DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 3: “the the one or more” should be changed to read “the
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, and 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,608 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
A method comprising:
accessing a boundary definition corresponding to a geographic area in which an autonomous off-road vehicle (AOV) operates (claim 1 “accessing a farming operation-specific definition of a boundary corresponding to a geographic area in which an autonomous off-road vehicle (AOV) operates”), the boundary definition including, for each of a plurality of portions of a boundary, one or more vehicle behaviors (claim 1 “the boundary definition including a classification of each of a plurality of portions of the boundary as being of one or more boundary types, each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations”) and associated farming operation types (claim 1 “a first vehicle behavior limitation associated with the first farming operation”);
modifying, by the AOV and when performing a first type of farming operation at a first portion of the boundary, a behavior of the AOV based on a first vehicle behavior associated with the first type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (claim 1 “modifying, by the AOV, a behavior of the AOV based on a first vehicle behavior limitation associated with the first farming operation and with the one or more first target boundary types”); and
modifying, by the AOV and when performing a second type of farming operation at the first portion of the boundary, the behavior of the AOV based on a second vehicle behavior associated with the second type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (claim 1 “wherein when performing a second farming operation different from the first farming operation, the first target portion of the boundary is associated with a second vehicle behavior limitation”), the second vehicle behavior being different from the first vehicle behavior (claim 1 “the second vehicle behavior limitation being different from the first vehicle behavior limitation.”).
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the first type of farming operation is different from the second type of farming operation (claim 1 “a second farming operation different from the first farming operation”).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
navigating, by the AOV, to the first portion of the boundary (claim 1 “navigating, by the AOV and when performing a first farming operation, to a first target portion of the boundary”); and
modifying, by the AOV, the behavior of the AOV in response to the AOV being within a threshold distance of the first portion of the boundary (claim 1 “in response to being within a threshold distance of the first target portion of the boundary and when performing the first farming operation, modifying, by the AOV, a behavior of the AOV”).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
generating the boundary definition corresponding to the geographic area based on a user operation of the AOV in a manual mode (claim 2 “generating the boundary definition corresponding to the geographic area based on a user operation of the AOV in a manual mode;”);
modifying the boundary definition to include for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors (claim 1 “each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations” and claim 2 “modifying the boundary definition to include the classification of each of the plurality of portions of the boundary as being of the one or more boundary types”); and
storing the modified boundary definition on the AOV (claim 2 “storing the modified boundary definition on the AOV.”).
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
modifying, at a central server, the boundary definition to include, for each of a plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors and the associated farming operation types (claim 1 “each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations ... a first vehicle behavior limitation associated with the first farming operation”; claim 4 “modifying, at a central server, the boundary definition to include the classification of each of the plurality of portions of the boundary as being of the one or more boundary types”); and
transmitting, from the central server and to the AOV, the modified boundary definition (claim 4 “transmitting, from the central server and to the AOV, the modified boundary definition including the classification.”).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary (claim 5 “wherein classifying each of the plurality of portions of the boundary as being of the one or more boundary types comprises, for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary”:
accessing sensor data for the boundary portion (claim 5 “accessing sensor data for the boundary portion”); and
applying a machine-learned model to the sensor data for the boundary portion to perform a classification operation of classifying the boundary portion has having one or more boundary attributes (claim 5 “applying a machine-learned model to the sensor data for the boundary portion to perform a classification operation of classifying the boundary portion as being of the one or more boundary types.”), each boundary attribute being associated with one or more vehicle behaviors (claim 1 “the boundary definition including a classification of each of a plurality of portions of the boundary as being of one or more boundary types, each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations”), wherein the machine-learned model is trained to perform the classification operation based on labeled sensor data for a plurality of boundary attributes (claim 6 “wherein the machine-learned model is trained to perform the classification operation based on labeled sensor data for a plurality of the boundary types.”).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the one or more vehicle behaviors comprise at least one of: an overlap boundary vehicle behavior, a skip boundary vehicle behavior, a passable boundary vehicle behavior, an impassable boundary vehicle behavior, a height-restricted boundary vehicle behavior, a speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior, a caution boundary vehicle behavior, and a poor signal boundary vehicle behavior (claim 8 “wherein the one or more boundary types comprise at least one of: an overlap boundary type, a skip boundary type, a passable boundary type, an impassable boundary type, a height-restricted boundary type, a speed-restricted boundary type, a caution boundary type, and a poor signal boundary type.”).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the overlap boundary vehicle behavior modifies the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV by a predetermined distance toward the boundary when performing a spraying operation (claim 9 “wherein the overlap boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV by a predetermined distance toward the boundary when performing a spraying operation.”).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the skip boundary vehicle behavior modifies the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV by a predetermined distance away from the boundary when performing a spraying operation (claim 10 “wherein the skip boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV by a predetermined distance away from the boundary when performing a spraying operation.”).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the height-restricted boundary vehicle behavior modifies the behavior of the AOV when performing a spraying operation by adjusting a height of a component of the AOV to have a predetermined clearance relative to an entity at a boundary portion having the height-restricted boundary vehicle behavior (claim 11 “wherein the height-restricted boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV when performing a spraying operation by adjusting a height of a component of the AOV to have a predetermined clearance relative to an entity at a boundary portion having the height-restricted boundary type.”).
