the defined routes based on the observations of the environment and the individual animals.” P[0050], “At step 245, the system may upload data from the UAVs 105 to the main network node 155.” P[0052], and “At step 250, the system may receive data from the UAVs and update the central databases (e.g., the databases and KBs located in the main network node 155).” (P[0053] and Figure 2).
Santana et al do not explicitly teach the claimed driving route (i.e. land vehicle route), but instead teach a route for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The determination and defining of a route for a UAV can be applied to a route for a ground vehicle. Grundey et al teach, “A system for herding a group of animals includes a master autonomous vehicle including a controller, a camera in communication with the controller for supplying image data to the controller, a global positioning satellite apparatus for determining a position of the master autonomous vehicle, and a ranging unit for determining a distance to an object to the autonomous vehicle in communication with the controller. The system further includes a plurality of client autonomous vehicles, each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles being operated by the controller of the master autonomous vehicle and a herding apparatus for keeping the group of animals between the master autonomous vehicle and each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles.” (abstract and Figures 1 and 2). The operations and routing of the UAVs of Santana et al would be applied to the autonomous vehicles of Grundey et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al with the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, control the movement of livestock under the direction of a person (Grundey et al P[0003]).
Regarding claim 2 Santana et al teach the claimed environmental data regarding the agricultural area comprises a plurality of parcels adjacent to the agricultural area and are not to be worked, “AOI selection component 160 may select an area of interest (AOI) from among a plurality of AOIs as a target AOI. In some examples, selecting the AOI as the target AOI is based on at least one of a weather forecast of each of the plurality of AOIs, environmental data of each of the plurality of AOIs, or geographic data of each of the plurality of AOIs.” P[0041], the plurality of AOIs equate to the claimed plurality of parcels, and the AOIs that are not the target AOI equate to the claimed not to be worked; and
the claimed determining at least one parcel that is suitable to guide the animals toward, “selecting the AOI as the target AOI is based on at least one of a weather forecast of each of the plurality of AOIs, environmental data of each of the plurality of AOIs, or geographic data of each of the plurality of AOIs” P[0041]; and
the claimed generating the route to guide the animals toward the at least one parcel, “Route defining component 165 may define a route along which livestock is to be guided to the target AOI.” P[0041].
Santana et al do not explicitly teach the claimed driving route (i.e. land vehicle route), but instead teach a route for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The determination and defining of a route for a UAV can be applied to a route for a ground vehicle. Grundey et al teach, “A system for herding a group of animals includes a master autonomous vehicle including a controller, a camera in communication with the controller for supplying image data to the controller, a global positioning satellite apparatus for determining a position of the master autonomous vehicle, and a ranging unit for determining a distance to an object to the autonomous vehicle in communication with the controller. The system further includes a plurality of client autonomous vehicles, each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles being operated by the controller of the master autonomous vehicle and a herding apparatus for keeping the group of animals between the master autonomous vehicle and each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles.” (abstract and Figures 1 and 2). The operations and routing of the UAVs of Santana et al would be applied to the autonomous vehicles of Grundey et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al with the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, control the movement of livestock under the direction of a person (Grundey et al P[0003]).
Regarding claim 3 Santana et al teach the claimed determine the at least one parcel that is suitable to guide the animals to serve as an escape destination for animals from the agricultural areas based on presence of vegetation on the parcel and type of vegetation on the parcel, “selecting the AOI as the target AOI is based on at least one of a weather forecast of each of the plurality of AOIs, environmental data of each of the plurality of AOIs, or geographic data of each of the plurality of AOIs” P[0041], and “The main network node 155 may maintain a weather forecast database 184 including data such as forecasts for temperature, precipitation, humidity, and wind speeds. A central environment KB 186 may include other information relating to the environment such as location information, and observations about locations. The central environment KB 186 may also include fauna and flora information (e.g., to inform the UAVs 105 regarding what plants and animals to expect in the vicinity of the pasture). The main network node 155 may also maintain a central model KB 182, which may include information regarding tasks and operational parameters of the UAVs 105 within the livestock management system 100.” P[0023].
