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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/893,758 filed August 23, 2022, which claims priority to UK Patent Application No. 2112083.7 (filed August 23, 2021). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This office action is issued in response to application filed 12/12/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected. This action is non-final. A three-month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
The examiner acknowledges the applicant filed an interview request on 12/12/2024. However, this request expired before the case was docketed. The applicant is encouraged to refile this request, if desired, as an after non-final interview request.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The entire Specifications is objected to for the inclusion of extraneous numbering next to the paragraph numbering, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
43
115
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. This numbering needs to be removed.
Paragraphs [0079]-[0115] are objected to, for the additional reason, of the use of a second set of paragraphs numbering (e.g., “Para 2” in ¶[0079] and ”Para 35” in ¶ [0113]), which is then used to refer to preceding paragraph(s) in the style of claim language. As a result, ¶[0079]- ¶[0115] are unclear and of inappropriate format. It is recommended that the applicant either remove all these paragraphs (as they are only a reciting of the claims) or remove all paragraph recitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objections
Claims 7, 16, and 17 are objected to because of claim informalities:
Claim 7: The phrase “third deviating criteria” lacks a proper antecedent basis, since Claims 7 depends from Claim 3, which includes only a “first deviating criteria” (i.e., the phrase “second deviating criteria” first appears in Claim 6).
Claim 16: The phrase “second deviating criterion” lacks a proper antecedent basis, since Claims 16 depends from Claim 14, in which the phrase “first deviating criterion” does not appear (i.e., the phrase “first deviating criterion” first appears in Claim 15).
Claim 17: The phrase “third deviating criterion” lacks a proper antecedent basis, since Claims 17 depends from Claim 14, in which the phrase “second deviating criterion” does not appear (i.e., the phrase “second deviating criterion” first appears in Claim 16).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nishi et al. (US 11,383,703 B2, henceforth Nishi), Sugita et al. (WO 2021/010297 A, henceforth Sugita) and Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0244731 A1, henceforth Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishi teaches the limitations: a mobile autonomous agricultural system {“automated driving”, Abstract; Figs. 1 & 23-25} comprising: a powered mobile unit for carrying agricultural equipment {Agricultural tractor in Figs. 1-3; "Although not shown in the drawings, a work implement apparatus W such as a rotary cultivating apparatus, a plow, a disc harrow, a cultivator, a subsoiler, a sowing apparatus, and a spraying apparatus can be coupled to the three-point linkage mechanism 5.", Col. 15, Lns. 41-45; linkage mechanism 5, Fig. 2}; at least one laser curtain sensor configured to project a laser curtain away from the mobile unit {range sensors 68A-D and obstacle searchers 68E&F, Fig. 2, are positioned around the tractor to provide a surrounding sensor field; Obstacle detector 65 is associated with obstacle detection module 65, Fig. 7; “obstacle detectors (laser scanners 259)”, Col. 18, Lns. 40-42}; a location module configured to monitor a location of the mobile unit {"FIGS. 1 to 3, and 7 to 10 , the positioning unit 53 includes a satellite navigation apparatus 60 that measures the position and orientation of the vehicle body using a well-known GPS {Global Positioning System}", Col. 19, Lns. 1-4}; a controller configured to control the travel of the mobile unit {Electronic control system 51, Fig. 7; "As shown in FIGS. 1 to 5, and 7, a selection switch 50, and an electronic control system 51 for automated driving are provided in the tractor.", Col. 18, Lns. 40-42}; a safety module configured to: receive a location signal from the location module related to the location of the mobile unit {as represented in Fig. 7, contact avoidance control unit 30D is part main ECU 31, which interfaces directly with positioning unit 53, all of which is considered part of the electronic control system 51; additionally, obstacle detection module 64, Fig. 7, is part of an overall obstacle detection and avoidance system}; and generate a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern {"As shown in FIGS. 19 to 22 and the like, the monitoring unit 54 includes: an obstacle detection module 64 that detects the presence or absence of an obstacle; a travel regulation control unit 30F that performs, upon the obstacle detection module 64 detecting an obstacle, travel regulation control (contact avoidance control to avoid coming into contact with an obstacle) to prevent the vehicle body from traveling", Col. 33, Lns.38-45}.
