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 .
This is a Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11-24 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on April 14th, 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 7-8, and 11 have been amended. Claims 3 and 9-10 have been cancelled. Claims 21-24 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
The previous contingent limitations of claim 11 has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11-24 under 35 USC 101 has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11-24 has been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 15th, 2026 been considered and entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 12, 16-17, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20170192431 A1) (“Foster”) in view of Sneyders (US 20220397906 A1) (“Sneyders”).
With respect to claim 1, Foster teaches a route planning system comprising:
at least one communication interface; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one communication interface, the at least one processor configured to (See at least Foster Paragraph 22 “With the foregoing in mind, FIG. 1 is a top view of an embodiment of an autonomous agricultural system 10 including vehicles 12, 14 and a base station 16, in which the vehicles 12, 14 are executing a general mission plan 17 provided by the base station 16. The MPOS, which may be part of a controller at the base station 16, generates the general mission plan 17 in response to a request to perform work on a field 18. In some embodiments, the MPOS or portions of the MPOS may be part of a controller of the vehicles 12, 14.”):
create a route plan for one or both of an autonomous agricultural work machine or for a network of the autonomous agricultural work machines, wherein a respective autonomous agricultural work machine is operated in a semi-autonomous operating mode in which a user is on board the respective autonomous agricultural work machine or a fully autonomous operating mode in which no user is assigned to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine; automatically route the route plan to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in order for the respective autonomous agricultural work machine to automatically move according to the route plan (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 55-56 “FIG. 5 is a flow diagram of an embodiment of a method 120 for planning and optimizing missions using the mission planning and optimization system (MPOS) 100 of FIG. 4. The method 120 may be implemented as computer instructions stored on the memory 84 of the base station 16 and/or the memory 60 of the agricultural vehicles 12 and 14 and executed by the processor 82 of the base station 16 and/or the processor 58 of the agricultural vehicles 12 and 14. It should be noted that some of the steps may not be performed and the steps may be performed in different orders than the order depicted. The method 120 includes receiving a new job request at the controller 48 of the base station 16 (process block 122). The job request may include delivering an agricultural particulate material to a field, tilling the field, harvesting the field, and so forth. In some embodiments, the job request is entered by an operator using the user interface 86 of the base station 16. Additionally or alternatively, the job request is entered by an operator of the vehicle 12 using the user interface 74, and the job request is sent via the transceivers 44 and 46 to the controller 48 of the base station 16. Also, in some instances, the job request is automatically triggered to execute at a certain date and time by the controller 48 of the base station 16 (e.g., based on a work schedule, weather forecasts, availability of a certain type and/or number of vehicles 12, and so forth).”);
dynamically identify, as the respective autonomous agricultural work machine is moving along the route plan, at least one event in which an obstacle is encountered by the respective autonomous agricultural work machine along the route plan or a deviation of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine from the route plan; responsive to identifying the at least one event1 or the deviation (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraph 60 “During execution of the general mission plan, one or more unexpected events may arise. As such, the agricultural vehicle controller determines whether one such unexpected event has occurred (decision block 138). It should be appreciated, that in some embodiments, the base station controller makes the determination of whether an event has occurred based on data provided by the agricultural vehicle. As discussed above, an unexpected event may include a new obstacle detected based on sensed data, a new vehicle becoming available, a vehicle becoming unavailable due to an undesirable maintenance condition, a change in a weather condition (e.g., rain, wind, thunder), and/or the like.”):
automatically and dynamically adapt the route plan depending on the at least one event or the deviation in order to generate a dynamically adapted route plan; and transmit, via the at least one communication interface, the dynamically adapted route plan for receipt by the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in order for the respective autonomous agricultural work machine to operate at least partly automatically using the dynamically adapted route plan, wherein transmission of the dynamically adapted route plan results in: the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in the semi-autonomous operating mode being configured to implement the dynamically adapted route plan only responsive to the human intervention (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 62-63 “Once the reactive mission plan is generated, the reactive mission plan is sent to the mission planning arbitrator 102, which may repeat steps 126-132. For example, the mission planning arbitrator 102 receives the reactive mission plan (process block 126) and determines the plan value of the reactive mission plan (process block 128). The mission planning arbitrator 102 may be configured to assign plan values to reactive plans that are higher than general mission plans because the reactive plans account for inputs not available to the general mission planner 104. After plan values are assigned, the mission planning arbitrator 102 selects a mission plan to implement based on the assigned plan values (process block 130). Accordingly, the mission planning arbitrator 102 may select the reactive plan to implement because the reactive mission plan has a higher plan value than the general mission plan previously provided by the general planner 104. However, it should be understood, that if the reactive plan is assigned a plan value lower than the general mission plan, the mission planning arbitrator 102 may not update the mission plan that is currently being executed because the general mission plan is already the mission plan with the highest plan value available. If the mission planning arbitrator 102 selects the reactive plan, then the reactive plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). In some embodiments, numerous reactive mission plans may be generated by the reactive planner 106. Each one of the reactive mission plans may alter the route or vehicle speed of one or more of the vehicles 12, 14 in different ways. The numerous reactive mission plans may be presented to the user via the display 88 at the base station 16, and the user may select which reactive mission plan to implement. If a reactive mission plan is selected form the set of reactive mission plans presented to the user, then the selected reactive mission plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). If the user does not select any of the reactive mission plans, then the current mission plan will continue to be executed.”).
Foster, however, fails to explicitly disclose that transmission of the dynamically adapted route plan results in: the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in the fully autonomous operating mode being configured to automatically implement the dynamically adapted route plan without human intervention.