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior modifies the behavior of the AOV when performing a spraying operation by lowering a speed of the AOV to be lower than a threshold speed while navigating a boundary portion having the speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior (claim 12 “wherein the speed-restricted boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV when performing a spraying operation by lowering a speed of the AOV to be lower than a threshold speed while navigating a boundary portion having the speed-restricted boundary type.”).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
An autonomous off-road vehicle (AOV) (claim 18 “An autonomous off-road vehicle (AOV)”) comprising:
a hardware processor (claim 18 “a hardware processor”); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that,
when executed by the hardware processor, cause the AOV to perform steps comprising (claim 18 “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the AOV to perform steps comprising:”):
accessing a boundary definition corresponding to a geographic area in which the AOV operates (claim 18 “accessing a farming operation-specific definition of a boundary corresponding to a geographic area in which the AOV operates”), the boundary definition including, for each of a plurality of portions of a boundary, one or more vehicle behaviors (claim 18 “the boundary definition including a classification of each of a plurality of portions of the boundary as being of one or more boundary types, each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations”) and associated farming operation types (claim 18 “a first vehicle behavior limitation associated with the first farming operation”);
modifying, when performing a first type of farming operation at a first portion of the boundary, a behavior of the AOV based on a first vehicle behavior associated with the first type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (claim 18 “modifying, by the AOV, a behavior of the AOV based on a first vehicle behavior limitation associated with the first farming operation and with the one or more first target boundary types”); and
modifying, when performing a second type of farming operation at the first portion of the boundary, the behavior of the AOV based on a second vehicle behavior associated with the second type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (claim 18 “wherein when performing a second farming operation different from the first farming operation, the target portion of the boundary is associated with a second vehicle behavior limitation”, the second vehicle behavior being different from the first vehicle behavior (claim 18 “the second vehicle behavior limitation being different from the first vehicle behavior limitation.”).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the first type of farming operation is different from the second type of farming operation (claim 18 “a second farming operation different from the first farming operation”).
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent ’608 teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the AOV to perform steps comprising:
navigating to the first portion of the boundary (claim 18 “navigating, by the AOV and when performing a first farming operation, to a target portion of the boundary”); and
modifying the behavior of the AOV in response to the AOV being within a threshold distance of the first portion of the boundary (claim 18 “in response to being within a threshold distance of the target portion of the boundary and when performing the first farming operation, modifying, by the AOV, a behavior of the AOV”).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the AOV to perform steps comprising:
generating the boundary definition corresponding to the geographic area based on a user operation of the AOV in a manual mode (claim 2 “generating the boundary definition corresponding to the geographic area based on a user operation of the AOV in a manual mode”);
modifying the boundary definition to include for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors (claim 18 “each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations” and claim 2 “modifying the boundary definition to include the classification of each of the plurality of portions of the boundary as being of the one or more boundary types”); and
storing the modified boundary definition on the AOV (claim 2 “storing the modified boundary definition on the AOV”).
