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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 28, 2024. Claims 1-17 are pending and are examined below.
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12201044 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wallach et al., US20210022282A1, hereinafter referred to as Wallach, respectively.
As to claim 1, Wallach discloses a method for executing agricultural actions on an agricultural field comprising:
determining a nominal blade separation distance for a weeding module of an autonomous agricultural system (Control blade position via blade actuators – See at least Abstract; Examiner notes blade position is indicative of a nominal blade separation distance in that nominal is understood as a control system input.);
at the autonomous agricultural system, while traversing the agricultural field (Autonomous operation – See at least ¶47):
detecting a first target plant aligned with the weeding module (Sensors for observing plants in target row to maintained – See at least ¶52 and Fig. 4);
autonomously controlling a first weeding action based on a location of the first target plant (Autonomous operation – See at least ¶47; Weeding, i.e., “a first weeding action,” in response to tracking plant position – See at least Abstract), comprising:
in response to the first target plant approaching the weeding module, autonomously triggering the weeding module to open a set of weeding blades to the nominal blade separation distance (Can leave blades closed until approaching plant – See at least ¶44; Examiner notes ¶44 of Wallach is discussing the prior art with respect t Wallach, however, Wallach builds on the prior art – See at least ¶47; Feedback controlled blade actuation – See at least ¶47; Variable blade speed actuators – See at last ¶19; Examiner notes feedback necessarily requires an initial, i.e., “nominal,” value.); and
in response to the first target plant passing the weeding module, triggering the weeding module to close the set of weeding blades (Modify blade actuation in accordance with feedback – See at least ¶47; Examiner notes this blade actuation can include opening or closing the weeding blades as necessary as shown in Fig. 4); and
based on sensor feedback, characterizing a motion for the first weeding action (Modify blade actuation, i.e., “motion for weeding action,” in accordance with feedback – See at least ¶47.);
providing feedback to a remote computing system comprising: the motion for the first weeding action and at least one image of the first target plant (Modify blade actuation in accordance with feedback – See at least ¶47; Analyze camera images – See at least Abstract; Remote control based in part on image data to perform disclosed weeding operations – See at least ¶67);
responsive to the feedback, adjusting the nominal blade separation distance for the weeding module (Continuous feedback control and blade trajectory based on maintaining appropriate distance so as to not disturb plant, i.e., distance is maintained to ensure zero plant motion – See at least ¶53 and Fig. 7); and
at the autonomous agriculture system, controlling a second weeding action based on the adjusted nominal blade separation distance (Continuous operation, i.e., first, second, third, etc., weeding actions – See at least ¶53).
As to claim 6, Wallach discloses prior to the second weeding action: resetting the weeding module from the remote computing system (Continuous and iterative feedback – See at least ¶55 and Fig. 5; Examiner notes no details are provided as to what reset means therefore Wallach’s disclosure regarding a continuously adjustable weeding action meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “resetting” because Wallach’s control system adapts to necessary conditions.).
As to claim 10, Wallach discloses the feedback comprises: the location of the first target plant, a plant type of the first plant, a plant size of the first plant, and a set of weeding metrics (Feedback control of blades for weeding various crops, wherein plants may be of various sizes and shapes, i.e., “types” and “maturity,” and corresponding blade control, i.e., “weeding metrics” – See at least ¶47 and 55 and Fig. 5; Examiner notes size and shape can indicate both crop type and maturity, as different sizes and shapes are indicative of types, and maturity in that larger plants are typically more mature than smaller plants.).
As to claim 11, Wallach discloses the set of weeding metrics comprises a count of weeding actions (Repetition at any desired frequency – See at least ¶55).