Sneyders teaches that transmission of the dynamically adapted route plan results in: the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in the fully autonomous operating mode being configured to automatically implement the dynamically adapted route plan without human intervention (See at least Sneyders Paragraphs 17-18 “The guidance module includes an obstacle detection module that is configured to detect a at least one obstacle disposed in the target line between the agricultural machine position and the target position. In an example, the obstacle detection module determines the nearest intersection between an obstacle, or a boundary of an obstacle, in the field and a line segment including the position of the agricultural machine and target position. If the guidance module detects an intersection, the boundary associated with the obstacle is identified as an active exclusion zone. The guidance module includes a mitigation module that is configured to obtain a mitigation path around the active exclusion zone based on the intersecting boundary and the target line from the position of the agricultural machine to the target position. In an example, first and second intersection points are determined. The first intersection point is an intersection point closest to the agricultural machine. The first and second intersection points correspond to potential respective starting and ending positions or points of the mitigation path around the active exclusion zone. In an example, the mitigation path is one or more segments that trace, or extend along or proximate to, or along a contour of the active exclusion zone (e.g., the boundary of the intersecting obstacle). In an example, the mitigation path is the shortest one or more segments that trace, or extends proximate to a contour of the active exclusion zone.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Foster to include that transmission of the dynamically adapted route plan results in: the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in the fully autonomous operating mode being configured to automatically implement the dynamically adapted route plan without human intervention, as taught by Sneyders as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal vehicle control (Sneyders Paragraph 6 “The present inventors have recognized, among other things, that a problem to be solved includes dynamically determining, such as in real time, a route through an agricultural field (hereinafter, “field”) from a position of a first agricultural machine to a position proximate a target location including one or more of a second agricultural machine, target end location or the like.”).
With respect to claim 2, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches the at least one processor is configured to transmit the dynamically adapted route plan to a person assigned to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in order to request the person to accept the dynamically adapted route plan for the respective agricultural work machine; wherein, responsive to receipt of approval for the dynamically adapted route plan from the person assigned to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the dynamically adapted route plan to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in order for the respective autonomous agricultural work machine to use the dynamically adapted route plan to at least partly automatically operate the respective autonomous agricultural work machine and wherein the person comprises at least one of a driver of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine or an operator of an electronic identification device assigned to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 62-63 “Once the reactive mission plan is generated, the reactive mission plan is sent to the mission planning arbitrator 102, which may repeat steps 126-132. For example, the mission planning arbitrator 102 receives the reactive mission plan (process block 126) and determines the plan value of the reactive mission plan (process block 128). The mission planning arbitrator 102 may be configured to assign plan values to reactive plans that are higher than general mission plans because the reactive plans account for inputs not available to the general mission planner 104. After plan values are assigned, the mission planning arbitrator 102 selects a mission plan to implement based on the assigned plan values (process block 130). Accordingly, the mission planning arbitrator 102 may select the reactive plan to implement because the reactive mission plan has a higher plan value than the general mission plan previously provided by the general planner 104. However, it should be understood, that if the reactive plan is assigned a plan value lower than the general mission plan, the mission planning arbitrator 102 may not update the mission plan that is currently being executed because the general mission plan is already the mission plan with the highest plan value available. If the mission planning arbitrator 102 selects the reactive plan, then the reactive plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). In some embodiments, numerous reactive mission plans may be generated by the reactive planner 106. Each one of the reactive mission plans may alter the route or vehicle speed of one or more of the vehicles 12, 14 in different ways. The numerous reactive mission plans may be presented to the user via the display 88 at the base station 16, and the user may select which reactive mission plan to implement. If a reactive mission plan is selected form the set of reactive mission plans presented to the user, then the selected reactive mission plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). If the user does not select any of the reactive mission plans, then the current mission plan will continue to be executed.”).
With respect to claim 4, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that one or more autonomous agricultural work machines are in data exchange with a planning portal; wherein the planning portal is configured to monitor one or more work processes of the one or more autonomous agricultural work machines and to describe an actual work situation (See at least Foster Paragraph 32 “In embodiments in which the sensor 52 is an accelerometer, the accelerometer may measure acceleration (e.g., three-dimensional acceleration) of the vehicle 12. That is, the accelerometer may measure movement and/or vibrations while the vehicle 12 is operating and continuously or periodically transmit the obtained data indicative of movement and/or vibrations to the second transceiver 46 (e.g., via the transceiver 44). … For example, the controller 48 may identify a rut in the field or that an obstacle (e.g., boulder) has been encountered based on the data. In some instances, the controller 48 may determine that the vehicle 12 has a mechanical issue based on the data” | Paragraph 43 “The controller 48 is communicatively coupled to the second transceiver 46 and configured to transmit mission planning (e.g., routes, velocities, operations) information to the transceiver 46. For example, the controller 48 may determine a general mission plan that includes the target routes and velocities for the vehicles 12 and 14 based on signals received by the second transceiver 46 from the first transceiver 44 (e.g., that indicate the vehicles' positions on the terrain, proximity to each other, proximity to one or more bumps, the size of the bumps, and/or the current velocities of the vehicles, or a combination thereof). ”); wherein the planning portal is configured to input the actual work situation as an input variable for an event-dependent dynamic adaptation of the route plan; and wherein the planning portal is configured to automatically propose an optimization of the route plan depending on the actual work situation (See at least Foster Paragraph 32 “The controller 48 may use the data from the accelerometer to adjust a mission plan based on certain detected events … The controller 48 is configured to use the reactive planner to account for any changes or exceptions that arise during execution of a mission plan (e.g., change in available resources, new obstacle detected, etc.) by adjusting the mission plan to account for the changes. Further, in some embodiments, the controller 48 is also configured to use the optimization planner to generate an optimized mission plan based on the changes or exceptions that arise during execution of the mission plan. That is, the controller 48 may send the changes or exceptions to the optimization planner so that the optimization process may be restarted to generate an optimized mission plan that accounts for the changes or exceptions.”).
With respect to claim 5, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the planning portal is further configured to: automatically transmit the optimization of the route plan to the person for at least one of acceptance or rejection of the optimization of the route plan; receive a response from the person; responsive to the response indicating the acceptance, automatically implement the optimization of the route plan; and responsive to the response indicating the rejection, automatically ignore the optimization of the route plan (See at least Foster Paragraph 32 “In embodiments in which the sensor 52 is an accelerometer, the accelerometer may measure acceleration (e.g., three-dimensional acceleration) of the vehicle 12. That is, the accelerometer may measure movement and/or vibrations while the vehicle 12 is operating and continuously or periodically transmit the obtained data indicative of movement and/or vibrations to the second transceiver 46 (e.g., via the transceiver 44). … For example, the controller 48 may identify a rut in the field or that an obstacle (e.g., boulder) has been encountered based on the data. In some instances, the controller 48 may determine that the vehicle 12 has a mechanical issue based on the data” | Paragraphs 62-63 “Once the reactive mission plan is generated, the reactive mission plan is sent to the mission planning arbitrator 102, which may repeat steps 126-132. For example, the mission planning arbitrator 102 receives the reactive mission plan (process block 126) and determines the plan value of the reactive mission plan (process block 128) … In some embodiments, numerous reactive mission plans may be generated by the reactive planner 106. Each one of the reactive mission plans may alter the route or vehicle speed of one or more of the vehicles 12, 14 in different ways. The numerous reactive mission plans may be presented to the user via the display 88 at the base station 16, and the user may select which reactive mission plan to implement. If a reactive mission plan is selected form the set of reactive mission plans presented to the user, then the selected reactive mission plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). If the user does not select any of the reactive mission plans, then the current mission plan will continue to be executed.”)