Regarding claim 5 Santana et al teach the claimed query the environmental data for one or bother of a user or a database, “The main network node 155 may maintain a weather forecast database 184 including data such as forecasts for temperature, precipitation, humidity, and wind speeds. A central environment KB 186 may include other information relating to the environment such as location information, and observations about locations. The central environment KB 186 may also include fauna and flora information (e.g., to inform the UAVs 105 regarding what plants and animals to expect in the vicinity of the pasture).” P[0023].
Regarding claim 6 Santana et al teach the claimed environmental data regarding the agricultural area comprises a plurality of parcels adjacent to the agricultural area and are not to be worked, “AOI selection component 160 may select an area of interest (AOI) from among a plurality of AOIs as a target AOI. In some examples, selecting the AOI as the target AOI is based on at least one of a weather forecast of each of the plurality of AOIs, environmental data of each of the plurality of AOIs, or geographic data of each of the plurality of AOIs.” P[0041], the plurality of AOIs equate to the claimed plurality of parcels, and the AOIs that are not the target AOI equate to the claimed not to be worked;
the claimed determining at least one parcel that is suitable to guide the animals toward, “selecting the AOI as the target AOI is based on at least one of a weather forecast of each of the plurality of AOIs, environmental data of each of the plurality of AOIs, or geographic data of each of the plurality of AOIs” P[0041]; and
the claimed generating the route to guide the animals toward the at least one parcel, “Route defining component 165 may define a route along which livestock is to be guided to the target AOI.” P[0041].
Santana et al do not teach the claimed user interface to receive input from a user indicative of an expected escape direction for the animals, but a remote user’s computer provides instructions to the UAVs P[0090] (claimed user interface to receive input from a user). Grundey et al teach, “The master communication unit 40a may also include an embedded cellular telephone to enable communication from a user (not shown) at a remote location to the master autonomous vehicle 10a and the herding system 110. The user may provide commands to the herding system about where to move the group of animals 100 or to return the group of animals to a home base of operation, such as a barn, cattle stall, livestock shed, or cot.” P[0021], the commands where to move the animals equate to the claimed expected escape direction for the animals. Additionally, Santana et al do not explicitly teach the claimed driving route (i.e. land vehicle route), but instead teach a route for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The determination and defining of a route for a UAV can be applied to a route for a ground vehicle. Grundey et al teach, “A system for herding a group of animals includes a master autonomous vehicle including a controller, a camera in communication with the controller for supplying image data to the controller, a global positioning satellite apparatus for determining a position of the master autonomous vehicle, and a ranging unit for determining a distance to an object to the autonomous vehicle in communication with the controller. The system further includes a plurality of client autonomous vehicles, each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles being operated by the controller of the master autonomous vehicle and a herding apparatus for keeping the group of animals between the master autonomous vehicle and each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles.” (abstract and Figures 1 and 2). The operations and routing of the UAVs of Santana et al would be applied to the autonomous vehicles of Grundey et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al with the autonomous wheeled vehicles and remote commands for moving the animals of Grundey et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, control the movement of livestock under the direction of a person (Grundey et al P[0003]).
Regarding claim 9 Santana et al teach the claimed agricultural work machines are autonomous agricultural work machines, the system uses unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)s P[0001]; and
the claimed at least partly automatically control the autonomous agricultural work machine to automatically control the machines along the route, “At step 220, the system may guide livestock according to the model.” (P[0047] and Figure 2).