Nishi does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: a powered mobile unit being configured to move along rows of crops; wherein the location signal is relative to a row; and wherein the safety module configured to: select a mode of operation to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the received location signal, each mode of operation corresponding to a different predefined laser curtain pattern.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: a mobile unit {Fig. 1} comprising object detection electronics {Fig. 2} configured to: select a mode of operation to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the received location signal, each mode of operation corresponding to a different predefined laser curtain pattern {“The obstacle detection unit changes the size of the predetermined detection range according to the traveling speed of the work vehicle”, Pg. 2, Lns. 3-5, and “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Nishi and Sugita are analogous art because they both deal with active sensor systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Nishi and Sugita before them, to modify the teachings of Nishi to include the teachings of Sugita to allow a laser sensor curtain pattern to take on different configurations. Doing so would reduce the chance the movement of an agricultural vehicle would be regularly interrupted by fixed obstacles in the pathway of an unchanging sensor field.
The combination of Nishi and Sugita does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: a powered mobile unit being configured to move along rows of crops.
However, Suzuki explicitly recites the limitation: a mobile autonomous agricultural vehicle configured to move along rows of crops {with regard to Figs. 4, 9 & 17, vehicle 1 moves along a crop row, in a fashion to surround the crop, in order to spray liquid to from both sides of the row}.
The combination of Nishi and Sugita along with Suzuki are analogous art because they involve automated driving systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Nishi and Sugita to include the teachings of Suzuki to modify a sensor curtain pattern as a vehicle moves along a crop row. Doing so would reduce the chance the movement of an agricultural vehicle would be regularly interrupted by fixed obstacles, be they inorganic objects, like posts, or crops, for example, within an agricultural field.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Nishi explicitly recites the limitation: comprising a plurality of laser curtain sensors distributed around the mobile unit configured together to form the laser curtain, and wherein each laser curtain sensor is configured to project a respective laser plane which overlaps with at least one other laser plane to form the laser curtain {with regard to Figs. 23-24, overlapping sensor fields are evident for obstacle detectors 65 and obstacle searchers 68H}.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishi in view of Sugita and Suzuki disclose the mobile autonomous agricultural system according to Claim 2. Nishi does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein a safety module is configured to select a default mode of operation unless any deviating criteria are met.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a safety module is configured to select a default mode of operation unless any deviating criteria are met {sensor pattern in Fig. 6}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein a default mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit in an axial direction up to a maximum axial distance from the mobile unit, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance from the mobile unit.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a default mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit in an axial direction up to a maximum axial distance from the mobile unit, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance from the mobile unit {Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6; see also Pg. 2, Lns. 3-5, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, and Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a first deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to move from one row to another row, wherein when the first deviating criterion is met, the safety mode is configured to select a crabbing mode and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a first deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to move from one row to another row, wherein when the first deviating criterion is met, the safety mode is configured to select a crabbing mode and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: a mobile unit {Fig. 1} comprising object detection electronics {Fig. 2} configured to: select a mode of operation to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the received location signal, each mode of operation corresponding to a different predefined laser curtain pattern {“The obstacle detection unit changes the size of the predetermined detection range according to the traveling speed of the work vehicle”, Pg. 2, Lns. 3-5, and “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, as discussed supra. Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a second deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to approach a row, and then determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of the row, such that when the mobile unit is determined to be within the first threshold distance from an end of a row, the safety module is configured to select an entry mode , and wherein the entry mode comprises processing the laser curtain to the same extent as the default mode or a crabbing mode, but excluding from processing a channel in the laser curtain corresponding to the position of the row.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a second deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to approach a row, and then determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of the row, such that when the mobile unit is determined to be within the first threshold distance from an end of a row, the safety module is configured to select an entry mode , and wherein the entry mode comprises processing the laser curtain to the same extent as the default mode or a crabbing mode, but excluding from processing a channel in the laser curtain corresponding to the position of the row {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a third deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being within a second threshold distance from an end of a row or within the row, such that when the third deviating criterion is met, the safety module is configured to select a row mode, and wherein the row mode comprises processing the laser curtain to form a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a maximum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a minimum width distance .
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a third deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being within a second threshold distance from an end of a row or within the row, such that when the third deviating criterion is met, the safety module is configured to select a row mode, and wherein the row mode comprises processing the laser curtain to form a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a maximum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a minimum width distance {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Nishi explicitly recites the limitation: wherein for each mode of operation, each predefined laser curtain pattern, which the safety module is configured to process, extends downwards from the laser curtain sensors, up to a threshold ground distance from the ground {Figs. 23&25 clearly show that the outer extend of the sensor pattern from obstacle detectors 65, corresponding to X1{X}, is well above ground level to avoid detecting obstacles, like crop growth, that are not relevant to collision avoidance}.