With respect to claim 6, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the planning portal is configured to receive the response from the person via one of: a terminal remote from the respective autonomous agricultural work machine through which a remote operator inputs the response; a mobile app through which the remote operator inputs the response; or the respective autonomous agricultural work machine through which an operator of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine through inputs the response (See at least Foster Paragraph 40 “In this scenario, the operator can use the user interface 74 to notify the MPOS that a portion of the mission plan may be enhanced to account for a new obstacle and/or event. In certain embodiments, the operator can manually modify the current mission plan using the user interface 74. In some embodiment, the vehicle 12 may be driverless and the base station operator may control the vehicle 12 by selecting which mission plan to implement.”).
With respect to claim 12, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the at least one processor is resident on the respective autonomous agricultural work machine so that the dynamically adapted route plan is generated on the respective autonomous agricultural work machine (See at least Foster FIG. 3 and Paragraph 36 “In certain embodiments, the controller 42 is an electronic controller having electrical circuitry configured to process data from the transceiver 44, the spatial locating device 50, and/or other components of the control system 40. In the illustrated embodiment, the controller 42 includes a processor, such as the illustrated microprocessor 58, and a memory device 60. The controller 42 may also include one or more storage devices and/or other suitable components. The processor 58 may be used to execute software, such as software for controlling the vehicle 12, and so forth.”).
With respect to claim 16, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the at least one event2 which triggers the event-dependent dynamic adaptation of the route plan comprises a deviation of a current working status3 of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine from a working status on which the route planning is based; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the deviation of the current working status of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine from the working status on which the route planning is based by monitoring the current working status of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine and comparing the current working status of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine with the working status on which the route planning (See at least Foster Paragraphs 50-51 “The general planner may generate a general mission plan for the vehicles based on certain input. For example, the vehicles that are assigned may be based on the number of vehicles available, the position of the vehicles, the type of vehicles available, the type of work to be performed, a size of the field 18, the terrain of the field 18, and/or weather condition, among other factors. Once the general planner 104 has generated a general mission plan, the general planner 104 sends the general mission plan to the mission planning arbitrator. In some embodiments, the general planner 104 only executes once at initiation … Likewise, if a new vehicle is added or a vehicle is removed from the available vehicles, then the reactive planner 106 makes changes to the mission plan, or may recall the general planner to make changes to the mission plan to redistribute the work amongst the available vehicles. That is, in some embodiments, the reactive planner 106 may account for local changes to inputs (e.g., such as obstacles detected for by a certain vehicle) and the general planner 104 may account for any larger scale changes (e.g., resource changes, such as vehicles being added or remove). After any changes to the current mission plan are made, the reactive planner 106 is configured to send the reactive mission plan to the mission planning arbitrator 102.” | Paragraph 61 “The reactive planner 106 quickly accounts for the changes in inputs to the mission plan currently executing, and the optimizing planner 108 may restart the optimization process to generate an optimized mission plan that includes the new inputs with the mission plan currently executing. For example, the changes in inputs may include another vehicle becoming available, an existing vehicle becoming unavailable, a storm approaching, a new obstacle detected, and the like. In some embodiments, accounting for the changes may include generating a reactive mission plan that redistributes the work to the newly available vehicles and/or away from the vehicles that have become unavailable, reroutes the vehicles based on a newly detected obstacle and/or a removed obstacle, and so forth.”).
With respect to claim 17, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the at least one event4 which triggers the event-dependent dynamic adaptation of the route plan comprises presence of more or fewer autonomous agricultural work machines than planned in the route plan; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the presence of more or fewer autonomous agricultural work machines than planned in the route plan by monitoring the presence of respective autonomous agricultural work machines performing the route plan to determine the presence of more or fewer autonomous agricultural work machines than planned in the route plan (See at least Foster Paragraphs 50-51 “The general planner may generate a general mission plan for the vehicles based on certain input. For example, the vehicles that are assigned may be based on the number of vehicles available, the position of the vehicles, the type of vehicles available, the type of work to be performed, a size of the field 18, the terrain of the field 18, and/or weather condition, among other factors. Once the general planner 104 has generated a general mission plan, the general planner 104 sends the general mission plan to the mission planning arbitrator. In some embodiments, the general planner 104 only executes once at initiation … Likewise, if a new vehicle is added or a vehicle is removed from the available vehicles, then the reactive planner 106 makes changes to the mission plan, or may recall the general planner to make changes to the mission plan to redistribute the work amongst the available vehicles. That is, in some embodiments, the reactive planner 106 may account for local changes to inputs (e.g., such as obstacles detected for by a certain vehicle) and the general planner 104 may account for any larger scale changes (e.g., resource changes, such as vehicles being added or remove). After any changes to the current mission plan are made, the reactive planner 106 is configured to send the reactive mission plan to the mission planning arbitrator 102.” | Paragraph 61 “The reactive planner 106 quickly accounts for the changes in inputs to the mission plan currently executing, and the optimizing planner 108 may restart the optimization process to generate an optimized mission plan that includes the new inputs with the mission plan currently executing. For example, the changes in inputs may include another vehicle becoming available, an existing vehicle becoming unavailable, a storm approaching, a new obstacle detected, and the like. In some embodiments, accounting for the changes may include generating a reactive mission plan that redistributes the work to the newly available vehicles and/or away from the vehicles that have become unavailable, reroutes the vehicles based on a newly detected obstacle and/or a removed obstacle, and so forth.”).