Santana et al do not explicitly teach the claimed driving route (i.e. land vehicle route), but instead teach a route for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The determination and defining of a route for a UAV can be applied to a route for a ground vehicle. Grundey et al teach, “A system for herding a group of animals includes a master autonomous vehicle including a controller, a camera in communication with the controller for supplying image data to the controller, a global positioning satellite apparatus for determining a position of the master autonomous vehicle, and a ranging unit for determining a distance to an object to the autonomous vehicle in communication with the controller. The system further includes a plurality of client autonomous vehicles, each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles being operated by the controller of the master autonomous vehicle and a herding apparatus for keeping the group of animals between the master autonomous vehicle and each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles.” (abstract and Figures 1 and 2). The operations and routing of the UAVs of Santana et al would be applied to the autonomous vehicles of Grundey et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al with the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, control the movement of livestock under the direction of a person (Grundey et al P[0003]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11 Santana et al teach the claimed select the strategy based on a season, an animal species to be protected and/or a size of the area, “AOI selection component 160 may select an area of interest (AOI) from among a plurality of AOIs as a target AOI. In some examples, selecting the AOI as the target AOI is based on at least one of a weather forecast of each of the plurality of AOIs, environmental data of each of the plurality of AOIs, or geographic data of each of the plurality of AOIs.” P[0041], “At step 210, the system may create a model that can be instantiated in one or more UAVs 105. The model can be defined for a period of time (e.g., a day or week). The model specifies expected environmental characteristics (e.g., weather, precipitation), characteristics of individual animals, and actions to take when any of the characteristics change from the expected behavior.” (P[0045] and Figure 2), and “At step 420, the system may compare the captured image with a plurality of images stored in a database (e.g., the central livestock KB 188), in which the plurality of images represent an animal type of the livestock.” (P[0065] and Figure 4). The define time period equates to the claimed season, the animal characteristics equate to the claimed animal species, and the geographic data equates to the claimed size of the area.
Regarding claim 12 Santana et al and Grundey et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 to generate the driving route (see above) by:
the claimed determining at least one parcel that is adjacent to the agricultural area to be worked as a safe area for animals to move to from the agricultural area, “selecting the AOI as the target AOI is based on at least one of a weather forecast of each of the plurality of AOIs, environmental data of each of the plurality of AOIs, or geographic data of each of the plurality of AOIs” P[0041], “UAVs 105 may redirect livestock as a result of weather changes (e.g., to avoid heat stress)” P[0017], and “At step 225, the system may monitor the environment and predict stress situations. If environmental factors indicate a likelihood of a stress situation, a UAV 105 may respond with actions to avoid the stress based on previously stored information.” (P[0048] and Figure 2);
the claimed selecting at least one subsection of the agricultural area that is adjacent to the parcel, “AOI selection component 160 may select an area of interest (AOI) from among a plurality of AOIs as a target AOI.” P[0041]; and
the claimed determining the route by working the at least one subsection of the agricultural that is adjacent to the at least one parcel before at least one other subsection of the agricultural area, “Route defining component 165 may define a route along which livestock is to be guided to the target AOI.” P[0041], the target AOI would be use before another AOI of the plurality of AOIs.
Santana et al do not explicitly teach the claimed driving route (i.e. land vehicle route), but instead teach a route for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The determination and defining of a route for a UAV can be applied to a route for a ground vehicle. Grundey et al teach, “A system for herding a group of animals includes a master autonomous vehicle including a controller, a camera in communication with the controller for supplying image data to the controller, a global positioning satellite apparatus for determining a position of the master autonomous vehicle, and a ranging unit for determining a distance to an object to the autonomous vehicle in communication with the controller. The system further includes a plurality of client autonomous vehicles, each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles being operated by the controller of the master autonomous vehicle and a herding apparatus for keeping the group of animals between the master autonomous vehicle and each of the plurality of client autonomous vehicles.” (abstract and Figures 1 and 2). The operations and routing of the UAVs of Santana et al would be applied to the autonomous vehicles of Grundey et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al with the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, control the movement of livestock under the direction of a person (Grundey et al P[0003]).