Regarding Claim 12, Nishi teaches the limitations: a method of controlling {Electronic control system 51, Fig. 7; "As shown in FIGS. 1 to 5, and 7, a selection switch 50, and an electronic control system 51 for automated driving are provided in the tractor.", Col. 18, Lns. 40-42} a powered mobile unit of a mobile autonomous agricultural system {“automated driving”, Abstract; Figs. 1 & 23-25}, the mobile unit configured to carry agricultural equipment {Agricultural tractor in Figs. 1-3; "Although not shown in the drawings, a work implement apparatus W such as a rotary cultivating apparatus, a plow, a disc harrow, a cultivator, a subsoiler, a sowing apparatus, and a spraying apparatus can be coupled to the three-point linkage mechanism 5.", Col. 15, Lns. 58-62; linkage mechanism 5, Fig. 2}, the method comprising the steps of: projecting a laser curtain away from the mobile unit {range sensors 68A-D and obstacle searchers 68E&F, Fig. 2, are positioned around the tractor to provide a surrounding sensor field; Obstacle detector 65 is associated with obstacle detection module 65, Fig. 7; “obstacle detectors {laser scanners 259}”}; determining a location of the mobile unit {"FIGS. 1 to 3, and 7 to 10 , the positioning unit 53 includes a satellite navigation apparatus 60 that measures the position and orientation of the vehicle body using a well-known GPS (Global Positioning System)", Col. 19, Lns. 1-4}; a mode of operation associated with a laser curtain, the laser curtain having a predefined laser curtain pattern {as represented in Fig. 7, contact avoidance control unit 30D is part main ECU 31, which interfaces directly with positioning unit 53, all of which is considered part of the electronic control system 51; additionally, obstacle detection module 64, Fig. 7, is part of an overall obstacle detection and avoidance system}; generating a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern {"As shown in FIGS. 19 to 22 and the like, the monitoring unit 54 includes: an obstacle detection module 64 that detects the presence or absence of an obstacle; a travel regulation control unit 30F that performs, upon the obstacle detection module 64 detecting an obstacle, travel regulation control (contact avoidance control to avoid coming into contact with an obstacle) to prevent the vehicle body from traveling", Col. 33, Lns.38-45}.
Nishi does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the mobile unit is configured to move along a crop row; determining a location of the mobile unit relative to a row; selecting a mode of operation, to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the determined location of the mobile unit, wherein each mode of operation comprises processing a different predefined laser curtain pattern.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: selecting a mode of operation, to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the determined location of the mobile unit {Fig. 1}, wherein each mode of operation comprises processing a different predefined laser curtain pattern {“The obstacle detection unit changes the size of the predetermined detection range according to the traveling speed of the work vehicle”, Pg. 2, Lns. 3-5, and “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
The combination of Nishi and Sugita does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: a powered mobile unit configured to move along a crop row; and determining a location of the mobile unit relative to a row.
However, Suzuki explicitly recites the limitation: the powered mobile unit configured to move along a crop row {with regard to Figs. 4, 9 & 17, vehicle 1 moves along a crop row, in a fashion to surround the crop, in order to spray liquid to from both sides of the row}; and determining a location of the mobile unit relative to a row {“the obstacle detection system 6 which monitors the surroundings of the vehicle body 1 and detects an obstacle that exists around the vehicle body 1, the camera unit 7 which captures images of the front side and the rear side of the vehicle body 1, etc. The obstacle detection system 6 detects fruit trees or the like planted in an orchard as obstacles.”, ¶[0034]}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Nishi explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the laser curtain is projected to surround the mobile unit {with regard to Figs. 23-24, overlapping sensor fields are evident for obstacle detectors 65 and obstacle searchers 68H}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. Nishi fails to explicitly teach the limitations: selecting a default mode unless any deviating criteria is met, and wherein the default mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit in an axial direction up to a maximum axial distance from the mobile unit, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance from the mobile unit.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: selecting a default mode unless any deviating criteria is met, and wherein the default mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern {Fig. 6} which extends from the mobile unit in an axial direction up to a maximum axial distance from the mobile unit, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance from the mobile unit {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a first deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to move from one row to another row, and determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of a row, wherein when the first deviating criterion is met the method comprises selecting a crabbing mode, and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a first deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to move from one row to another row, and determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of a row, wherein when the first deviating criterion is met the method comprises selecting a crabbing mode, and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a second deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to approach a row, and then determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of the row, such that when the mobile unit is determined to be within the first threshold distance from an end of a row, the safety module is configured to select an entry mode , and wherein the entry mode comprises processing the laser curtain to the same extent as the default mode or a crabbing mode, but excluding from processing a channel in the laser curtain corresponding to the position of the row.