With respect to claim 19, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the at least one event5 which triggers the event-dependent dynamic adaptation of the route plan comprises identifying the respective autonomous agricultural work machines joining in performing the route plan or leaving the route plan6; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the respective autonomous agricultural work machines joining in performing the route plan or leaving the route plan by monitoring operations of the respective autonomous agricultural work machines in order to determine whether the respective autonomous agricultural work machines are joining in performing the route plan or leaving the route plan. (See at least Foster Paragraphs 50-51 “The general planner may generate a general mission plan for the vehicles based on certain input. For example, the vehicles that are assigned may be based on the number of vehicles available, the position of the vehicles, the type of vehicles available, the type of work to be performed, a size of the field 18, the terrain of the field 18, and/or weather condition, among other factors. Once the general planner 104 has generated a general mission plan, the general planner 104 sends the general mission plan to the mission planning arbitrator. In some embodiments, the general planner 104 only executes once at initiation … Likewise, if a new vehicle is added or a vehicle is removed from the available vehicles, then the reactive planner 106 makes changes to the mission plan, or may recall the general planner to make changes to the mission plan to redistribute the work amongst the available vehicles. That is, in some embodiments, the reactive planner 106 may account for local changes to inputs (e.g., such as obstacles detected for by a certain vehicle) and the general planner 104 may account for any larger scale changes (e.g., resource changes, such as vehicles being added or remove). After any changes to the current mission plan are made, the reactive planner 106 is configured to send the reactive mission plan to the mission planning arbitrator 102.” | Paragraph 61 “The reactive planner 106 quickly accounts for the changes in inputs to the mission plan currently executing, and the optimizing planner 108 may restart the optimization process to generate an optimized mission plan that includes the new inputs with the mission plan currently executing. For example, the changes in inputs may include another vehicle becoming available, an existing vehicle becoming unavailable, a storm approaching, a new obstacle detected, and the like. In some embodiments, accounting for the changes may include generating a reactive mission plan that redistributes the work to the newly available vehicles and/or away from the vehicles that have become unavailable, reroutes the vehicles based on a newly detected obstacle and/or a removed obstacle, and so forth.”).
With respect to claim 21, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the respective autonomous agricultural work machine, a determination of the at least one event or the deviation; and wherein, responsive to receiving the determination from the respective autonomous agricultural work machine, the at least one processor is configured to identify the at least one event or the deviation
With respect to claim 22, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the user is operating the respective autonomous agricultural work machine; and wherein the transmission of the dynamically adapted route plan results in the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in the semi-autonomous operating mode being implemented only responsive to the human intervention by the user of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 62-63 “Once the reactive mission plan is generated, the reactive mission plan is sent to the mission planning arbitrator 102, which may repeat steps 126-132. For example, the mission planning arbitrator 102 receives the reactive mission plan (process block 126) and determines the plan value of the reactive mission plan (process block 128). The mission planning arbitrator 102 may be configured to assign plan values to reactive plans that are higher than general mission plans because the reactive plans account for inputs not available to the general mission planner 104. After plan values are assigned, the mission planning arbitrator 102 selects a mission plan to implement based on the assigned plan values (process block 130). Accordingly, the mission planning arbitrator 102 may select the reactive plan to implement because the reactive mission plan has a higher plan value than the general mission plan previously provided by the general planner 104. However, it should be understood, that if the reactive plan is assigned a plan value lower than the general mission plan, the mission planning arbitrator 102 may not update the mission plan that is currently being executed because the general mission plan is already the mission plan with the highest plan value available. If the mission planning arbitrator 102 selects the reactive plan, then the reactive plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). In some embodiments, numerous reactive mission plans may be generated by the reactive planner 106. Each one of the reactive mission plans may alter the route or vehicle speed of one or more of the vehicles 12, 14 in different ways. The numerous reactive mission plans may be presented to the user via the display 88 at the base station 16, and the user may select which reactive mission plan to implement. If a reactive mission plan is selected form the set of reactive mission plans presented to the user, then the selected reactive mission plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). If the user does not select any of the reactive mission plans, then the current mission plan will continue to be executed.”).
With respect to claim 23, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that the route planning system further includes the respective autonomous agricultural work machine configured to: receive the dynamically adapted route plan; responsive to determining that the respective autonomous agricultural work machine is in the fully autonomous operating mode, automatically implement the dynamically adapted route plan without human intervention (See at least Sneyders Paragraphs 17-18 “The guidance module includes an obstacle detection module that is configured to detect a at least one obstacle disposed in the target line between the agricultural machine position and the target position. In an example, the obstacle detection module determines the nearest intersection between an obstacle, or a boundary of an obstacle, in the field and a line segment including the position of the agricultural machine and target position. If the guidance module detects an intersection, the boundary associated with the obstacle is identified as an active exclusion zone. The guidance module includes a mitigation module that is configured to obtain a mitigation path around the active exclusion zone based on the intersecting boundary and the target line from the position of the agricultural machine to the target position. In an example, first and second intersection points are determined. The first intersection point is an intersection point closest to the agricultural machine. The first and second intersection points correspond to potential respective starting and ending positions or points of the mitigation path around the active exclusion zone. In an example, the mitigation path is one or more segments that trace, or extend along or proximate to, or along a contour of the active exclusion zone (e.g., the boundary of the intersecting obstacle). In an example, the mitigation path is the shortest one or more segments that trace, or extends proximate to a contour of the active exclusion zone.”); and responsive to determining that the respective autonomous agricultural work machine in the semi-autonomous operating mode: automatically outputting a request to an operator whether to implement the dynamically adapted route plan; and only responsive to human intervention from the operator, implementing the dynamically adapted route plan (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 62-63 “Once the reactive mission plan is generated, the reactive mission plan is sent to the mission planning arbitrator 102, which may repeat steps 126-132. For example, the mission planning arbitrator 102 receives the reactive mission plan (process block 126) and determines the plan value of the reactive mission plan (process block 128). The mission planning arbitrator 102 may be configured to assign plan values to reactive plans that are higher than general mission plans because the reactive plans account for inputs not available to the general mission planner 104. After plan values are assigned, the mission planning arbitrator 102 selects a mission plan to implement based on the assigned plan values (process block 130). Accordingly, the mission planning arbitrator 102 may select the reactive plan to implement because the reactive mission plan has a higher plan value than the general mission plan previously provided by the general planner 104. However, it should be understood, that if the reactive plan is assigned a plan value lower than the general mission plan, the mission planning arbitrator 102 may not update the mission plan that is currently being executed because the general mission plan is already the mission plan with the highest plan value available. If the mission planning arbitrator 102 selects the reactive plan, then the reactive plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). In some embodiments, numerous reactive mission plans may be generated by the reactive planner 106. Each one of the reactive mission plans may alter the route or vehicle speed of one or more of the vehicles 12, 14 in different ways. The numerous reactive mission plans may be presented to the user via the display 88 at the base station 16, and the user may select which reactive mission plan to implement. If a reactive mission plan is selected form the set of reactive mission plans presented to the user, then the selected reactive mission plan is sent to the agricultural vehicles to be executed (process block 132). If the user does not select any of the reactive mission plans, then the current mission plan will continue to be executed.”)