As to claim 12, Wallach discloses a method comprising: at an autonomous agriculture system which is traversing in an agricultural field:
detecting a first target plant aligned with an actuator (Sensors for observing plants in target row to maintained – See at least ¶52 and Fig. 4);
autonomously controlling the actuator based on a location of the first target plant and a set of control parameters Autonomous operation – See at least ¶47; Plant position – See at least Abstract and Fig. 5); and
based on sensor feedback, characterizing a motion of the actuator (Feedback controlled blade actuation, including blade trajectories – See at least ¶47 and Fig. 5);
providing, to a remote computing system comprising, feedback with a request for remote assistance, the feedback comprising: the motion and at least one image of the first target plant (Modify blade actuation in accordance with feedback – See at least ¶47; Analyze camera images – See at least Abstract; Remote control based in part on image data to perform disclosed weeding operations – See at least ¶67);
responsive to the feedback, adjusting the set of control parameters for the weeding module (Continuous feedback control and blade trajectory based on maintaining appropriate distance so as to not disturb plant, i.e., distance is maintained to ensure zero plant motion – See at least ¶53 and Fig. 7); and
at the autonomous agriculture system, controlling the actuator based on the adjusted set of control parameters (Continuous operation – See at least ¶53 and Fig. 5).
As to claim 16, Wallach discloses the feedback comprises: the location of the first target plant, a plant type of the first plant, a plant size of the first plant, and a set of actuation metrics (Feedback control of blades for weeding various crops, wherein plants may be of various sizes and shapes, i.e., “types” and “maturity,” and corresponding blade control, i.e., “actuation metrics” – See at least ¶47 and 55 and Fig. 5; Examiner notes size and shape can indicate both crop type and maturity, as different sizes and shapes are indicative of types, and maturity in that larger plants are typically more mature than smaller plants. )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al., US20210022282A1, in view of Wang et al., US 20210192180 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wallach, and Wang, respectively.
As to claims 2 and 13, Wallach discloses the sensor feedback comprises a sequence of images captured during the first weeding action (Imaging as autonomous vehicle performs weeding in a continuous loop, i.e., “over time” – See at least ¶53). Wallach fails to explicitly disclose wherein the motion comprises a centroid motion of the first target across the sequence of images. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wallach and include the feature of the motion comprises a centroid motion of the first target across the sequence of images, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Wang teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of object tracking to use centroids (See at least ¶6-7 and claim 1 of Wang).
As to claim 3, Wallach discloses determining terminal weeding associated with the first target plant based on satisfaction of a motion threshold (Feedback loop for controlling weeding, i.e. “terminal weeding,” and motion of blades – See at least ¶55 and Fig. 5. Examiner notes feedback necessarily includes thresholds in order to effect changes in each feedback iteration.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al., US20210022282A1, in view of Wang et al., US 20210192180 A1, as applied above to claim 3, further in view of Russo et al., US 20220327183 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wallach, Wang, and Russo, respectively.
As to claim 4, the combination of Wallach and Wang fails to explicitly disclose providing feedback to the remote computing system occurs responsive to the determination of terminal weeding associated with the first target plant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wallach and Wang and include the feature of providing feedback to the remote computing system occurs responsive to the determination of terminal weeding associated with the first target plant, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Russo teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of autonomous vehicle control to remote a vehicle’s status, e.g., completion of a task like performing weeding, to a remote operator (Information communicated to remote operator – See at least ¶72).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al., US20210022282A1, in view of Clark et al., US 11919636 B2, hereinafter referred to as Wallach, and Clark, respectively.
As to claim 5, Wallach discloses providing feedback to a remote computing system further comprises: a current blade separation distance (Modify blade actuation in accordance with feedback – See at least ¶47; Analyze camera images – See at least Abstract; Remote control based in part on image data to perform disclosed weeding operations – See at least ¶67; Examiner notes blade position, i.e., “current blade separation distance” is necessary for Wallach’s blade/weeding control.).
Wallach fails to explicitly disclose streaming video. However, Clark teaches streaming video (Streaming video – See at least Col. 20 Lines 28-31).
Wallach discloses an autonomous weeding vehicle that communicates with a remote operator. Clark teaches streaming video is a well-known and routine features of remote control vehicle arrangements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wallach and include the feature of streaming video, as taught by Clark, with a reasonable expectation of success, because streaming video is a well-known and routine features of remote control vehicle arrangements like the remote control vehicle of Wallach.