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a second deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to approach a row, and then determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of the row, such that when the mobile unit is determined to be within the first threshold distance from an end of a row, the safety module is configured to select an entry mode , and wherein the entry mode comprises processing the laser curtain to the same extent as the default mode or a crabbing mode, but excluding from processing a channel in the laser curtain corresponding to the position of the row {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a third deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being within a second threshold distance from an end of a row, such that when the third deviating criterion is met, the method comprises selecting a row mode, and wherein the row mode comprises processing the laser curtain to form a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a maximum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a minimum width distance.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the deviating criteria comprises a third deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being within a second threshold distance from an end of a row, such that when the third deviating criterion is met, the method comprises selecting a row mode, and wherein the row mode comprises processing the laser curtain to form a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a maximum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a minimum width distance {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Nishi explicitly recites the limitation: wherein for each mode of operation, each predefined laser curtain pattern, which the safety module is configured to process, extends up to a threshold ground distance off the ground. {Figs. 23 and 25 clearly show that the outer extend of the sensor pattern from obstacle detectors 65, corresponding to X1{X}, is well above ground level to avoid detecting obstacles, like crop growth, that are not relevant to collision avoidance}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Nishi explicitly recites the limitation: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a signal or a computer program comprising computer-readable instructions that, when read by a computer, causes the performance of a method {Electronic control system 51, Fig. 7; "As shown in FIGS. 1 to 5, and 7, a selection switch 50, and an electronic control system 51 for automated driving are provided in the tractor.", Col. 18, Lns. 40-42}in accordance with claim 12 {see Claim 12 above}.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nishi, Sugita, Suzuki and Andreu (US 2024/0130266 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the system comprises at least one robot arm configured to perform agricultural tasks, and the safety output is a signal to control the robot arm to stop.
However, Andreu explicitly recites the limitation: an autonomous agricultural vehicle {Abstract, and Fig. 1} comprises at least one robot arm {80, Fig. 1} configured to perform agricultural tasks, and the safety output is a signal to control the robot arm to stop {“The present disclosure also relates to a method for safeguarding a robot including, when an obstacle is detected by the obstacle detection means…Processing the data and determining at least one characteristic of the detected obstacle…Transmitting, to the control unit of the robot, an instruction to stop the robot when the at least one characteristic does not meet the predefined criterion.”, ¶[0029]-[0033]}.
The combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki along with Andreu are analogous art because they all deal with automated driving systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nishi, Sugita, Suzuki and Andreu before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki to include the teachings of Andreu to prevent damage to the robot when obstacle, like a large rock, could damage a ground level robotic arm.
Claims 10-11 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nishi, Sugita, Suzuki and Cavender-Bares (US 10,890,912 B2).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Nishi further recites the limitations: monitor the ground surface {obstacle detection including detection of the ground: “the obstacle detector will detect the ground of the farm field or the like as an obstacle”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-57; obstacle detection module 64, Fig. 7, is part of an overall obstacle detection and avoidance system}.
The combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki do not explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the laser curtain sensor is configured to monitor and map the ground surface.
However, Cavender-Bares explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the laser curtain sensor is configured to monitor and map the ground surface {“in one embodiment, field mapping module 148 can work in cooperation with the imaging capabilities of sensor 175 or aerial vehicle 170 for the purpose of producing an accurate real-time map. The base map can also describe the soil 103 types and field topography—including measurements made using LIDAR that describe drainage patterns on a field.”, Col. 17, Lns. 11-16}.
The combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki along with Cavender-Bares are analogous art because they all deal with automated vehicles and the need for high level sensing of the surroundings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nishi, Sugita, Suzuki and Cavender-Bares before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki to include the teachings of Cavender-Bares to identify and record ground conditions. Doing so would reduce the chance of a collision with an obstacle in the near vicinity that was not present last time the crop row was traversed.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 10, as discussed supra. Nishi further recites the limitations: safety module {range sensors 68A-D and obstacle searchers 68E&F, Fig. 2, are positioned around the tractor to provide a surrounding sensor field; Obstacle detector 65 is associated with obstacle detection module 65, Fig. 7; “obstacle detectors (laser scanners 259)”, Col. 18, Lns. 40-42} operation based on the mapped ground surface {obstacle detection including detection of the ground: “the obstacle detector will detect the ground of the farm field or the like as an obstacle”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-57; obstacle detection module 64, Fig. 7, is part of an overall obstacle detection and avoidance system}.