Claims 7-8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20170192431 A1) (“Foster”) in view of Sneyders (US 20220397906 A1) (“Sneyders”) further in view of Mümken (US 20250036148 A1) (“Mümken”).
With respect to claim 7, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches that each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines is active on a territory to be worked (See at least Foster Paragraph 57 “Once the new job request is received, a general mission plan is generated (process block 124) using the general planner 104. In some embodiments, the general mission plan includes a route for each available vehicle 12”).
Foster in view of Sneyders fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor is further configured to: generate one or both of: a common event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan for plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines or an individualized event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan for each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines wherein each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines has a data transmission device; and wherein the data transmission devices are configured to enable a data exchange between the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines and the route planning system.
Mümken, however, teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to: generate one or both of: a common event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan for plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines or an individualized event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan for each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines; wherein each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines has a data transmission device; and wherein the data transmission devices are configured to enable a data exchange between the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines and the route planning system (See at least Mümken Paragraphs 54-59 “Based on this data exchange 59, an automatic dynamic adaptation 60 of a wide variety of the various route plans 51 a, 51 b, 52, 53 is automatically performed so that the agricultural work machines 31 involved in the respective process step and the entire forage harvesting process chain 13 are automatically informed of the occurrence of a situation that makes processing the planned travel route 54, 55 impossible, or collision risks are recognized automatically by the route planning system 50, and the route planning system 50 then automatically dynamically adapts all planned travel routes 54, 55 and the route plans 51 a, 51 b, 52, 53 comprising these travel routes 54, 55. In this regard … In this regard, the route planning system 50 is configured to automatically and dynamically adapt the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan based on one or both of: operation of one or more of the plurality of agricultural work machines (e.g., the location and/or the mechanical operation of the agricultural work machines (such as whether a respective agricultural work machine is stopped or broken-down)); or identification of at least one aspect of the territory to be worked (e.g., an obstacle in the territory that may necessitate a change in the previously generated route plan for a respective agricultural work machine). In one or some embodiments, the route planning system is configured to receive location data and/or operation data for the plurality of the agricultural work machines. Further, the route planning system is configured to dynamically adapt the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan by: automatically determining, based on one or both of the location data or the operation data for some or all the plurality of the agricultural work machines, whether there is one or both of a conflict in routes or in operations for the some or all the plurality of the agricultural work machines; responsive to automatically determining that there is the one or both of the conflict in routes or in the operations for the some or all the plurality of the agricultural work machines, automatically generate one or both of an updated common route plan or at least one updated individualized route plan (e.g., in order to avoid the conflict in routes or in operations); and automatically transmit (e.g., transmit in real-time) the one or both of the updated common route plan or the at least one updated individualized route plan to at least one of the plurality of agricultural work machines.”) (See at least Mümken Paragraph 26 “In one or some embodiments, the agricultural work machines active on a territory to be worked may each have a data transmission device, and the data transmission devices may be configured to enable a data exchange between the agricultural work machines and the route planning system. In particular, this may have the effect that the dynamic adaptation of the route plans and associated travel routes may take place automatically and promptly after the triggering event.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Foster in view of Sneyders to include that the at least one processor is further configured to: generate one or both of: a common event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan for plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines or an individualized event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan for each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines; wherein each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines has a data transmission device; and wherein the data transmission devices are configured to enable a data exchange between the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines and the route planning system, as taught by Mümken as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal and efficient control of multiple agricultural work vehicles (Mümken Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to a route planning system which is configured to create the route plan of a forage harvesting process chain”).
With respect to claim 8, Foster in view of Sneyders in view of Mümken teach at least some of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines are configured to exchange the individualized event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan or plans amongst or between the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines; wherein the common event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan and the individualized event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan comprise travel routes; and wherein each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines is assigned an individualized route for at least one of the common event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan or the individualized event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan (See at least Mümken Paragraphs 54-59 “Based on this data exchange 59, an automatic dynamic adaptation 60 of a wide variety of the various route plans 51 a, 51 b, 52, 53 is automatically performed so that the agricultural work machines 31 involved in the respective process step and the entire forage harvesting process chain 13 are automatically informed of the occurrence of a situation that makes processing the planned travel route 54, 55 impossible, or collision risks are recognized automatically by the route planning system 50, and the route planning system 50 then automatically dynamically adapts all planned travel routes 54, 55 and the route plans 51 a, 51 b, 52, 53 comprising these travel routes 54, 55 … (D) responsive to the automatic updating of the plans, the route planning system 50 may automatically and dynamically send the updated plans (such as the updated route plans 51 a, 51 b, 52, 53) to any one, any combination, or all of the automatically controlled machines; and (iv) at least partly automatic (or entirely automatic) implementation of the updated plans (e.g., the agricultural work machines 31; the tractor-drawn mower 15; the forage harvester 22; the tractor-drawn transport vehicle 23; or the tractor-drawn empty transport vehicle 23′ at least partly automatically (or entirely automatically) implementing the various plans in order to automatically control one or both of the route and/or the operations performed by the respective device along the route) … In one or some embodiments, any one, any combination, or all of the steps to dynamically adapt the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan may be performed in real-time, such as any one, any combination, or all of: automatically determining whether there is one or both of a conflict in routes or in operations (e.g., whether there is a deviation from the previously generated route(s) that is indicative that the conflict in routes or in operations); automatically generate one or both of the updated common route plan or at least one updated individualized route plan; and automatically transmit the updated common route plan or at least one updated individualized route plan. In one or some embodiments, real-time may comprise performing a respective operation immediately (e.g., within less than 5 minutes, within less than 1 minute, within less than 10 seconds, within less than 1 second). In this regard, in one or some embodiments, the monitoring and/or the updating by the route planning system 50 may be performed in real-time.”).