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the AOV to perform steps comprising:
modifying, at a central server, the boundary definition to include, for each of a plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors and the associated farming operation types (claim 18 “each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations ... a first vehicle behavior limitation associated with the first farming operation”; claim 4 “modifying, at a central server, the boundary definition to include the classification of each of the plurality of portions of the boundary as being of the one or more boundary types”); and
transmitting, from the central server and to the AOV, the modified boundary definition (claim 4 “transmitting, from the central server and to the AOV, the modified boundary definition including the classification.”).
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the AOV to perform steps comprising:
accessing sensor data for the boundary portion (claim 5 “accessing sensor data for the boundary portion;”); and
applying a machine-learned model to the sensor data for the boundary portion to perform a classification operation of classifying the boundary portion has having one or more boundary attributes (claim 5 “applying a machine-learned model to the sensor data for the boundary portion to perform a classification operation of classifying the boundary portion as being of the one or more boundary types.”), each boundary attribute being associated with one or more vehicle behaviors (claim 18 “the boundary definition including a classification of each of a plurality of portions of the boundary as being of one or more boundary types, each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations”), wherein the machine-learned model is trained to perform the classification operation based on labeled sensor data for a plurality of boundary attributes (claim 6 “wherein the machine-learned model is trained to perform the classification operation based on labeled sensor data for a plurality of the boundary types.”).
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a hardware processor (claim 18), cause the hardware processor to perform steps comprising:
accessing a boundary definition corresponding to a geographic area in which the AOV operates (claim 18 “accessing a farming operation-specific definition of a boundary corresponding to a geographic area in which the AOV operates”), the boundary definition including, for each of a plurality of portions of a boundary, one or more vehicle behaviors (claim 18 “the boundary definition including a classification of each of a plurality of portions of the boundary as being of one or more boundary types, each boundary type associated with one or more vehicle behavior limitations”) and associated farming operation types (claim 18 “a first vehicle behavior limitation associated with the first farming operation”);
modifying, by the AOV and when performing a first type of farming operation at a first portion of the boundary, a behavior of the AOV based on a first vehicle behavior associated with the first type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (claim 18 “modifying, by the AOV, a behavior of the AOV based on a first vehicle behavior limitation associated with the first farming operation and with the one or more first target boundary types”); and
modifying, by the AOV and when performing a second type of farming operation at the first portion of the boundary, the behavior of the AOV based on a second vehicle behavior associated with the second type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (claim 18 “wherein when performing a second farming operation different from the first farming operation, the target portion of the boundary is associated with a second vehicle behavior limitation”, the second vehicle behavior being different from the first vehicle behavior (claim 18 “the second vehicle behavior limitation being different from the first vehicle behavior limitation.”).
Regarding claim 20, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein the first type of farming operation is different from the second type of farming operation (claim 18 “a second farming operation different from the first farming operation”).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,608 B2, in view of Nelson et al. (US 2009/0292426 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent ‘608 teaches:
wherein modifying the boundary definition comprises receiving, while operating the AOV in the manual mode, a user selection of, for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the (corresponding one or more boundary types) (claim 3).
U.S. Patent ‘608 does not specifically teach receiving the one or more vehicle behaviors.
However, Nelson teaches:
wherein modifying the boundary definition comprises receiving, while operating the AOV in the manual mode, a user selection of, for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors ([0034] “, the user interface 16 allows an operator of the planter to select outer rows 404, the specified time duration and the specified range positions. The specified range of positions may include a first position of the planter associated with the activation of an actuator 14 and a second position associated with the deactivation of the actuator 14. Both the first position and the second position may be associated with a corresponding boundary point, boundary coordinates or boundary.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent ‘608, to receive, while operating the AOV in the manual mode, a user selection of, for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors, as taught by Nelson, in order to perform appropriate operation as desired by the user for each portion of the boundary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tatge et al. (US 2018/0129987 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tatge teaches:
A method comprising:
accessing a boundary definition ([0044] “electronic farming record (EFR) corresponding to a geographic area ([0044] “physical land situated in a low-lying area between two sets of foothills”) in which an autonomous off-road vehicle (AOV) operates ([0044] “an electronic farming record (EFR) for the Hatfield's farming business to include entries containing a description and a set of operating events associated with the tree removal farming operation, a description of the FOLS (i.e., FOLS #102 and FOLS # 108) affected by the tree-removal farming operation, as well as a description of the travel path 230 for the farming operation.”), the boundary definition including, for each of a plurality of portions of a boundary (each portion of a boundary corresponds with an FOLS), one or more vehicle behaviors (Fig. 2; [0044] “travel path 230” and [0045] “travel path 235, 240, 245, 250, 255”) and associated farming operation types (Fig. 2 shows travel paths/vehicle behaviors and farming operation types associated with each FOLS #102 and FOLS #108; [0044] “tree removal farming operation”; [0045] “a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations)”);
modifying, by the AOV and when performing a first type of farming operation ([0044] “tree removal farming operation”) at a first portion of the boundary (first portion corresponds with either FOLS #102 or FOLS #108), a behavior of the AOV based on a first vehicle behavior associated with the first type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (Fig. 2; [0044] “at time t1, a massive tree-removal operation occurs on all of the land represented by travel path 230, which covers part of the land in FOLS #102, part of the land in FOLS #108 , part of the Hatfield Farm 203, part of the McCoy Farm 205, and all of the land between the foothills.”); and
modifying, by the AOV and when performing a second type of farming operation at the first portion of the boundary, the behavior of the AOV based on a second vehicle behavior associated with the second type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition ([0045] “As shown in FIG. 2, over a period of time (t2-t5), a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations) may be performed on the same physical land, each farming operation having a unique travel path 235, 240, 245, 250, 255 260, and 265”), the second vehicle behavior being different from the first vehicle behavior ([0045] “each farming operation having a unique travel path 235, 240, 245 , 250 , 255 , 260 and 265”).
Regarding claim 2, Tatge further teaches:
wherein the first type of farming operation is different from the second type of farming operation ([0044] “tree removal farming operation”; [0045] “a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations)”).
Regarding claim 13, Tatge teaches:
An autonomous off-road vehicle (AOV) ([0008] “Farming vehicles may include, without limitation, tractors. trucks, automobiles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), or any other self-propelled vehicle or machine typically used to carry out farming operations.”) comprising:
a hardware processor ([0053] “microprocessor 315”); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor ([0052] “The on-board digital memory 305 of the relay device 300 includes an operating system and a number of software libraries and custom software controllers, including a library for programmatic communication of commands, signals and operating parameters used by a task controller on the farming vehicle or farming implement.”), cause the AOV to perform steps comprising:
accessing a boundary definition ([0044] “electronic farming record (EFR) corresponding to a geographic area ([0044] “physical land situated in a low-lying area between two sets of foothills”) in which the AOV operates ([0044] “an electronic farming record (EFR) for the Hatfield's farming business to include entries containing a description and a set of operating events associated with the tree removal farming operation, a description of the FOLS (i.e., FOLS #102 and FOLS # 108) affected by the tree-removal farming operation, as well as a description of the travel path 230 for the farming operation.”), the boundary definition including, for each of a plurality of portions of a boundary (each portion of a boundary corresponds with an FOL), one or more vehicle behaviors (Fig. 2; [0044] “travel path 230” and [0045] “travel path 235, 240, 245, 250, 255”) and associated farming operation types (Fig. 2 shows travel paths/vehicle behaviors and farming operation types associated with each FOLS #102 and FOLS #108; [0044] “tree removal farming operation”; [0045] “a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations)”);
modifying, when performing a first type of farming operation ([0044] “tree removal farming operation”) at a first portion of the boundary (first portion corresponds with either FOLS #102 or FOLS #108), a behavior associated with the first type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (Fig. 2; [0044] “at time t1, a massive tree-removal operation occurs on all of the land represented by travel path 230, which covers part of the land in FOLS #102, part of the land in FOLS #108 , part of the Hatfield Farm 203, part of the McCoy Farm 205, and all of the land between the foothills.”); and
modifying, when performing a second type of farming operation at the first portion of the boundary, the behavior of the AOV based on a second vehicle behavior associated with the second type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition ([0045] “As shown in FIG. 2, over a period of time (t2 -t5), a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations) may be performed on the same physical land, each farming operation having a unique travel path 235, 240, 245, 250, 255 260, and 265”), the second vehicle behavior being different from the first vehicle behavior ([0045] “each farming operation having a unique travel path 235, 240, 245 , 250 , 255 , 260 and 265”).
Regarding claim 14, Tatge further teaches:
wherein the first type of farming operation is different from the second type of farming operation ([0044] “tree removal farming operation”; [0045] “a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations)”).