Nishi does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the safety module is configured to dynamically alter the predefined laser curtain pattern for each mode of operation based on the mapped ground surface, and wherein when the laser curtain sensor determines that there is an inclination in the local ground surface around the mobile unit beyond a threshold inclination, the safety module is configured to dynamically alter the laser curtain pattern which is processed, by making shorter an axial extent of the laser curtain pattern or a width extent, perpendicular to the axial direction.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the safety module is configured to dynamically alter the predefined laser curtain pattern for each mode of operation, the safety module is configured to dynamically alter the laser curtain pattern which is processed, by making shorter an axial extent of the laser curtain pattern or a width extent, perpendicular to the axial direction {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
The combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: mapped ground surface, and wherein when the laser curtain sensor determines that there is an inclination in the local ground surface around the mobile unit beyond a threshold inclination.
In addition, Cavender-Bares explicitly recites the limitation: mapped ground surface, and wherein when the laser curtain sensor determines that there is an inclination in the local ground surface around the mobile unit beyond a threshold inclination {“in one embodiment, field mapping module 148 can work in cooperation with the imaging capabilities of sensor 175 or aerial vehicle 170 for the purpose of producing an accurate real-time map. The base map can also describe the soil 103 types and field topography—including measurements made using LIDAR that describe drainage patterns on a field.”, Col. 17, Lns. 11-16}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. Nishi further recites the limitations: comprising monitoring the ground surface {obstacle detection including detection of the ground: “the obstacle detector will detect the ground of the farm field or the like as an obstacle”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-57; obstacle detection module 64, Fig. 7, is part of an overall obstacle detection and avoidance system}.
Nishi does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: comprising monitoring and mapping the ground surface and dynamically altering the predefined laser curtain pattern for each mode of operation based on the monitored ground surface, and comprising determining that there in an inclination in the ground surface above an inclination threshold, based on the mapped ground surface, and dynamically altering the laser curtain pattern by making shorter an axial extent of the laser curtain pattern or a width extent, perpendicular to the axial direction.
However, Sugita explicitly recites the limitation: based on the mapped ground surface, dynamically altering the laser curtain pattern by making shorter an axial extent of the laser curtain pattern or a width extent, perpendicular to the axial direction {adaptability of sensor field is demonstrated in Fig. 7 relative to Fig. 6, based on obstacles in the surrounding area: “in FIG. 7, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the detection range C for detecting an obstacle by switching each of the plurality of obstacle sensors D between an operating state and a non-operating state”, Pg. 13, Lns. 33-35, “In this way, the obstacle detection unit 110 changes the measurement range itself of the obstacle sensor D according to the traveling state of the tractor 1 and the state of the work device such as the offset mower 12, and thereby the obstacle as a whole system”, Pg. 14, Lns. 18-20}.
The combination of Nishi, Sugita and Suzuki does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: monitoring and mapping the ground surface and comprising determining that there in an inclination in the ground surface above an inclination threshold.
In addition, Cavender-Bares explicitly recites the limitation: monitoring and mapping the ground surface and comprising determining that there in an inclination in the ground surface above an inclination threshold {“in one embodiment, field mapping module 148 can work in cooperation with the imaging capabilities of sensor 175 or aerial vehicle 170 for the purpose of producing an accurate real-time map. The base map can also describe the soil 103 types and field topography—including measurements made using LIDAR that describe drainage patterns on a field.”, Col. 17, Lns. 11-16}.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention:
No.
Current Application
Granted Claims for 17/893,758
(Claim No. in first column is before renumbering and the claim number in this column is after renumbering)
Relationship: Current vs. Granted
1
A mobile autonomous agricultural system comprising: a powered mobile unit for carrying agricultural equipment, and configured to move along rows of crops; at least one laser curtain sensor configured to project a laser curtain away from the mobile unit; a location module configured to monitor a location of the mobile unit relative to a row; a controller configured to control the travel of the mobile unit; a safety module configured to: receive a location signal from the location module related to the location of the mobile unit relative to a row of crops, select a mode of operation to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the received location signal, each mode of operation corresponding to a different predefined laser curtain pattern, and to generate a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern.
{1} A mobile autonomous agricultural system comprising: a powered mobile unit for carrying agricultural equipment, and configured to move along rows of crops; at least one laser curtain sensor configured to project a laser curtain away from the mobile unit; a location module configured to monitor a location of the mobile unit relative to a row; a controller configured to control the travel of the mobile unit; a safety module configured to: receive a location signal from the location module related to the location of the mobile unit relative to a row, select a mode of operation to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the received location signal, each mode of operation corresponding to a different predefined laser curtain pattern, and to generate a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern; wherein the safety module is configured to select a default mode of operation unless any deviating criteria are met, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a first deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to move from one row to another row, wherein when the first deviating criterion is met, the safety mode is configured to select a crabbing mode, and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance.