With respect to claim 24, Foster in view of Sneyders fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one processor is configured to create a common route plan for the network of the autonomous agricultural work machines; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to monitor the autonomous agricultural work machines in the network; wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether one autonomous agricultural work machine leaves or is added to the network; and responsive to determining that the one autonomous agricultural work machine leaves or is added to the network, dynamically modify the common route plan for the network
Mümken, however, teaches that the at least one processor is configured to create a common route plan for the network of the autonomous agricultural work machines; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to monitor the autonomous agricultural work machines in the network; wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether one autonomous agricultural work machine leaves or is added to the network; and responsive to determining that the one autonomous agricultural work machine leaves or is added to the network, dynamically modify the common route plan for the network (See at least Mümken Paragraphs 54-59 “Based on this data exchange 59, an automatic dynamic adaptation 60 of a wide variety of the various route plans 51 a, 51 b, 52, 53 is automatically performed so that the agricultural work machines 31 involved in the respective process step and the entire forage harvesting process chain 13 are automatically informed of the occurrence of a situation that makes processing the planned travel route 54, 55 impossible, or collision risks are recognized automatically by the route planning system 50, and the route planning system 50 then automatically dynamically adapts all planned travel routes 54, 55 and the route plans 51 a, 51 b, 52, 53 comprising these travel routes 54, 55 … (D) responsive to the automatic updating of the plans, the route planning system 50 may automatically and dynamically send the updated plans (such as the updated route plans 51 a, 51 b, 52, 53) to any one, any combination, or all of the automatically controlled machines; and (iv) at least partly automatic (or entirely automatic) implementation of the updated plans (e.g., the agricultural work machines 31; the tractor-drawn mower 15; the forage harvester 22; the tractor-drawn transport vehicle 23; or the tractor-drawn empty transport vehicle 23′ at least partly automatically (or entirely automatically) implementing the various plans in order to automatically control one or both of the route and/or the operations performed by the respective device along the route) … In one or some embodiments, any one, any combination, or all of the steps to dynamically adapt the one or both of the common route plan or the individualized route plan may be performed in real-time, such as any one, any combination, or all of: automatically determining whether there is one or both of a conflict in routes or in operations (e.g., whether there is a deviation from the previously generated route(s) that is indicative that the conflict in routes or in operations); automatically generate one or both of the updated common route plan or at least one updated individualized route plan; and automatically transmit the updated common route plan or at least one updated individualized route plan. In one or some embodiments, real-time may comprise performing a respective operation immediately (e.g., within less than 5 minutes, within less than 1 minute, within less than 10 seconds, within less than 1 second). In this regard, in one or some embodiments, the monitoring and/or the updating by the route planning system 50 may be performed in real-time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Foster in view of Sneyders to include that the at least one processor is further configured to: generate one or both of: a common event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan for plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines or an individualized event-dependent dynamically adapted route plan for each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines; wherein each of the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines has a data transmission device; and wherein the data transmission devices are configured to enable a data exchange between the plurality of autonomous agricultural work machines and the route planning system, as taught by Mümken as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal and efficient control of multiple agricultural work vehicles (Mümken Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to a route planning system which is configured to create the route plan of a forage harvesting process chain”).
Claims 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20170192431 A1) (“Foster”) in view of Sneyders (US 20220397906 A1) (“Sneyders”) further in view of Morioka (US 20220108566 A1) (“Morioka”).
With respect to claim 11, Foster in view of Sneyders fails to explicitly disclose responsive to determining to operate in a semi-autonomous operating mode, switch between a fully autonomous operating mode and normal operation enabling manual driving; and wherein the respective autonomous agricultural work machine is configured to perform work in a territory to be worked and to switch from the fully autonomous operating mode to the manual driving and vice versa depending on the work to be performed.
Morioka, however, teaches responsive to determining to operate in a semi-autonomous operating mode, switch between a fully autonomous operating mode and normal operation enabling manual driving; and wherein the respective autonomous agricultural work machine is configured to perform work in a territory to be worked and to switch from the fully autonomous operating mode to the manual driving and vice versa depending on the work to be performed (See at least Morioka Paragraphs 60-61 “In this manner, in performing the work while repeating the turning, the automatic steering is performed on a straight-traveling portion SLn (n=1, 2, 3 . . . ) of the planned traveling line L2. For example, on a first straight-traveling portion SL1, a driver operates the steering switch 52 to start the automatic steering at a starting position ST1 (STn: n=1), and then the driver operates the steering switch 52 while watching a work condition, thereby terminating the automatic steering at a terminating position EN1 (ENn: n=1). In addition, the driver operates a correction switch 53 according to a state where the automatic steering is being performed on the first straight-traveling portion SL1, thereby finely adjusting the vehicle body position of the tractor 1, and the driver operates the accelerator 210 and the speed-changing member 211 according to the work condition, thereby adjusting a vehicle speed of the tractor 1. In addition, after the automatic steering is terminated at a terminating position EN1, the driver manually steers the tractor 1 to make the turning of the tractor 1, then when coming on a second straight-traveling portion SL2, the driver operates the steering switch 52 to start the automatic steering at a starting position ST2, and operates the steering switch 52 to terminate the automatic steering at a terminating position EN2. That is, in the agricultural field H1, the tractor 1 travels along respective turning portions RLn, which connect the straight-traveling portions SLn, by the manual steering.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Foster in view of Sneyders to include responsive to determining to opreate in a semi-autonomous operating mode, switch between a fully autonomous operating mode and normal operation enabling manual driving; and wherein the respective autonomous agricultural work machine is configured to perform work in a territory to be worked and to switch from the fully autonomous operating mode to the manual driving and vice versa depending on the work to be performed, as taught by Morioka as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal vehicle control based on the work performed (Morioka Paragraph 6 ‘A working vehicle according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention may include a vehicle body travelable by selectively using either manual steering including manual operation of a steering wheel or automatic steering including automatic operation of the steering wheel based on a traveling reference line”).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20170192431 A1) (“Foster”) in view of Sneyders (US 20220397906 A1) (“Sneyders”) further in view of Oyama (US 20200302789 A1) (“Oyama”).