Regarding claims 14 thru 19 Santana et al do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. The limitations of claims 14 thru 19 are directed to the selection of different driving routes for various arrangements of the areas of land. The selection of routes by Santana et al is performed based on a model (“At step 210, the system may create a model that can be instantiated in one or more UAVs 105. The model can be defined for a period of time (e.g., a day or week). The model specifies expected environmental characteristics (e.g., weather, precipitation), characteristics of individual animals, and actions to take when any of the characteristics change from the expected behavior.” P[0045] and Figure 2). The claimed different configurations of the subsections of land and claimed selection of routes would be included in the environmental and animal characteristics to define the route of Santana et al (Figure 2). Santana et al teach, “At step 205, the system may define routes to the selected AOIs combining UAV 105's autonomy and livestock autonomy. The UAV 105's autonomy is combined with the docks spread over the pasture. In this step, the system may also consider specific information from individual animals, combining mobility metrics to match the defined route for the livestock.” P[0044], and “At step 235, the system may update the defined routes based on the observations of the environment and the individual animals.” P[0050]. The defining of the routes based on the environment and the animals would be used to make the claimed route selections of claims 14 thru 19. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the environment and animal characteristics to define the UAV routes of the livestock management system of Santana et al be applied to different criteria based on the land and animals in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce stress, improve wellness, increase fertility, improve milk production, and improve meat quality (Santana et al P[0013]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santana et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0154694 A1 and Grundey et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0097023 A1 as applied to claims 1 thru 3 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0066456 A1.
Regarding claim 4 Santana et al and Grundey et al do not teach the claimed plurality of parcels cannot be traversed by the agricultural work machines while the work machines are working. This limitation is interpreted as certain areas being restricted to the work vehicles. Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al teach, “the robot may avoid entering particular areas of the environment” P[0686], “The processor may restrict zones to being rectangular (or having some other defined number of vertices or sides) and may restrict the robot to entering a zone at a corner and to driving a serpentine routine (or other driving routine) in either x- or y-direction such that the trajectory ends at another corner of the zone.” P[1164], and “Additional to adjusting the perimeter lines of the two-dimensional map 22304, the user can create boundaries anywhere, regardless of whether an actual perimeter exists in the environment. In the example shown, the perimeter line in the corner 22308 has been redrawn to exclude the area near the corner. The robot will thus avoid entering this area. This may be useful for keeping the robot out of certain areas” P[1407]. The user inputs the areas that the robot is not allowed, this equates to the claimed plurality of parcels cannot be traversed, and the robot equates to the UAVs of Santana et al. The do not enter zones of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al would be applied to the UAVs of Santana et al as no fly zones of the UAVs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al and the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al with the do not enter zones of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve performance and reduce costs (Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al P[0241]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santana et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0154694 A1 and Grundey et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0097023 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Castelli et al Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0049407 A1.
Regarding claim 13 Santana et al and Grundey et al do not explicitly teach the claimed at least one subsection of the agricultural area is a strip, and the claimed at least one other subsection of the agricultural area is perpendicular to the strip. But these limitations merely describe designated shapes of an area of land. It is common and well known to divide areas of land into various shapes. Castelli et al teach, different zones of land (Figure 5) including zone 508 with a zone 506 to the left of 508 (claimed strip that is adjacent to the parcel), and zone 506 that is above 508 (claimed other subsection that is perpendicular to the strip). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al and the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al with the designated zone of land of Castelli et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, protect quality of foraging locations from deterioration and maintain biodiversity (Castelli et al P[0003]).
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santana et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0154694 A1 and Grundey et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0097023 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Azran et al Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0263135 A1.
Regarding claim 7 Santana et al teach the claimed Santana et al and Grundey et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above).