Current Claim 1 is word-for-word the same as the first part of granted Claim 1.
2
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of laser curtain sensors distributed around the mobile unit configured together to form the laser curtain, and wherein each laser curtain sensor is configured to project a respective laser plane which overlaps with at least one other laser plane to form the laser curtain.
{2} A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of laser curtain sensors distributed around the mobile unit configured together to form the laser curtain, and wherein each laser curtain sensor is configured to project a respective laser plane which overlaps with at least one other laser plane to form the laser curtain.
Current Claim 2 is word-for-word the same as granted Claim 2.
3
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 2, wherein the safety module is configured to select a default mode of operation unless any deviating criteria are met.
(Cancelled)
Current Claim 3 is word-for-word the same as the middle, italicized part of granted Claim 1.
4
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 3, wherein the default mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit in an axial direction up to a maximum axial distance from the mobile unit, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance from the mobile unit.
{3} A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, wherein the default mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit in an axial direction up to a maximum axial distance from the mobile unit, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance from the mobile unit.
Current Claim 4 is word-for-word the same as granted Claim 3.
5
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 3, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a first deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to move from one row to another row, wherein when the first deviating criterion is met, the safety mode is configured to select a crabbing mode and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance.
(Cancelled)
Current Claim 5 is word-for-word the same as the last, bolded part of granted Claim 1.
6
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 5, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a second deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to approach a row, and then determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of the row, such that when the mobile unit is determined to be within the first threshold distance from an end of a row, the safety module is configured to select an entry mode , and wherein the entry mode comprises processing the laser curtain to the same extent as the default mode or a crabbing mode, but excluding from processing a channel in the laser curtain corresponding to the position of the row.
{14} A mobile autonomous agricultural system comprising: a powered mobile unit for carrying agricultural equipment, and configured to move along rows of crops; at least one laser curtain sensor configured to project a laser curtain away from the mobile unit; a location module configured to monitor a location of the mobile unit relative to a row; a controller configured to control the travel of the mobile unit; a safety module configured to: receive a location signal from the location module related to the location of the mobile unit relative to a row, select a mode of operation to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the received location signal, each mode of operation corresponding to a different predefined laser curtain pattern, and to generate a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern, wherein the safety module is configured to select a default mode of operation unless any deviating criteria are met, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a second deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to approach a row, and then determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of the row, such that when the mobile unit is determined to be within the first threshold distance from an end of a row, the safety module is configured to select an entry mode, wherein the entry mode comprises processing the laser curtain to the same extent as the default mode or a crabbing mode, but excluding from processing a channel in the laser curtain corresponding to the position of the row, and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance.
Current Claim 6 is word-for-word the same as the last, bolded part of granted Claim 14.
7
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 3, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a third deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being within a second threshold distance from an end of a row or within the row, such that when the third deviating criterion is met, the safety module is configured to select a row mode, and wherein the row mode comprises processing the laser curtain to form a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a maximum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a minimum width distance.
{17} A mobile autonomous agricultural system comprising: a powered mobile unit for carrying agricultural equipment, and configured to move along rows of crops; at least one laser curtain sensor configured to project a laser curtain away from the mobile unit; a location module configured to monitor a location of the mobile unit relative to a row a controller configured to control the travel of the mobile unit; a safety module configured to: receive a location signal from the location module related to the location of the mobile unit relative to a row, select a mode of operation to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the received location signal, each mode of operation corresponding to a different predefined laser curtain pattern, and to generate a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern, wherein the safety module is configured to select a default mode of operation unless any deviating criteria are met, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a third deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being within a second threshold distance from an end of a row or within the row, such that when the third deviating criterion is met, the safety module is configured to select a row mode, and wherein the row mode comprises processing the laser curtain to form a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a maximum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a minimum width distance.
Current Claim 7 is word-for-word the same as the last, bolded part of granted Claim 17.
8
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises at least one robot arm configured to perform agricultural tasks, and the safety output is a signal to control the robot arm to stop.
{4} A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises at least one robot arm configured to perform agricultural tasks, and the safety output is a signal to control the robot arm to stop.
Current Claim 8 is word-for-word the same as granted Claim 4.
9
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, wherein for each mode of operation, each predefined laser curtain pattern, which the safety module is configured to process, extends downwards from the laser curtain sensors, up to a threshold ground distance from the ground.