With respect to claim 13, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches determination of an event that triggers the at least one processor to automatically dynamically adapt the route plan of the agricultural work machine (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 62-63).
Foster in view of Sneyders, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the event comprises a deviation of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine from a planned route due to circumventing an obstacle.
Oyama teaches an event comprising a deviation of a respective autonomous vehicle from a planned route due to circumventing an obstacle and generating a dynamic adaption to the route plan (See at least Oyama Paragraphs 40-44 “For example, when the external environment recognition unit 30 recognizes such a situation in which an obstacle, a rut, a frozen place or the like exists on a road of a preset target route, the automatic driving control unit 20 controls the own vehicle to travel on a route different from the preset target route or travel at a speed different from the preset target speed in order to avoid the obstacle, the rut, the frozen place or the like … The vehicle Cf travels while changing the course from the center position of the traveling lane L as the target route to the right in order to avoid the obstacle OB present on a left side in the traveling direction of the traveling lane L. At this time, the traveling data transmitted from the vehicle Cf to the cloud CL changes from a traveling trajectory near the center position of the traveling lane L (target route) to a traveling trajectory closer to a right side of the traveling lane L. Note that traveling data of a plurality of traveling vehicles which have avoided the obstacle OB are uploaded onto the cloud CL in addition to the traveling data of the vehicle Cf. The traveling data of each vehicle uploaded onto the cloud CL is collected by the traveling data collector 101 of the management and control system 100. Based on the collected traveling data, the recommended traveling information calculator 102 calculates recommended traveling information for coping with a situation deviating from a normal traveling state like a case of avoiding an obstacle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Foster in view of Sneyders to include an event comprising a deviation of a respective autonomous vehicle from a planned route due to circumventing an obstacle and generating a dynamic adaption to the route plan, as taught by Oyama as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe operation of the agricultural work machine in response to various events (Oyama Paragraph 5 “Therefore, safer traveling of a vehicle is enabled by using, in combination, information received from an infrastructure side such as VICS and traveling environment information autonomously recognized by a vehicle.”).
With respect to claim 14, Foster in view of Sneyders in view of Oyama teach that the at least one processor is configured to identify the deviation by comparing a current location of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine with the planned route; and wherein, responsive to the at least one processor identifying the deviation, the at least one processor is configured to dynamically adapt the route plan depending on the current location of the respective autonomous agricultural work machine (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 62-63) (See at least Oyama Paragraphs 40-44 “For example, when the external environment recognition unit 30 recognizes such a situation in which an obstacle, a rut, a frozen place or the like exists on a road of a preset target route, the automatic driving control unit 20 controls the own vehicle to travel on a route different from the preset target route or travel at a speed different from the preset target speed in order to avoid the obstacle, the rut, the frozen place or the like … The vehicle Cf travels while changing the course from the center position of the traveling lane L as the target route to the right in order to avoid the obstacle OB present on a left side in the traveling direction of the traveling lane L. At this time, the traveling data transmitted from the vehicle Cf to the cloud CL changes from a traveling trajectory near the center position of the traveling lane L (target route) to a traveling trajectory closer to a right side of the traveling lane L. Note that traveling data of a plurality of traveling vehicles which have avoided the obstacle OB are uploaded onto the cloud CL in addition to the traveling data of the vehicle Cf. The traveling data of each vehicle uploaded onto the cloud CL is collected by the traveling data collector 101 of the management and control system 100. Based on the collected traveling data, the recommended traveling information calculator 102 calculates recommended traveling information for coping with a situation deviating from a normal traveling state like a case of avoiding an obstacle.”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20170192431 A1) (“Foster”) in view of Sneyders (US 20220397906 A1) (“Sneyders”) further in view of Brunnert (US 20070179704 A1) (“Brunnert”).
With respect to claim 18, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches determination of an event that triggers the at least one processor to automatically dynamically adapt the route plan of the agricultural work machine (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 62-63).
Foster in view of Sneyders, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the event comprises the respective autonomous agricultural work machine being equipped with at least one attachment whose working width deviates from the working width as dictated by the route plan; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the respective autonomous agricultural work machine being equipped with at least one attachment whose working width deviates from the working width as dictated by the route plan by: monitoring the at least one attachment who is to be connected or is connected to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine; determining the working width for the at least one attachment; and comparing the working width for the at least one attachment with the working width as dictated by the route plan.