Santana et al and Grundey et al do not teach the claimed display, the claimed automatically generating an output on the display that suggests a driving route and an expected escape direction for the animals, the claimed user input indicative of the expected escape direction, and the claimed modify suggested driving route to a different route. The remote computer of Santana et al would typically include a display. Azran et al teach:
the claimed display, visual displays (Figures 1A thru 2, and Figures 4 thru 5H),
the claimed automatically generating an output on the display that suggests a driving route and an expected escape direction for the animals, the flight pattern 22 GFP for the drones (Figures 1A thru 1O) (claimed output on the display that suggests a driving route), and “The intended gesture direction GD of a given DHG is a direction of motion of a herd or herd animal that the given gesture is intended to generate or affect.” P[0019], and “FIG. 4 schematically shows a herding plan route 220” P[0031] (claimed expected escape direction);
the claimed user input indicative of the expected escape direction, “HeMan 30 may receive a suggested herding route from a user. Optionally HeMan comprises software executable to integrate route herding suggestions made by a user with herding route segments autonomously determined by HeMan to provide a herding route along which to drive animals 120 to corral 106.” P[0030]; and
the claimed modify suggested driving route to a different route, “A flight plan may be determined by a user, the HeMan hub, and/or the controller of the at least one drone cowboy.” P[0008], and “To facilitate clustering, the drone cowboy may reduce radius of curvature of the arc flight pattern 22 and/or change direction 21 of the flight pattern during execution of DHG-1 until the herd is clustered as desired.” P[0022].
The display of Azran et al would be used in the system of Santana et al as information presented to the user on the remote computer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al and the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al with the display of drone routing and herding plan of Azran et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, perform efficient herding of the animals (Azran et al P[0009]).
Regarding claim 8 Santana et al and Grundey et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Santana et al and Grundey et al do not teach the claimed display, and the claimed automatically generating an output on the display that suggests a driving route and an expected escape direction for the animals. The remote computer of Santana et al would typically include a display. Azran et al teach the claimed display, a visual displays (Figures 1A thru 2, and Figures 4 thru 5H), and the claimed automatically generating an output on the display that suggests a driving route and an expected escape direction for the animals, the flight pattern 22 GFP for the drones (Figures 1A thru 1O) (claimed output on the display that suggests a driving route), and “The intended gesture direction GD of a given DHG is a direction of motion of a herd or herd animal that the given gesture is intended to generate or affect.” P[0019], and “FIG. 4 schematically shows a herding plan route 220” P[0031] (claimed expected escape direction). The display of Azran et al would be used in the system of Santana et al as information presented to the user on the remote computer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al and the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al with the display of drone routing and herding plan of Azran et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, perform efficient herding of the animals (Azran et al P[0009]).
Regarding claim 20 Santana et al and Grundey et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above), further comprising: Santana et al teach,
the claimed user interface, “The computer readable program instructions may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).” P[0090], the user’s computer equates to the claimed user interface.
Santana et al do not teach the claimed display on the user interface the route, the claimed receive input via the user interface from a user, the claimed revise the driving route based on the input from the user, and the claimed display the revised driving route on the user interface.
Azran et al teach,
the claimed display on the user interface the route, visual displays include drone routes 22 and herd routing 220 (Figures 1A thru 2, and Figures 4 thru 5H);
the claimed receive input via the user interface from a user, “HeMan 30 may receive a suggested herding route from a user. Optionally HeMan comprises software executable to integrate route herding suggestions made by a user with herding route segments autonomously determined by HeMan to provide a herding route along which to drive animals 120 to corral 106.” P[0030];
the claimed revise the driving route based on the input from the user, “A flight plan may be determined by a user, the HeMan hub, and/or the controller of the at least one drone cowboy.” P[0008], and “To facilitate clustering, the drone cowboy may reduce radius of curvature of the arc flight pattern 22 and/or change direction 21 of the flight pattern during execution of DHG-1 until the herd is clustered as desired.” P[0022]; and
the claimed display the revised driving route on the user interface, visual displays include drone routes 22 and herd routing 220 (Figures 5A thru 5H).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the livestock management system of Santana et al and the autonomous wheeled vehicles of Grundey et al with the display of drone routing and herding plan of Azran et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, perform efficient herding of the animals (Azran et al P[0009]).
Related Art
The examiner points to Niewohner et al PGPub 2024/0341289 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Niewohner et al is directed to a system and method for moving animals (see Figures 5A and 5B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662