{5} A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, wherein for each mode of operation, each predefined laser curtain pattern, which the safety module is configured to process, extends downwards from the laser curtain sensors, up to a threshold ground distance from the ground.
Current Claim 9 is word-for-word the same as granted Claim 5.
10
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, wherein the laser curtain sensor is configured to monitor and map the ground surface.
{6} A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, wherein the laser curtain sensor is configured to monitor and map the ground surface.
Current Claim 10 is word-for-word the same as granted Claim 6.
11
A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 10, wherein the safety module is configured to dynamically alter the predefined laser curtain pattern for each mode of operation based on the mapped ground surface, and wherein when the laser curtain sensor determines that there is an inclination in the local ground surface around the mobile unit beyond a threshold inclination, the safety module is configured to dynamically alter the laser curtain pattern which is processed, by making shorter an axial extent of the laser curtain pattern or a width extent, perpendicular to the axial direction.
{7} A mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 6, wherein the safety module is configured to dynamically alter the predefined laser curtain pattern for each mode of operation based on the mapped ground surface, and wherein when the laser curtain sensor determines that there is an inclination in the local ground surface around the mobile unit beyond a threshold inclination, the safety module is configured to dynamically alter the laser curtain pattern which is processed, by making shorter an axial extent of the laser curtain pattern or a width extent, perpendicular to the axial direction.
Current Claim 11 is word-for-word the same as granted Claim 7.
12
A method of controlling a powered mobile unit of a mobile autonomous agricultural system, the mobile unit configured to carry agricultural equipment and configured to move along rows of crops, the method comprising the steps of: projecting a laser curtain away from the mobile unit; determining a location of the mobile unit relative to a row; selecting a mode of operation, to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the determined location of the mobile unit relative to the row, wherein each mode of operation comprises processing a different predefined laser curtain pattern; and generating a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern.
{8} A method of controlling a powered mobile unit of a mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 1, the mobile unit configured to carry agricultural equipment and configured to move along rows of crops, the method comprising the steps of: projecting a laser curtain away from the mobile unit; determining a location of the mobile unit relative to a row; selecting a mode of operation, to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the determined location of the mobile unit relative to the row, wherein each mode of operation comprises processing a different predefined laser curtain pattern; generating a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern, and selecting a default mode unless any deviating criteria is met, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a first deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to move from one row to another row, and determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of a row, wherein when the first deviating criterion is met, the method comprises selecting a crabbing mode, and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance.
Current Claim 12 is word-for-word the same (minus the phrase “according to claim 1”) as the first part of granted Claim 8.
13
A method according to claim 12, wherein the laser curtain is projected to surround the mobile unit.
{9} A method according to claim 8, wherein the laser curtain is projected to surround the mobile unit.
Current Claim 13 is word-for-word the same as granted Claim 9.
14
A method according to claim 13, comprising selecting a default mode unless any deviating criteria is met, and wherein the default mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit in an axial direction up to a maximum axial distance from the mobile unit, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance from the mobile unit.
{10} A method according to claim 9, wherein the default mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit in an axial direction up to a maximum axial distance from the mobile unit, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance from the mobile unit.
Current Claim 14 is word-for-word the same as a combination of language from granted Claim 8 (“selecting a default mode unless any deviating criteria is met”) and granted Claim 10.
15
A method according to claim 14,
wherein the deviating criteria comprises a first deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to move from one row to another row, and determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of a row, wherein when the first deviating criterion is met, the method comprises selecting a crabbing mode, and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance.
(Cancelled)
Current Claim 15 is word-for-word the same as the second half of granted Claim 8.
16
A method according to claim 14, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a second deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to approach a row, and determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of a row, such that when the second deviating criterion is met, the method comprises selecting an entry mode, and wherein the entry mode comprises processing the laser curtain to the same extent as a default mode or a crabbing mode, but excluding from processing a channel in the laser curtain corresponding to the location of the row.
{15} A method of controlling a powered mobile unit of a mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 6, the mobile unit configured to carry agricultural equipment and configured to move along rows of crops, the method comprising: projecting a laser curtain away from the mobile unit; determining a location of the mobile unit relative to a row; selecting a mode of operation, to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the determined location of the mobile unit relative to the row, wherein each mode of operation comprises processing a different predefined laser curtain pattern; generating a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern selecting a default mode unless any deviating criteria is met, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a second deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being controlled to approach a row, and determining that the mobile unit is within a first threshold distance from an end of a row, such that when the second deviating criterion is met, the method comprises selecting an entry mode, wherein the entry mode comprises processing the laser curtain to the same extent as a default mode or a crabbing mode, but excluding from processing a channel in the laser curtain corresponding to the location of the row, and wherein the crabbing mode comprises processing the laser curtain in a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a minimum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a maximum width distance.