Regarding claim 19, Tatge teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to perform steps ([0052] “The on-board digital memory 305 of the relay device 300 includes an operating system and a number of software libraries and custom software controllers, including a library for programmatic communication of commands, signals and operating parameters used by a task controller on the farming vehicle or farming implement.”) comprising:
accessing a boundary definition ([0044] “electronic farming record (EFR) corresponding to a geographic area ([0044] “physical land situated in a low-lying area between two sets of foothills”) in which an autonomous off-road vehicle (AOV) operates ([0044] “an electronic farming record (EFR) for the Hatfield's farming business to include entries containing a description and a set of operating events associated with the tree removal farming operation, a description of the FOLS (i.e., FOLS #102 and FOLS # 108) affected by the tree-removal farming operation, as well as a description of the travel path 230 for the farming operation.”), the boundary definition including, for each of a plurality of portions of a boundary (each portion of a boundary corresponds with an FOL), one or more vehicle behaviors (Fig. 2; [0044] “travel path 230” and [0045] “travel path 235, 240, 245, 250, 255”) and associated farming operation types (Fig. 2 shows travel paths/vehicle behaviors and farming operation types associated with each FOLS #102 and FOLS #108; [0044] “tree removal farming operation”; [0045] “a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations)”);
modifying, by the AOV and when performing a first type of farming operation ([0044] “tree removal farming operation”) at a first portion of the boundary (first portion corresponds with either FOLS #102 or FOLS #108), a behavior of the AOV based on a first vehicle behavior associated with the first type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition (Fig. 2; [0044] “at time t1, a massive tree-removal operation occurs on all of the land represented by travel path 230, which covers part of the land in FOLS #102, part of the land in FOLS #108 , part of the Hatfield Farm 203, part of the McCoy Farm 205, and all of the land between the foothills.”); and
modifying, by the AOV and when performing a second type of farming operation at the first portion of the boundary, the behavior of the AOV based on a second vehicle behavior associated with the second type of farming operation for the first portion in the boundary definition ([0045] “As shown in FIG. 2, over a period of time (t2 -t5), a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations) may be performed on the same physical land, each farming operation having a unique travel path 235, 240, 245, 250, 255 260, and 265”), the second vehicle behavior being different from the first vehicle behavior ([0045] “each farming operation having a unique travel path 235, 240, 245 , 250 , 255 , 260 and 265”).
Regarding claim 20, Tatge further teaches:
wherein the first type of farming operation is different from the second type of farming operation ([0044] “tree removal farming operation”; [0045] “a plurality of additional farming operations (including fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting operations)”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 6-7, 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatge et al. (US 2018/0129987 A1), in view of Rankawat et al. (US 2019/0286153 A1).
Regarding claim 3 and similarly cited claim 15, Tatge further teaches:
navigating, by the AOV, to the first portion of the boundary (Fig. 1; [0041] “As shown in FIG. 1, at time t0 , a farming vehicle 120, such as a tractor, begins towing a farming implement 125, such as a sprayer, toward a FOLS 105 while the farming implement 125 is deactivated and/or all of the spraying nozzles on farming implement 125 are switched off.”); and
modifying, by the AOV, the behavior of the AOV in response to the AOV being within ... the first portion of the boundary (Fig. 2; [0044] “at time t1, a massive tree-removal operation occurs on all of the land represented by travel path 230, which covers part of the land in FOLS #102, part of the land in FOLS #108 , part of the Hatfield Farm 203, part of the McCoy Farm 205, and all of the land between the foothills.”).
Tatge does not specifically teach modifying the behavior of the AOV in response to the AOV being within a threshold distance of the first portion of the boundary.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rankawat teaches:
modifying the behavior of the AOV in response to the AOV being within a threshold distance of the first portion of the boundary ([0067] “Although this example of 3D to 2D projection for determining distance from the vehicle 700 to the boundary is described herein, this is not intended to be limiting. For example, any method of determining real-world coordinates from image coordinates may be used to determine the distance from the vehicle 700 to the boundary, and thus the drivable free-space for the vehicle 700 to move around within.”; [0068] “In such examples, stereo vision techniques may be used to determine distances to the boundary using information from two or more images generated from two or more cameras (or other sensors, such as LIDAR sensors).” – The threshold distance can be interpreted as the range of the camera located on the vehicle to the boundary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge to modify a behavior of the vehicle in response to being within a threshold distance of the first target portion of the boundary, as taught by Rankawat, in order to accurately identify the location of the boundary in the real-world coordinates.
