DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 received on 11/25/2024 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-19 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 11/11/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the loading work". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the remaining amount". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-18 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Claim 19 is directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-19 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A material supply system that causes a transport vehicle to supply an agricultural material for consumption by an agricultural machine in agricultural work, the material supply system comprising:
a computer configured or programmed to determine a transport start timing for the transport vehicle toward a delivery location of the agricultural material, based on a consumption status of the agricultural material in an agricultural task by the agricultural machine in a field, a position of a storage location of the agricultural material, and a position of the delivery location.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Determine a transport start timing based on 1) consumption status, 2) position of agricultural material, and 3) position of the delivery location is equivalent to a person evaluating based on observation, i.e. a mental process of judgement based on observation.
Accordingly, claims 1-19 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A material supply system that causes a transport vehicle to supply an agricultural material for consumption by an agricultural machine in agricultural work, the material supply system comprising:
a computer configured or programmed to determine a transport start timing for the transport vehicle toward a delivery location of the agricultural material, based on a consumption status of the agricultural material in an agricultural task by the agricultural machine in a field, a position of a storage location of the agricultural material, and a position of the delivery location.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transport vehicle to supply an agricultural material for consumption by an agricultural machine in agricultural work” and “computer” are recited at a high level of generality and merely performs its intended function, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to “determine a transport start timing based on 1) consumption status, 2) position of agricultural material, and 3) position of the delivery location” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6 and 9-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, as they are directed to determining a timing, estimating status and point of depletion based on various factors, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
Dependent claims 4 and 19 recites the additional limitation of transmit information, which is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity of data transfer, thus do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 7 recites the additional limitation of provide a notification, which is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity of post-solution displaying, thus do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 17-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
In contrast to claim 1, dependent claim 8 recites “initiate self-traveling toward the delivery location at the transport start timing”, thus applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-19 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 8-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 20110084851 A1), in view of TOSHIAKI (JP2020103092A).
Peterson is cited in the IDS received on 11/11/2025.
The Espacenet English translation of TOSHIAKI cited in this Office Action is attached.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson teaches a material supply system that causes a transport vehicle to supply an agricultural material for consumption by an agricultural machine in agricultural work (para. [0002]: “Embodiments of the present invention relate to agricultural vehicles […] a system and method for assisting in the refilling of a container of an agricultural vehicle.”; para. [0007]: “The processing device may also be configured to notify at least one refilling vehicle […]”; para. [0042]: “The refilling vehicle 32 may be automated”; FIG. 4 326; para. [0046]: “the processing device 20 may instruct a desired one of the refill vehicles 32 to travel to the refill location 24, as depicted in step 320”; para. [0042]: “The refilling vehicle 32 may be automated”), the material supply system comprising:
a computer (para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”; para. [0022]: “The processing device 20 may comprise any number and combination of processors, controllers,”) configured or programmed to determine a delivery timing for the transport vehicle toward a delivery location of the agricultural material, based on a consumption status of the agricultural material in an agricultural task by the agricultural machine in a field, a position of a storage location of the agricultural material, and a position of the delivery location (para. [0007]: “The processing device may be configured to determine an optimal place and time for refilling based on a plurality of factors, including a status and/or location of the agricultural vehicle and a status and/or location of the refilling vehicle”; para. [0018]: “shown in FIG. 2, the system 10 may be installed or mounted on an agricultural vehicle 12 and used to calculate a proper time and a proper location for an agricultural vehicle 12 to refill at least one container 14”; para. [0037]: “204, the processing device 20 may determine if one or more parameters or particular criteria are met to require or request the vehicle 12 and/or the operator of the vehicle 12 to go refill the container 14 […] The particular criteria may include any combination of an amount of material or fuel remaining, an amount of fuel or material used per time segment and/or distance segment, an amount of time segments and/or distance segments remaining to complete a particular segment of the field, […] an approximate time and/or distance until a next refill location is reached, proximity of refilling vehicles 32 to a desired refill location, etc.”), but fails to specifically teach transport start timing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, TOSHIAKI teaches determine a transport start timing for the transport vehicle toward a delivery location of the agricultural material (para. [0053]: “The supply plan may be created by linking the planned travel route L1 and the transportation route L7. For example, in the planned travel route L1, the start time (the time at which the work is started from the start point of the planned travel route L1) for starting work (travel) can be input to the start input unit 807 of the route setting screen M3. When the start time is input to the start input unit 807, the replenishment plan creation unit 115 calculates the time until the replenishment position P20 is reached after the work of the traveling vehicle 3 is started (replenishment position arrival time). In addition, before the arrival time of the supply position, the supply plan creation unit 115 sets the transport route L7 for the supply machine VB1 to reach the supply position P20 and the supply setting field map MP2, and the time of departure from the supply source P65 ( Departure time) is set, and the departure time, the transport route L7, etc. are set as a supply plan”).