Brunnert teaches that the event comprises the respective autonomous agricultural work machine being equipped with at least one attachment whose working width deviates from the working width as dictated by the route plan (See at least Brunnert Paragraph 21 ‘The “Area ratio”sequence 19 determines-based on generated driving routes 8 and working status 18, and working width A of the agricultural working machine 2—the shape of territory 13 to be worked and the shape of remaining territory 14, and transfers this information in the form of power requirement signals Z to an arithmetic and control unit 20 which, in the simplest case, can be identical to the computation unit 12 of route planning system 7, which is provided anyway. Based on these power requirement signals Z which are encoding the shape of territory 13 and/or remaining territory 14 to be worked, arithmetic and control unit 20 then determines parameters 17 to be changed for the agricultural harvesting machine 2 and/or for the working attachments 6 a”); and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the respective autonomous agricultural work machine being equipped with at least one attachment whose working width deviates from the working width as dictated by the route plan by: monitoring the at least one attachment who is to be connected or is connected to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine; determining the working width for the at least one attachment; and comparing the working width for the at least one attachment with the working width as dictated by the route plan (See at least Brunnert FIG. 2 and Paragraph 21 “The “Area ratio”sequence 19 determines-based on generated driving routes 8 and working status 18, and working width A of the agricultural working machine 2—the shape of territory 13 to be worked and the shape of remaining territory 14, and transfers this information in the form of power requirement signals Z to an arithmetic and control unit 20 which, in the simplest case, can be identical to the computation unit 12 of route planning system 7, which is provided anyway. Based on these power requirement signals Z which are encoding the shape of territory 13 and/or remaining territory 14 to be worked, arithmetic and control unit 20 then determines parameters 17 to be changed for the agricultural harvesting machine 2 and/or for the working attachments 6 adapted to the agricultural working machine 2, the changing of which said parameters induces an adaptation of the method of working of the agricultural working machine 2 and its working attachments 6 to the particular shape of the remaining territory area 14 or territory 13 which has already been worked. The shape of the remaining territory area 14 is usually decisive in this case. Given their direct dependence on each other, it is also within the scope of the present invention, however, to couple the changing of highly diverse parameters 17 to the shape of territory 13 that has already been worked. Parameters 17 determined by arithmetic and control unit 20 can be displayed to operator 15 using display unit 16 in a further method step 21, so that said operator can adjust the highly diverse devices on the agricultural working machine 2 or working attachment 6 adapted thereto. It is also feasible, however, that, in a further method step 22, arithmetic and control unit 20 immediately generates actuating signals Y for automatically adjusting determined parameters 17 on the agricultural working machine 2 or adapted working attachments 6.” | Paragraph 23 “The power requirement of said agricultural harvesting machine increases or decreases as a function of working width A of the agricultural harvesting machine 2. If the route planning system 7 now knows the shape of remaining territory area 14, the arithmetic and control unit 20 can also be configured such that generated actuating signals Y according to FIG. 2 adapt, e.g., the rotational speed 30 of engine 21 of the agricultural working machine 2 or rotational speeds 32 of highly diverse working attachments 6 in a manner according to the present invention. This has the advantage in particular that rotational speeds can be reduced when working in partial working widths TA, e.g., to save fuel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Foster in view of Sneyders to include that that the event comprises the respective autonomous agricultural work machine being equipped with at least one attachment whose working width deviates from the working width as dictated by the route plan; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the respective autonomous agricultural work machine being equipped with at least one attachment whose working width deviates from the working width as dictated by the route plan by: monitoring the at least one attachment who is to be connected or is connected to the respective autonomous agricultural work machine; determining the working width for the at least one attachment; and comparing the working width for the at least one attachment with the working width as dictated by the route plan, as taught by Brunnert as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate and efficient work is completed by the agricultural work machine in various environments (Brunnert Paragraph 3 “The object of the present invention … and to ensure economically efficient use of the agricultural working machine on the territory to be worked”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20170192431 A1) (“Foster”) in view of Sneyders (US 20220397906 A1) (“Sneyders”) further in view of Agarwal (US 20220198842 A1) (“Agarwal”).
With respect to claim 20, Foster in view of Sneyders teaches determination of an event that triggers the at least one processor to automatically dynamically adapt the route plan of the agricultural work machine (See at least Foster FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 62-63).
Foster in view of Sneyders, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the event comprises a combination of events.
Agarwal teaches that the event comprises a combination of events (See at least Agarwal FIG. 16 and Paragraphs 139-141 “The processor determines 1606 a health of a component of the vehicle based on the first sensor data and the second sensor data and a correlation between the first and second sensor data and the component of the vehicle. In an embodiment, determining the health of the component of the vehicle includes processing each of the first sensor data associated with the set of events (or the events or parameters of the events) and the second sensor data associated with the acute event (or the acute event or parameters of the acute event) with a predictive model. The predictive model is configured to apply the correlation to the first and second sensor data to determine the health of the component of the vehicle. In an embodiment, the correlation includes a learned or known relationship between data associated with a particular event (or combination of events) and the corresponding effect on the health of a vehicle component. In an embodiment, the correlation is specific to the vehicle or the vehicle type (e.g., vehicle make, model, class, etc.) … The processor navigates 1608 the vehicle using a control circuit in response to a determination that the health of the component does not meet a predefined threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Foster in view of Sneyders to include that the event comprises a combination of events, as taught by Agarwal as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe vehicle control (Agarwal Paragraph 32 “Some of the advantages of these techniques include improved vehicle safety and longevity”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes an “event”, however the published specification states that in paragraph 35 “A most frequently occurring event 27 may be the deviation of the autonomous agricultural work machine 14 from a planned route 16 due to circumventing an obstacle 17, whereby the obstacle 17 may be a static and/or non-static obstacle 17.” and in paragraph 38 “A further event 27 may be, for example, the position of a harvested material swath 37 on the territory 1 to be worked”
2 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes an “event”, however the published specification states that in paragraph 35 “A most frequently occurring event 27 may be the deviation of the autonomous agricultural work machine 14 from a planned route 16 due to circumventing an obstacle 17, whereby the obstacle 17 may be a static and/or non-static obstacle 17.” and in paragraph 38 “A further event 27 may be, for example, the position of a harvested material swath 37 on the territory 1 to be worked”
3 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes a “current working status”, however the specification states in paragraph 22 that it may include “if more or fewer vehicles are available (e.g., present) than originally planned; if the agricultural work machines used in the same or a previous operation and the attachments assigned to them have different working widths than were taken into account in the planning (e.g., the working width of the attachment is different from that dictated or outlined in the route plan); or if agricultural work machines are added to or removed from the work process of a territory”
4 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes an “event”, however the published specification states that in paragraph 35 “A most frequently occurring event 27 may be the deviation of the autonomous agricultural work machine 14 from a planned route 16 due to circumventing an obstacle 17, whereby the obstacle 17 may be a static and/or non-static obstacle 17.” and in paragraph 38 “A further event 27 may be, for example, the position of a harvested material swath 37 on the territory 1 to be worked”
5 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes an “event”, however the published specification states that in paragraph 35 “A most frequently occurring event 27 may be the deviation of the autonomous agricultural work machine 14 from a planned route 16 due to circumventing an obstacle 17, whereby the obstacle 17 may be a static and/or non-static obstacle 17.” and in paragraph 38 “A further event 27 may be, for example, the position of a harvested material swath 37 on the territory 1 to be worked”
6 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes “agricultural work machines joining in performing the route plan or leaving the route plan”, however the specification states in paragraph 37 “This event 27 may occurs if, for example, more or fewer agricultural work machines 14 are available than planned, the agricultural work machines 14 are equipped with attachments 4 whose working width 21 deviates from the working width 21 on which the route planning was originally based, or agricultural work machines 14 leave a network 15 due to defects, or additional agricultural work machines 14 are added (e.g., monitoring operations of the respective autonomous agricultural work machines in order to determine whether the respective autonomous agricultural work machines are joining in performing the route plan or leaving the route plan)”
Prosecution Insights