Regarding claim 6 and similarly cited claim 17, Tatge further teaches:
modifying, ..., the boundary definition to include, for each of a plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors and the associated farming operation types ([0036] “the electronic farming record for the farming business is updated to include an indication that a new farming operation has taken place, and to include descriptive information about the type of operation, the operating events, the travel path and the FOLS associated with the farming operation.”).
Tatge does not specifically teach the modifying of the boundary definition is performed at a central server and transmitting, from the central server and to the AOV, the modified boundary definition.
However, Rankawat teaches:
modifying, at a central server ([0262] “The server(s) 778 may be used to train machine learning models (e.g., neural networks) based on training data”), the boundary definition ([0263] “In some examples, the server(s) 778 may receive data from the vehicles and apply the data to up-to-date real-time neural networks for real-time intelligent inferencing.”; [0051]; [0053]; [0139]; [0149] – The machine learning model 104 of Rankawat is continuously trained/updated to define boundaries based on updated sensor data, thus the boundary definition is modified/updated based on the sensor data); and
transmitting, from the central server and to the AOV, the modified boundary definition ([0262] “Once the machine learning models are trained, the machine learning models may be used by the vehicles (e.g., transmitted to the vehicles over the network(s) 790, and/or the machine learning models may be used by the server(s) 778 to remotely monitor the vehicles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge to modify the boundary definition at a central server and transmit, from the central server and to the AOV, the modified boundary definition, as taught by Rankawat, in order to determine whether the vehicle can traverse through the boundary.
Regarding claim 7 and similarly cited claim 18, Tatge does not specifically teach:
for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary: accessing sensor data for the boundary portion; and applying a machine-learned model to the sensor data for the boundary portion to perform a classification operation of classifying the boundary portion has having one or more boundary attributes, each boundary attribute being associated with one or more vehicle behaviors, wherein the machine-learned model is trained to perform the classification operation based on labeled sensor data for a plurality of boundary attributes.
However, Rankawat teaches
accessing sensor data for the boundary portion ([0046] “The machine learning model(s) 104 may use as input one or more images (or other data representations) represented by the sensor data 102 to generate the boundary points 106 (e.g., representative of 2D pixel locations of boundary(ies) within the image) and/or the class labels 108 (e.g., boundary class labels corresponding to boundary classes associated with the boundary(ies)) as output.”); and
applying a machine-learned model to the sensor data for the boundary portion to perform a classification operation of classifying the boundary portion as being of the one or more boundary attributes ([0046] “The machine learning model(s) 104 may use as input one or more images (or other data representations) represented by the sensor data 102 to generate the boundary points 106 (e.g., representative of 2D pixel locations of boundary(ies) within the image) and/or the class labels 108 (e.g., boundary class labels corresponding to boundary classes associated with the boundary(ies)) as output.”; [0051]), wherein the machine-learned model is trained to perform the classification operation based on labeled sensor data for a plurality of boundary attributes ([0046] “The machine learning model(s) 104 may use as input one or more images (or other data representations) represented by the sensor data 102 to generate the boundary points 106 (e.g., representative of 2D pixel locations of boundary(ies) within the image) and/or the class labels 108 (e.g., boundary class labels corresponding to boundary classes associated with the boundary(ies)) as output.”; [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge, to access sensor data for the boundary portion, apply a machine-learned model to the sensor data for the boundary portion to perform a classification operation of classifying the boundary portion as being of the one or more boundary types, wherein the machine-learned model is trained to perform the classification operation based on labeled sensor data for a plurality of boundary attributes, as taught by Rankawat, in order to control the vehicle to navigate through the physical environment using locations and labels of boundaries.
Claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatge et al. (US 2018/0129987 A1), in view of Senneff et al. (US 2009/0037096 A1).