Claims 7, 8, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al., US20210022282A1, in view of Silver et al., US 20200057443 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wallach, and Silver, respectively.
As to claim 7, Wallach discloses adjusting the nominal blade separation distance comprises at the autonomous agriculture vehicle, automatically calculating the adjusted nominal blade separation distance based on the sensor feedback (Continuous feedback control and blade trajectory based on maintaining appropriate distance so as to not disturb plant, i.e., distance is maintained to ensure zero plant motion – See at least ¶53 and Fig. 7).
Wallach fails to explicitly disclose prompting verification by a remote human operator via the remote computing system. However, Silver teaches it is well-known in the art of autonomous vehicle control to query remote operators for confirmation when an autonomous vehicle encounters specific circumstances that require human attention (See at least ¶62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wallach and include the feature of prompting verification by a remote human operator via the remote computing system, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Silver teaches it is well-known in the art of autonomous vehicle control to query remote operators for confirmation when an autonomous vehicle encounters specific circumstances that require human attention, like the claimed blade actuation.
As to claim 8, Wallach fails to explicitly disclose prompting verification occurs responsive to satisfaction of a threshold deviation a nominal parameter value. However, Silver teaches it is well-known in the art of autonomous vehicle control to query remote operators for confirmation when an autonomous vehicle encounters specific circumstances that require human attention that are determined by monitoring various parameters (See at least ¶62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wallach and include the feature of prompting verification occurs responsive to satisfaction of a threshold deviation a nominal parameter value, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Silver teaches it is well-known in the art of autonomous vehicle control to query remote operators for confirmation when an autonomous vehicle encounters specific circumstances that require human attention that are determined by monitoring various parameters.
As to claim 9, Wallach fails to explicitly disclose the feedback comprises a request for remote assistance. However, Silver teaches it is well-known in the art of autonomous vehicle control to query remote operators for confirmation when an autonomous vehicle encounters specific circumstances that require human attention that are determined by monitoring various parameters (See at least ¶62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wallach and include the feature of the feedback comprises a request for remote assistance, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Silver teaches it is well-known in the art of autonomous vehicle control to query remote operators for confirmation when an autonomous vehicle encounters specific circumstances that require human attention that are determined by monitoring various parameters.
As to claim 17, Wallach discloses adjusting the nominal blade separation distance comprises at the autonomous agriculture vehicle, automatically calculating the adjusted nominal blade separation distance based on the sensor feedback (Continuous feedback control and blade trajectory based on maintaining appropriate distance so as to not disturb plant, i.e., distance is maintained to ensure zero plant motion – See at least ¶53 and Fig. 7).
Wallach fails to explicitly disclose prompting verification by a remote human operator via the remote computing system. However, Silver teaches it is well-known in the art of autonomous vehicle control to query remote operators for confirmation when an autonomous vehicle encounters specific circumstances that require human attention (See at least ¶62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wallach and include the feature of prompting verification by a remote human operator via the remote computing system, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Silver teaches it is well-known in the art of autonomous vehicle control to query remote operators for confirmation when an autonomous vehicle encounters specific circumstances that require human attention, like the claimed blade actuation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al., US20210022282A1, hereinafter referred to as Wallach.
As to claim 14, Wallach fails to explicitly disclose determining termination of the first target plant based on satisfaction of a motion threshold. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wallach and include the feature of, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the purpose of Wallach is to remove weeds, i.e., terminate targeted plants, to a satisfactory level, and Wallach simply targets the produce not to be damaged rather than the weed itself.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallach et al., US20210022282A1, in view of Russo et al., US 20220327183 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wallach, and Russo, respectively.
As to claim 15, Wallach fails to explicitly disclose the feedback provision to a remote computing system occurs responsive to termination of the first target plant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wallach and include the feature of the feedback provision to a remote computing system occurs responsive to the determination of terminal weeding associated with the first target plant, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Russo teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of autonomous vehicle control to remote a vehicle’s status, e.g., completion of a task like performing weeding, to a remote operator (Information communicated to remote operator – See at least ¶72).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668