Peterson and TOSHIAKI are analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the resupplying planning for agricultural machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson and incorporate the teachings TOSHIAKI and provide a departure time. Doing so will ensure prompt arrival of the supply vehicle, thus ensuring no interruption in the workflow of the agricultural machine (TOSHIAKI, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1. Peterson further teaches wherein the computer (para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”) is configured or programmed to transmit information indicating the transport start timing to a controller configured or programmed to control self-driving of the transport vehicle (para. [0042]: “the fill location 24 requires one of the refilling vehicles 32 to meet the vehicle 12, the system 10 may send a message to alert an appropriate refilling vehicle 32 that the vehicle 12 is on its way to the refill location 24 to be refilled, as depicted in step 210, such that if the refilling vehicle 32 is away from the refill location 24, it may return in time to refill the vehicle 12. The refilling vehicle 32 may be automated or may be operated manually by an operator.”).
Regarding claim 8, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1. Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI further teaches further comprising a controller configured or programmed to acquire information indicating the transport start timing and to control self-driving of the transport vehicle (Peterson para. [0046]: “the processing device 20 may instruct a desired one of the refill vehicles 32 to travel to the refill location 24, as depicted in step 320”; Peterson para. [0042]: “The refilling vehicle 32 may be automated”; TOSHIAKI para. [0053]: “the supply plan creation unit 115 sets the transport route L7 for the supply machine VB1 to reach the supply position P20 and the supply setting field map MP2, and the time of departure from the supply source P65 ( Departure time) is set, and the departure time, the transport route L7, etc. are set as a supply plan”, wherein “automated” indicates a controller to acquire information and to control self-driving); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to, upon acquiring the information indicating the transport start timing, initiate self-traveling toward the delivery location at the transport start timing (Peterson para. [0046]: “the processing device 20 may instruct a desired one of the refill vehicles 32 to travel to the refill location 24, as depicted in step 320”; Peterson para. [0042]: “The refilling vehicle 32 may be automated”).
Regarding claim 9, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1. Peterson further teaches wherein the computer (para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”) is configured or programmed to monitor a state of the agricultural machine (FIG. 3 202; para. [0036]: “First, the processing device 20 may receive a data signal such as a level signal from the sensors 16 and/or a location signal from the location-determining device 18, as depicted in step 202. The level signal may comprise information about the amount of material in the container 14 and the location signal may comprise information regarding a location of the vehicle 12. The data signals may further comprise measurement information, status information, location information, etc., as described above and received from any of the sensors 16-18, the user interface 30, and/or from memory 26”), and
estimate the consumption status of the agricultural material based on the state of the agricultural machine (FIG. 3 204; para. [0037]: “step 204, the processing device 20 may determine if one or more parameters or particular criteria are met to require or request the vehicle 12 and/or the operator of the vehicle 12 to go refill the container 14. The particular criteria may include any combination of an amount of material or fuel remaining, an amount of fuel or material used per time segment and/or distance segment, an amount of time segments and/or distance segments remaining to complete a particular segment of the field, an approximate time and/or distance until a next refill location is reached, proximity of refilling vehicles 32 to a desired refill location, etc. For example, based on tracking of average amounts of material used over particular distance intervals or over the course of a single pass across the field, the system 10 may notify the operator that the vehicle 12 will not be able to make a full pass across the field and back to the refill location 24 with the material remaining”).