Regarding claim 4 and similarly cited claim 16, Tatge further teaches:
generating the boundary definition corresponding to the geographic area ... ([0060] “The application program also compares the position information (such as longitude and latitude coordinates) received by the GPS receiver 410 during the performance of the farming operation to location information (such as longitude and latitude coordinates) stored in the collection of FOLS descriptions 445 to determine which FOLS described in the collection of FOLS descriptions is the FOLS where the farming operation is carried out. The position and time information received by the GPS receiver 410, in conjunction with the operating events, also enables the application program 405 to determine the exact travel path for the farming operation. All of this information, including the type, location and travel path for the farming operation, is written to the electronic farming record 455 for the farming business.”);
modifying the boundary definition to include for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors ([0036] “ After the application program determines the travel path and the FOLS for the farming operation, the electronic farming record for the farming business is updated to include an indication that a new farming operation has taken place, and to include descriptive information about the type of operation, the operating events, the travel path and the FOLS associated with the farming operation.”); and
storing the modified boundary definition on the AOV ([0059] “The memory storage area 430 in the relay device also stores one or more electronic farm records”).
Tatge does not specifically teach generating the boundary definition ... based on a user operation of the AOV in a manual mode in a manual mode.
However, Senneff teaches:
generating the boundary definition corresponding to the geographic area based on a user operation of the AOV in a manual mode ([0021] “This inspection serves to identify non-traversable areas which cannot be safely or expediently traversed by the vehicle. At 210, a boundary is established around the non-traversable area within the work area based on the inspection. This boundary may be established via a user interface of the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge to generate the boundary definition based on a user operation of the AOV in a manual mode, as taught by Senneff, in order to define boundaries as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 8, Tatge does not specifically teach wherein the one or more vehicle behaviors comprise at least one of: an overlap boundary vehicle behavior, a skip boundary vehicle behavior, a passable boundary vehicle behavior, an impassable boundary vehicle behavior, a height-restricted boundary vehicle behavior, a speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior, a caution boundary vehicle behavior, and a poor signal boundary vehicle behavior.
However, Senneff further teaches:
wherein the one or more vehicle behaviors comprise a speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior ([0019] “when entering a headland, the "Enter Headlands" sequence can have the machine turn the differential lock to OFF, slow down, and then raise the implement completely out of the ground before completing a turn.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge to include a speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior, as taught by Senneff, in order to control the speed of the AOV for a specific boundary type.
Regarding claim 12, Tatge does not specifically teach wherein the speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior modifies the behavior of the AOV when performing a spraying operation by lowering a speed of the AOV to be lower than a threshold speed while navigating a boundary portion having the speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior.
However, Senneff further teaches wherein the speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior modifies the behavior of the AOV when performing a spraying operation by lowering a speed of the AOV ... while navigating a boundary portion having the speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior. ([0019] “when entering a headland, the "Enter Headlands" sequence can have the machine turn the differential lock to OFF, slow down, and then raise the implement completely out of the ground before completing a turn.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge, in view of Senneff, to include a speed-restricted boundary vehicle behavior, as taught by Senneff, in order to control the speed of the AOV for a specific boundary type.
Senneff does not specifically teach the speed of the AOV is to be lower than a threshold speed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Senneff, in view of Rankawat, to determine a threshold speed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatge et al. (US 2018/0129987 A1), in view of Senneff et al. (US 2009/0037096 A1), and in further view of Nelson et al. (US 2009/0292426 A1).
Regarding claim 5, neither Tatge nor Senneff specifically teaches wherein modifying the boundary definition comprises, receiving, while operating the AOV in the manual mode, a user selection of, for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors.