Current Claim 16 is word-for-word the same as the middle portion of granted Claim 15.
17
A method according to claim 14, wherein the deviating criteria comprises a third deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being within a second threshold distance from an end of a row, such that when the third deviating criterion is met, the method comprises selecting a row mode, and wherein the row mode comprises processing the laser curtain to form a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a maximum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a minimum width distance.
{18} A method of controlling a powered mobile unit of a mobile autonomous agricultural system according to claim 17, the mobile unit configured to carry agricultural equipment and configured to move along rows of crops, the method comprising: projecting a laser curtain away from the mobile unit; determining a location of the mobile unit relative to a row; selecting a mode of operation, to process the laser curtain in a predefined laser curtain pattern, based on the determined location of the mobile unit relative to the row, wherein each mode of operation comprises processing a different predefined laser curtain pattern; generating a safety output in response to determining that the laser curtain is interrupted within the laser curtain pattern selecting a default mode unless any deviating criteria is met, herein the deviating criteria comprises a third deviating criterion comprising the mobile unit being within a second threshold distance from an end of a row, such that when the third deviating criterion is met, the method comprises selecting a row mode, and wherein the row mode comprises processing the laser curtain to form a laser curtain pattern which extends from the mobile unit along the axial direction up to a maximum axial distance, and in a width direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, up to a minimum width distance.
Current Claim 17 is word-for-word the same as the last portion of granted Claim 18.
18
A method according to claim 12, wherein for each mode of operation, each predefined laser curtain pattern, which the safety module is configured to process, extends up to a threshold ground distance off the ground.
{11} A method according to claim 8, wherein for each mode of operation, each predefined laser curtain pattern, which the safety module is configured to process, extends up to a threshold ground distance off the ground.
Current Claim 18 is word-for-word the same as the middle portion of granted Claim 11.
19
A method according to claim 12, comprising monitoring and mapping the ground surface and dynamically altering the predefined laser curtain pattern for each mode of operation based on the monitored ground surface, and comprising determining that there in an inclination in the ground surface above an inclination threshold, based on the mapped ground surface, and dynamically altering the laser curtain pattern by making shorter an axial extent of the laser curtain pattern or a width extent, perpendicular to the axial direction.
{12} A method according to claim 8, comprising monitoring and mapping the ground surface and dynamically altering the predefined laser curtain pattern for each mode of operation based on the monitored ground surface, and comprising determining that there in an inclination in the ground surface above an inclination threshold, based on the mapped ground surface, and dynamically altering the laser curtain pattern by making shorter an axial extent of the laser curtain pattern or a width extent, perpendicular to the axial direction.
Current Claim 19 is word-for-word the same as the middle portion of granted Claim 12.
20
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a signal or a computer program comprising computer-readable instructions that, when read by a computer, causes the performance of a method in accordance with claim 12.
{13} A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions that, when read by a computer, causes the performance of a method in accordance with claim 8.
Current Claim 20 is comparable to granted Claim 13.
21
NA
{16} A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer- readable instructions that, when read by a computer, causes the performance of a method in accordance with claim 15.
NA
22
NA
{19} A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer- readable instructions that, when read by a computer, causes the performance of a method in accordance with claim 18.
NA
This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11,110,957 B2 – An adaptive sensor field approach that allows for both adaptation of the local field shape {130, Fig. 12} and expansion of the global field shape {135, Fig. 12}. Adapting the shape of a local field is based on “field shape rules” {160, Fig. 12}.
US 2022/0264784 A1 - Discloses an agricultural vehicle in which the sensor field pattern is changed when the vehicle is required to traverse roadways when moving from one agricultural field to another field some distance away.
US 12,005,930 B2 - Discloses an agricultural vehicle in which the sensor pattern surrounding the vehicle is modified to allow attachment of a trailing farming device, such as a tiller.
US 2022/0400598 A1 – Adapting the angular orientation of a sensor field, on an autonomous vehicle, to adapt to the surroundings, such as the upcoming inclined path in Figs. 5B-5C.
US 11,408,991 B2 – Changing the size of a sensor field: “a plurality of sensor power configurations, a desired sensor power configuration based on the operating context of the vehicle. The method further includes causing at least one of: the at least one LIDAR sensor to emit light pulses according to the desired sensor power configuration” {Abstract; Figs. 4B and 4C show two different resulting sensor patterns}.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665