Regarding claim 10, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 9. Peterson further teaches wherein the computer (para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”) is configured or programmed to monitor a position and a moving speed of the agricultural machine (para. [0020]: “The sensors 16 may be any one or more sensors providing information about the vehicle 12, its fuel, its materials, and its surroundings. For example, the sensors 16 may include an optical sensor, a radar sensor, a speedometer,”; para. [0021]: “The location-determining device 18 may determine locations or positions of the vehicle 12 as it is moved from place to place and may generate and send corresponding position data to the processing device 20”), and
estimate the consumption status of the agricultural material based on the position and the moving speed of the agricultural machine (FIG. 2 204; para. [0036]: “First, the processing device 20 may receive a data signal such as a level signal from the sensors 16 and/or a location signal from the location-determining device 18, as depicted in step 202. The level signal may comprise information about the amount of material in the container 14 and the location signal may comprise information regarding a location of the vehicle 12.”; para. [0037]: “The particular criteria may include any combination of an […] distance segment, an amount of time segments and/or distance segments remaining to complete a particular segment of the field”; para. [0041]: “The average, median, and/or maximum amount of fuel and/or material used per some measurement unit may also depend on additional factors such as speed, incline, etc. Therefore, various algorithms may calculate when refilling the container 14 will be required based on these additional factors”, wherein the “distance segment” comprises of the position of the agricultural material, as whether there is sufficient material depends on the distance between the agricultural machine and destination).
Regarding claim 11, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1. Peterson further teaches wherein the computer (para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”) is configured or programmed to estimate the consumption status of the agricultural material based on a previously-set work plan of the agricultural machine (para. [0037]: “For example, based on tracking of average amounts of material used over particular distance intervals or over the course of a single pass across the field, the system 10 may notify the operator that the vehicle 12 will not be able to make a full pass across the field and back to the refill location 24 with the material remaining”, wherein “over particular distance intervals or over the course of a single pass across the field” indicates previously-set work plan of the agricultural machine ).
Regarding claim 12, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 11. Peterson further teaches wherein the computer (para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”) is configured or programmed to estimate the consumption status of the agricultural material based on information of a work path and a work speed of the agricultural machine included in the work plan (para. [0037]: “For example, based on tracking of average amounts of material used over particular distance intervals or over the course of a single pass across the field, the system 10 may notify the operator that the vehicle 12 will not be able to make a full pass across the field and back to the refill location 24 with the material remaining”).
Regarding claim 13, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1. Peterson further teaches wherein the computer (para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”) is configured or programmed to: estimate a point of depletion at which the remaining amount of the agricultural material becomes smaller than a predetermined amount, based on the consumption status of the agricultural material, a work path of the agricultural machine, and a position and a moving speed of the agricultural machine (para. [0041]: “the system 10 may command an operator and/or the automated steering system 22 to drive the vehicle 12 to the nearest fill location 24 based on the amount of fuel and/or materials, the distance left to cover, the distance from the refill location 24, the average, median, and/or maximum amount of fuel and/or material used or dispensed per some measurement unit (such as per square foot, per minute, etc.). The average, median, and/or maximum amount of fuel and/or material used per some measurement unit may also depend on additional factors such as speed, incline, etc. Therefore, various algorithms may calculate when refilling the container 14 will be required based on these additional factors”; para. [0045]: “received from the location-determining device 18 to determine if there is enough material to complete a pass or round across the field, as depicted in step 316.”, wherein enough material to complete a pass indicate remaining amount of the agricultural material becomes smaller than a predetermined amount); and
determine the delivery location in accordance with the point of depletion (FIG. 3; para. [0040]: “The processing device may then determine where the vehicle 12 should go to refill the container 14, as depicted in step 206”; para. [0041]: “drive the vehicle 12 to the nearest fill location 24 based on the amount of fuel and/or materials, the distance left to cover, the distance from the refill location 24, the average, median, and/or maximum amount of fuel and/or material used or dispensed per some measurement unit (such as per square foot, per minute, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 14, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 8. TOSHIAKI further teaches wherein, based on a previously-set operating schedule of the transport vehicle (FIG. 12A-12B; para. [0048]: “in which the supply position P20 is set, and the setting condition 802 is the supply setting from the supply source P65 to the supply destination. […] The location of the supply source P65 may be a location registered in advance in the travel support device 100”; para. [0052]: “The transport route L7 in the supply setting field map MP2 may be a route from the supply source P65 to the vicinity of the entrance of the supply setting field map MP2, or as shown in FIGS. 12A and 12B, supply from the supply source P65. It may be a route to the area A5 or a route from the supply source P65 to the supply position P20.”, wherein the transport route comprises of “location registered in advance” and supply position P20, thus indicating a previously-set operating schedule), the controller is configured or programmed to control self-traveling of the transport vehicle to circulate through a route that includes the storage location and the delivery location (FIG. 12A-12B; para. [0055]: “Further, when the replenishment machine VB1 is a work vehicle (for example, a tractor) capable of automatic traveling, the replenishment machine VB1 including the work vehicle can be automatically driven based on the transport route L7. That is, the automatic travel control unit 61 of the replenishment machine VB1 including the work vehicle automatically travels along the transport route L7, similar to the planned travel route L1”).
Regarding claim 17, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1. Peterson further teaches wherein the computer is mounted in or on the agricultural machine, in a computer configured or programmed to communicate with the agricultural machine, or in or on the transport vehicle (para. [0018]: “As shown in FIG. 2, the system 10 may be installed or mounted on an agricultural vehicle 12 and used to calculate a proper time and a proper location for an agricultural vehicle 12 to refill at least one container 14.”).
Regarding claim 18, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1, wherein the agricultural material includes seedlings of a plant (para. [0004]: “Agricultural vehicles must be periodically refilled with seeds”; para. [0018]: “agricultural vehicle 12 to refill at least one container 14. The agricultural vehicle 12 may be any vehicle operable to dispense a material, such as a spreader, sprayer, or seeder by Willmas®, RoGator®, Sunflower®, or White®. The container 14 may be any container that holds and/or dispenses the material, such as a seed hopper, herbicide tank, pesticide tank, fuel tank, etc.”); and the agricultural machine is a transplanter that travels while planting seedlings of the plant in a field (para. [0018]: “The agricultural vehicle 12 may be any vehicle operable to dispense a material, such as a spreader, sprayer, or seeder by Willmas®, RoGator®, Sunflower®, or White®.”).
Regarding claim 19, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the material supply system of claim 4, and thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view of TOSHIAKI, and further in view of Klubertanz (US20190294150A1).
Regarding claim 2, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1. Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI further teaches wherein the computer is configured or programmed to (Peterson para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”):
estimate a time of depletion at which a remaining amount of the agricultural material becomes smaller than a predetermined amount based on the consumption status of the agricultural material (Peterson para. [0037]: “on tracking of average amounts of material used over particular distance intervals or over the course of a single pass across the field, the system 10 may notify the operator that the vehicle 12 will not be able to make a full pass across the field and back to the refill location 24 with the material remaining”; Peterson para. [0045]: “determine if there is enough material to complete a pass or round across the field, as depicted in step 316”, wherein “enough material to complete a pass or round across the field” indicates the agricultural material becomes smaller than a predetermined amount);
(Peterson para. [0042]: “the system 10 may send a message to alert an appropriate refilling vehicle 32 that the vehicle 12 is on its way to the refill location 24 to be refilled, as depicted in step 210, such that if the refilling vehicle 32 is away from the refill location 24, it may return in time to refill the vehicle 12.”; TOSHIAKI para. [0049]: “The supply plan creation unit 115 creates a transport route L7 from the supply source P65 to the supply destination (supply setting farm field map MP2)”; TOSHIAKI para. [0053]: “the supply plan creation unit 115 sets the transport route L7 for the supply machine VB1 to reach the supply position P20 and the supply setting field map MP2, and the time of departure from the supply source P65 ( Departure time) is set, and the departure time, the transport route L7, etc. are set as a supply plan”, wherein “in time” and ); and
determine the transport start timing based on the time of depletion and the traveling time (Peterson para. [0042]: “the system 10 may send a message to alert an appropriate refilling vehicle 32 that the vehicle 12 is on its way to the refill location 24 to be refilled, as depicted in step 210, such that if the refilling vehicle 32 is away from the refill location 24, it may return in time to refill the vehicle 12.”, wherein “in time to refill” indicates that the transport vehicle arrives in time from the departure time, hence comprises of traveling time), but fails to specifically teach estimate a traveling time required by the transport vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Klubertanz teaches estimate a traveling time required by the transport vehicle in order to move to the delivery location (para. [0041]: “For example, refilling of agricultural distribution devices can be prioritized and/or optimized based on the location of each distribution device, when each agricultural distribution device is expected to run out of seed, and the location and travel time of the mobile storage device”; para [0037]: “At step 610, a refill time for mobile storage device 100 and agricultural distribution device 200 to be at access point 404 is determined. In one embodiment, the refill time is determined based on the planned path of agricultural distribution device 200, a travel speed of agricultural distribution device 200, and the availability of mobile storage device 100. It should be noted that mobile storage device 100 and agricultural distribution device 200 can arrive at different times. For example, mobile storage device 100 can arrive at an identified access point earlier than the agricultural distribution device in order to provide an operator with time to prepare for the transfer of agricultural material. Agricultural distribution device 200 may arrive at access point 404 earlier than mobile storage device 100.”, wherein travel time of the mobile storage device and arriving at the same time or earlier or later indicates estimate a traveling time required by the transport vehicle).
Klubertanz is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the resupplying planning for agricultural machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI and incorporate the teachings Klubertanz and account for the travel time of the supply vehicle. Doing so will result in refill time and access point are selected so that excess time is not lost and areas, such as planting fields, are not adversely affected by movement of the agricultural distribution device or the mobile storage device (Klubertanz, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI and further in view of Klubertanz teaches the material supply system of claim 2. Peterson and Klubertanz further teaches wherein the computer (Peterson para. [0025]: “the processing device 20 may implement a computer program and/or code segments to perform some of the functions described herein.”) is configured or programmed to determine, as the transport start timing, a timing before a point in time that is derived by subtracting the traveling time from the time of depletion (Klubertanz para. [0041]: “For example, refilling of agricultural distribution devices can be prioritized and/or optimized based on the location of each distribution device, when each agricultural distribution device is expected to run out of seed, and the location and travel time of the mobile storage device”; para [0037]: “At step 610, a refill time for mobile storage device 100 and agricultural distribution device 200 to be at access point 404 is determined. In one embodiment, the refill time is determined based on the planned path of agricultural distribution device 200, a travel speed of agricultural distribution device 200, and the availability of mobile storage device 100. It should be noted that mobile storage device 100 and agricultural distribution device 200 can arrive at different times. For example, mobile storage device 100 can arrive at an identified access point earlier than the agricultural distribution device in order to provide an operator with time to prepare for the transfer of agricultural material. Agricultural distribution device 200 may arrive at access point 404 earlier than mobile storage device 100.”, wherein travel time of the mobile storage device and arriving at the same time indicates that the departure time = arrival time – travel time).
Claims 5, 7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view of TOSHIAKI, and further in view of Harris (US20180107219A1).
Regarding claim 5, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the computer is configured or programmed to determine a loading start timing at which to begin loading of the agricultural material onto the transport vehicle based on the transport start timing and a transport amount of the agricultural material to be transported by the transport vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Harris teaches wherein the computer is configured or programmed to determine a loading start timing at which to begin loading of the agricultural material onto the transport vehicle based on the transport start timing and a transport amount of the agricultural material to be transported by the transport vehicle (para. [0016]: “the drone may be filled at the refilling station in response to the fuel request, and only the amount of fuel requested may be added to the drone”; para. [0029]: “An additional consideration may include the travel time for the drone to reach the vehicle. For example, if the vehicle is going to run out of fuel in 15 minutes at its current fuel usage, the dispatcher may dispatch a drone that can reach the vehicle in less than 15 minutes.”, wherein combination of refilling based on the requested amount, and to arrive at the refill timing indicate determine a loading start timing).
Harris is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the resupplying planning for machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI and incorporate the teachings Harris and determine a refill timing based on the requested amount and arrival/departure time. Doing so will allow the resupplying machine to resupply and later perform resupply of other vehicles.
Regarding claim 7, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI and further in view of Harris teaches the material supply system of claim 5. TOSHIAKI further teaches wherein the computer is configured or programmed to provide a notification of the (para. [0052]: “Further, the replenishment plan creation unit 115 automatically calculates the arrival time (date, time) and the like when the replenishment machine VB1 reaches (arrives) the field of the replenishment setting field map MP2, and the time display unit of the replenishment plan screen M9. 804. When the replenishment plan button 99B is selected on the replenishment plan screen M9, time information such as the conveyance route L7 (conveyance route L7 including position information), the replenishment machine VB1, and the arrival time set by the replenishment plan creation unit 115 is displayed.”), but fails to specifically teach provide a notification of the loading start timing.
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 Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI in view of Harris and include a loading start timing to the display along with the arrival/departure time of TOSHIAKI. Doing so will allow the operator to view the status of the replenishment machine, thus enhancing user awareness.
Regarding claim 15, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 8. TOSHIAKI further teaches a command from a device that is operated by a user (FIG. 6; FIG. 12A-12B; para. [0055]: “the replenishment machine VB1 is a work vehicle (for example, a tractor) capable of automatic traveling, the replenishment machine VB1 including the work vehicle can be automatically driven based on the transport route L7”; para. [0034]: “FIG. 6, when the worker (driver) performs a predetermined operation on the display device”), but fails to specifically teach wherein, after unloading of the agricultural material from the transport vehicle is completed at the delivery location, the controller is configured or programmed to initiate self-traveling from the delivery location to the storage location, in response to a command from a device that is operated by a user.
However, Harris teaches wherein, after unloading of the agricultural material from the transport vehicle is completed at the delivery location, the controller is configured or programmed to initiate self-traveling from the delivery location to the storage location, in response to a command from a device (para. [0016]: “After the drone has refueled the vehicle, the drone may return to a refilling station.”; para. [0025]: “Drones may be stored at a refill station, for example a service station or some other fuel depot. Wherever the drones are stored there may be an interface to a dispatcher.”; para. [0005]: “transmitting, at the dispatcher, a message to the autonomous drone,”; para. [0014]: “The dispatcher may have determined the drone to dispatch prior to making the offer, or after the offer is made. The dispatcher may determine the drone to dispatch based on one or more conditions.”).
Harris is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the resupplying planning for machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI and incorporate the teachings Harris and return the resupplying machine to the refilling station. Doing so will allow the resupplying machine to resupply and later perform resupply of other vehicles.
Regarding claim 16, Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI teaches the material supply system of claim 8. Peterson and TOSHIAKI further teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to initiate self-traveling to the delivery location, (Peterson para. [0046]: “the processing device 20 may instruct a desired one of the refill vehicles 32 to travel to the refill location 24, as depicted in step 320”; TOSHIAKI para. [0053]: “In addition, before the arrival time of the supply position, the supply plan creation unit 115 sets the transport route L7 for the supply machine VB1 to reach the supply position P20 and the supply setting field map MP2, and the time of departure from the supply source P65 ( Departure time) is set, and the departure time, the transport route L7, etc. are set as a supply plan””), but fails to specifically teach receiving a notification that loading of the agricultural material onto the transport vehicle at the storage location has been completed.
However, Harris teaches receiving a notification that loading of the agricultural material onto the transport vehicle at the storage location has been completed (para. [0016]: “the drone may be filled at the refilling station in response to the fuel request, and only the amount of fuel requested may be added to the drone.”; para. [0004]: “determine an autonomous drone to dispatch based, at least in part on the refueling location and a type of fuel requested by the vehicle; and transmit a message to the autonomous drone, the message comprising at least the refueling location. The autonomous drone may comprise a fuel storage area;”, wherein the drone is refilled and then sent, thus indicating notification that loading of the agricultural material).
Harris is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the resupplying planning for machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of TOSHIAKI and incorporate the teachings Harris and return the resupplying machine to the refilling station. Doing so will allow the resupplying machine to resupply and later perform resupply of other vehicles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SHINNOSUKE (JP 2021040497 A) teaches a remaining amount calculation unit that calculates the remaining amount of the material based on the input amount acquired by the input amount acquisition unit and the material consumption amount consumed by the work.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668