However, Nelson teaches:
wherein modifying the boundary definition comprises, receiving, while operating the AOV in the manual mode, a user selection of, for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors ([0034] “the user interface 16 allows an operator of the planter to select outer rows 404, the specified time duration and the specified range positions. The specified range of positions may include a first position of the planter associated with the activation of an actuator 14 and a second position associated with the deactivation of the actuator 14. Both the first position and the second position may be associated with a corresponding boundary point, boundary coordinates or boundary.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge, in view of Senneff, to receive, while operating the AOV in the manual mode, a user selection of, for each of the plurality of portions of the boundary, the one or more vehicle behaviors, as taught by Nelson, in order to perform appropriate operation as desired by the user for each portion of the boundary.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatge et al. (US 2018/0129987 A1), in view of Senneff et al. (US 2009/0037096 A1), and in further view of Anderson (US 2011/0153172 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tatge and Senneff do not specifically teach wherein the overlap boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV by a predetermined distance toward the boundary.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Anderson teaches wherein the overlap boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV ... toward the boundary ([0134] “The area management process detects that shrub growth 806 extends across border 716. The area management process activates trimmer 804. Trimmer 804 is a trimmer like trimmer 250 in FIG. 2. Trimmer 804 may pivot and/or tilt to trim shrub growth 806.”; [0137] “The area management process detects that grass growth 906 extends across edge 908 onto sidewalk 902. The area management process activates edger 904. Edger 904 is a edger like edging system 290 in FIG. 2. Edger 904 may pivot and/or tilt to trim grass growth 908. In one illustrative embodiment, the area management process causes to the operation of edger 904 until area management process receives image information from camera system 802 in which grass growth 908 is not detected.”; [0149] “The image may be obtained using a camera system, such as camera system 214. If the image contains a border, then the process moves to follow the border or away from the border (operation 1308).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge, in view of Senneff, to modify the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV toward the boundary when there is an overlap boundary type, as taught by Anderson, in order to efficiently perform operations on overlapping plants that grow across the boundary.
Anderson does not explicitly teaches shifting a guidance track of the AOV by a predetermined distance.
However, Anderson further discloses that the AOV follows along the border to perform edging operation (Fig. 9 and [0149]). 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 the teachings of Tatge, in view of Senneff, Rankawat and Anderson, to choose a predetermined distance for shifting the track of the AOV, in order to efficiently perform an operation along the border and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 10, Tatge and Senneff do not specifically teach wherein the skip boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV by a predetermined distance away from the boundary.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the skip boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV by shifting a guidance track of the AOV ... away from the boundary ([0033] “That is, when area management vehicle 108 detects that area management vehicle 108 has come within a particular distance of boundary 112, boundary 136, and/or boundary 138, area management vehicle 108 continues operation in a direction that does not move area management vehicle closer to boundary 112, boundary 136 and/or boundary 138.”; [0146] “The determination may be made using an area management process, such as area management process 224. If the process determines that the image contains a border, the process moves ... away from the border (operation 1208).” – This indicates that when there is no plant extends across the border, the vehicle will move away from the border.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge, in view of Senneff and Rankawat, to shift the guidance track of the AOV away from the boundary when there is a skip boundary type, as taught by Anderson, in order to prevent the vehicle from crossing the boundary.
Anderson does not explicitly teaches shifting a guidance track of the AOV by a predetermined distance.
However, Anderson further discloses that the AOV follows along the border to perform edging operation (Fig. 9 and [0149]). 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 the teachings of Tatge, in view of Senneff and Anderson, to choose a predetermined distance for shifting the track of the AOV, in order to efficiently perform an operation along the border and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatge et al. (US 2018/0129987 A1), in view of Senneff et al. (US 2009/0037096 A1), and in further view of Rosa et al. (US 2014/0074360 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tatge and Senneff do not specifically teach wherein the height-restricted boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV by adjusting a height of a component of the AOV to have a predetermined clearance relative to an entity at a boundary portion having the height-restricted boundary type.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rosa teaches wherein the height-restricted boundary type is configured to modify the behavior of the AOV by adjusting a height of a component of the AOV to have a predetermined clearance relative to an entity at a boundary portion having the height-restricted boundary type ([0066] “In an example, the topographic map can include the location of a fence at the boundary of a field. In many typical agricultural application operations, as an application vehicle completes a straight-line portion of an operation path, the vehicle approaches the field boundary and makes a sharp turn for the next portion of the path. Depending on the turn, the outermost boom section can be subject to hitting the fence. Referencing stored information about the fence location and its height (e.g., included in a topographic map) can facilitate generating an actuation command to raise the boom section to avoid a collision with the fence. In embodiments, as soon as the boom clears the fence, it can be lowered to resume the application operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tatge, in view of Senneff and Rankawat, to adjust the height of a component of the AOV to have a predetermined clearance relative to an entity at a boundary portion having the height-restricted boundary type, as taught by Rosa, in order to avoid collision with the height-restricted boundary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 AM - 6:00PM EST.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/NHI Q BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights