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 .
Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings have been addressed and are removed.
Specification
The objections to the specification have been addressed and are removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112b rejections to claims 1-13 have been addressed and are removed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/27/2026 concerning the rejection under 103 of the first half of the last clause in claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant claims that there is no disclosure that identifies where Backus controls the robot “at a timing determined based on an arrangement of the work target rows in the work site.” However, under BRI, the ends and beginnings of the work target rows can also be considered “an arrangement”, and thus, raising and lowering of the attached instruments as the robot reaches the end of the row and prepares for the next row covers this part of the claim. If applicant wants “arrangement” to mean specifically whether the ends of the rows are in a straight line or are diagonal, then the claim should be narrowed to include such.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the second half of the last clause in claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2023/0240170 (Goering) .
A similar argument holds for applicant’s remarks concerning claims 11 and 12.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Bakus, full electric and autonomous vineyards robot - virtual demo - Third generation – Bordeaux”, attached as NPL--Bakus-english.pdf in the previous office action, henceforth “Bakus-english” in light of US Pub. 2023/0240170 (Goering) in light of US 2024/0199152 (Rublee et al., hence Rublee)
As for claim 1, Bakus-english teaches a work vehicle to which a work machine is attached and which performs work while moving in a work site where a plurality of work target rows including a plurality of work objects is arranged, (See Bakus-english (1:12-10:52). The work vehicle: the robot. The work machine: the tillers attached under the robot. Work site: the vineyard. Plurality of work rows: rows of the vineyard. Plurality of work objects: individual vines.)
the method comprising: causing the work vehicle to autonomously travel (Bakus-english: Robot is shown to be autonomously travelling straddling each row of vines (many instances shown 1:12-10:52));
and controlling lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based on an arrangement of the work target rows in the work [site] (Bakus-english: Looking at the video carefully, the robot makes a U-turn at the end of the field [6:06-6:32] (note that the associated subtitles [6:06-6:20] mention that this is a fully autonomous U-turn where the tool carrying boom has been raised, the U-turn is made, and then the tool carrying boom has been lowered again), as well as the passing between fields 6:42-7:09 which also either shows or mentions the boom being raised before crossing the path then mentions “then starts working again.” This corresponds to being controlled at a particular timing based on the arrangement of the work target rows (namely, as the robot comes to the end of a row).)
Bakus-english does not specifically teach controlling lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based [on] a type of work being carried out by the work machine. However, Goering teaches controlling lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based [on] a type of work being carried out by the work machine. (It is assumed that the type of work being carried out corresponds to a particular “work machine” (i.e. implement which differs by task). Goering: "When entering the headland to turn around between passes, the farming vehicle may raise the implement after determining that the entire implement is located within the headland. Based on the determined amount of time to lower the implement, the farming vehicle may begin lowering the implement with sufficient time such that the implement is fully lowered just prior to exiting the headland and returning onto the field." [0003]; "The farming machine management system 140 may use the determined location of the implement 325 to determine when to raise the implement when entering a headland adjacent to a field, as well as when to lower the implement when entering the field from the headland." [0027]. (different implements may have different sizes and extensions, the "determined location" may differ.) Using implement-specific lowering time: "The farming vehicle may determine 920 a lowering duration to lower an implement. The farming vehicle may lower the implement from a raised position to a lowered position. The farming vehicle may measure the time it took to lower the implement to the lowered position. In some embodiments, the implement may comprise one or more sensors, such as a depth sensor, that indicates when the implement has reached the appropriate lowered position." [0045]; That this measured time is factored into the lowering timing: "The farming vehicle 600 may begin lowering the implement 610 at a time such that the implement 610 begins operating on the field 630 once a portion of the implement 610 crosses the border between the headland 620 and the field 630. For example, the farming vehicle 600 may determine that it will take two seconds to lower the implement 610, and the farming vehicle 600 may begin lowering the implement 610 two seconds prior to a predicted time that any portion of the implement 610 enters the field 630."[0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the implement raising and lowering timing techniques as outlined in Goering in the robot of Bakus-english. The motivation would be to make sure the field has been adequately worked on near its edge while protecting the implement from possible damage (see Goering “Background”).
Bakus-english is showing a robot carrying out tasks but doesn’t specifically mention “a method” of carrying out such. However, Bakus-english does mention (in the title) that its machine is “a robot”. "Robots" are known to carry out activities based on instructions which have been programmed into them. The instructions can be considered “a method”. See Rublee, which involves various farm robots: (Rublee: See explanation in the Background; also "Device 900 may perform one or more processes described herein. Device 900 may perform these processes based on processor 904 executing software instructions stored by a computer-readable medium, such as memory 906 and/or storage component 908. A computer-readable medium may include any non-transitory memory device. A memory device includes memory space located inside of a single physical storage device or memory space spread across multiple physical storage devices." [0109])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the “robot” mentioned in Bakus-english as “a robot” as mentioned in Rublee, where the processes mentioned therein are carried out with devices using software instructions. The motivation would be to implement “robot” as it is usually understood.
As for claim 2, Bakus-english, in light of Goering and in light of Rublee, teaches wherein the work vehicle is capable of traveling in a posture straddling the work target row. (Bakus-english: See video (1:12-10:52), where the robot is travelling by straddling the individual rows of vines.)
As for claim 5, Bakus-english, in light of Goering and in light of Rublee, teaches wherein the arrangement of the work target rows includes whether end portions of the plurality of work target rows are arranged on a virtual line orthogonal to the work target rows in a plan view. (Bakus-english: since most fields are planted with this geometry this is known in the art. Also see Bakus-english, where the road runs more or less orthogonal to the vine rows. Video (4:21-4:40))
As for claim 11, Bakus teaches causing the work vehicle to autonomously travel ((Bakus-english: Robot is shown to be autonomously travelling straddling each row of vines. (many instances 1:12-10:52). Discussion of autonomy of robot 5:58-6:41) wherein a work machine is attached to the work vehicle and the work vehicle performs work while moving in a work site where a plurality of work target rows including a plurality of work objects is arranged, (See Bakus-english (1:12-10:52). The work vehicle: the robot. The work machine: the tillers attached under the robot. Work site: the vineyard. Plurality of work rows: rows of the vineyard. Plurality of work objects: individual vines.);
and controlling lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based on an arrangement of the work target rows in the work [site] (Bakus-english: Looking at the video carefully, the robot makes a U-turn at the end of the field [6:06-6:32] (note that the associated subtitles [6:06-6:20] mention that this is a fully autonomous U-turn where the tool carrying boom has been raised, the U-turn is made, and then the tool carrying boom has been lowered again), as well as the passing between fields 6:42-7:09 which also either shows or mentions the boom being raised before crossing the path then mentions “then starts working again.” This corresponds to being controlled at a particular timing based on the arrangement of the work target rows (namely, as the robot comes to the end of a row).)
Bakus-english does not specifically teach controlling lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based [on] a type of work being carried out by the work machine. However, Goering teaches controlling lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based [on] a type of work being carried out by the work machine. (It is assumed that the type of work being carried out corresponds to a particular “work machine” (i.e. implement which differs by task). Goering: "When entering the headland to turn around between passes, the farming vehicle may raise the implement after determining that the entire implement is located within the headland. Based on the determined amount of time to lower the implement, the farming vehicle may begin lowering the implement with sufficient time such that the implement is fully lowered just prior to exiting the headland and returning onto the field." [0003]; "The farming machine management system 140 may use the determined location of the implement 325 to determine when to raise the implement when entering a headland adjacent to a field, as well as when to lower the implement when entering the field from the headland." [0027]. (different implements may have different sizes and extensions, the "determined location" may differ.) Using implement-specific lowering time: "The farming vehicle may determine 920 a lowering duration to lower an implement. The farming vehicle may lower the implement from a raised position to a lowered position. The farming vehicle may measure the time it took to lower the implement to the lowered position. In some embodiments, the implement may comprise one or more sensors, such as a depth sensor, that indicates when the implement has reached the appropriate lowered position." [0045]; That this measured time is factored into the lowering timing: "The farming vehicle 600 may begin lowering the implement 610 at a time such that the implement 610 begins operating on the field 630 once a portion of the implement 610 crosses the border between the headland 620 and the field 630. For example, the farming vehicle 600 may determine that it will take two seconds to lower the implement 610, and the farming vehicle 600 may begin lowering the implement 610 two seconds prior to a predicted time that any portion of the implement 610 enters the field 630."[0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the implement raising and lowering timing techniques as outlined in Goering in the robot of Bakus-english. The motivation would be to make sure the field has been adequately worked on near its edge while protecting the implement from possible damage (see Goering “Background”).
Bakus-english does not specifically teach a non- transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations. However, this is known in the art, as is shown in Rublee: (Rublee: "Device 900 may perform one or more processes described herein. Device 900 may perform these processes based on processor 904 executing software instructions stored by a computer-readable medium, such as memory 906 and/or storage component 908. A computer-readable medium may include any non-transitory memory device. A memory device includes memory space located inside of a single physical storage device or memory space spread across multiple physical storage devices." (underlining added) [0109])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to us the processors and computer-readable medium, and stored instructions, as outlined in Rublee, to carry out the functions of the robot as demonstrated in Bakus. The motivation would be to implement “robot” as it is usually understood, using computer programming to cause parts of the robot to move via sensors, actuators and motors.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakus-english, in light of Goering and in light of Rublee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “VALENTINI IMPERIUM 12000 FOLDING ROTARY TILLER 12 M”, attached in the previous office action as NPL-Valentini.pdf, henceforth “Valentini”.
As for claim 3, Bakus-english, as modified by Goering and by Rublee, teach wherein the work machine includes a first work unit located on one side of the work target row and a second work unit located on the other side of the work target row, (Bakus-english: see 5:20-6:01 of the video, which shows tillers on both the right and left side of the robot.)
None of Bakus-english, nor Goering, nor Rublee, specifically teach the first work unit and the second work unit are individually controllable to be lifted and lowered. However, this is known in the art, particularly in the case of rotary tillers, as is shown in Valentini: (Valentini: See Valentini 2:21-3:16. showing the two side tillers. That these can be raised and lowered and individually controllable, see 0:24-0:48 (lowering, individually controllable) and 6:56-8:15. (symmetric raising). Individual lifting is not shown but would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as simply the inversion of individually controlled lowering.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add individual control of a work unit, as shown in Valentini, in the system of Bakus-english. The motivation would be for further control of individual units.
As for claim 4, Bakus-english, as modified by Goering, by Rublee, and by Valentini, teaches wherein it is determined whether to lift and lower the first work unit and the second work unit at the same timing or at different timings based on the arrangement of the work target rows and the type of work being carried out by the work machine. (Valentini: Notice is taken that depending on where a tilling machine is in a field and how close to a fence or road the untilled area is one side of the tillage equipment may be lifted in order for the machine to match the field geometry appropriately.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add individual control of a work unit, as shown in Valentini, in the system of Bakus-english. The motivation would be for further control of individual units.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakus-english, in light of Goering and in light of Rublee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Robot 100% for tall vines, by VitiBot. Bakus L”, attached as NPL-Bakus.pdf in previous office action, henceforth “Bakus”,.
As for claim 6, Bakus-english does not specifically teaches stopping the autonomous travel of the work vehicle when a lifting and lowering operating unit is operated, which is installed in the work vehicle to lift and lower the work machine. (It looks like this is in fact being done with this robot, but has been edited out of the video. There is a very noticeable skip at 6:15 just before the robot does its turn-around) However, this is taught in Bakus, which is another video of the same robot. (Note that the robot moves out into the unpaved road (0:11-0:18), then stops, then raises the implement (0:19-0:24), turns around (0:25-0:54), stops again and lowers the implement (0:56-1:00), then moves back into the next row (1:01-1;10)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the data revealed in all videos of the Bakus robot, since each have been edited to emphasize different points. The motivation would be to gather for use as complete information on the robot as possible.
As for claim 7, Bakus-english, in light of Goering, in light of Rublee and in light of Bakus, teaches controlling the work machine to be lifted or lowered to a specific height when resuming the autonomous travel from a state where the autonomous travel of the work vehicle has stopped. (Bakus: under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, “where the autonomous travel of the work vehicle has stopped” can mean simply that the robot is not moving. In Bakus (as mentioned above) the implement is raised from a working height to a protective height before turning around, then lowered again to a working height before starting the next row.)
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakus-english in light of Goering, in light of Rublee and in light of Bakus as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2023/0112003 Al (Krog et al., hence Krog).
As for claim 8, none of Bakus-english, Goering, Rublee, or Bakus specifically teach generating a notification when an abnormality occurs in an automatic lifting and lowering function that automatically lifts and lowers the work machine during the autonomous travel of the work vehicle. However, generating errors and a warning when an attachment is not working properly is known in the art, as is shown in Krog: (Krog: "In other examples and as described in more detail elsewhere herein, drive unit 110 may automatically power off upon the detection of a trigger event. For example, upon detecting a loss of RTK, loss of communication with one or more particular systems ( e.g., motor speed controllers 222), and/or implement specific faults (e.g., a hardware error received from an implement 114), among other similar events, drive unit 110 may automatically power off." (underlining added).[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the error detection and turn off as described in Krog to the system of Bakus-english, as modified. The motivation would be to add error detection and reaction to such.
As for claim 9, Bakus-english, in light of Goering, in light of Rublee, in light of Bakus and as modified by Krog, teaches stopping the autonomous travel of the work vehicle when the automatic lifting and lowering function is abnormal. (Krog: "In other examples and as described in more detail elsewhere herein, drive unit 110 may automatically power off upon the detection of a trigger event. For example, upon detecting a loss of RTK, loss of communication with one or more particular systems ( e.g., motor speed controllers 222), and/or implement specific faults (e.g., a hardware error received from an implement 114), among other similar events, drive unit 110 may automatically power off." (underlining added) [0085].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the error detection and turn off as described in Krog to the system of Bakus-english, as modified. The motivation would be to add error detection and reaction to such.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakus-english, in light of Goering, in light of Rublee, as modified by Krog as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of JP 2023057743 (Tono).
As for claim 10, none of Bakus-english, Goering, Rublee, Bakus or Krog specifically teach wherein a resumption condition for resuming the autonomous travel from a state where the autonomous travel of the work vehicle has stopped due to abnormality of the automatic lifting and lowering function includes eliminating the abnormality of the automatic lifting and lowering function. However, if the status of an error code has returned to normal (i.e., the abnormality has been removed), then ordinarily a control system will be resumed. This may involve an auto-starting step after checking. Tono teaches wherein a resumption condition for resuming the autonomous travel from a state where the autonomous travel of the work vehicle has stopped due to abnormality [includes] eliminating the abnormality (Tomo: the method has a protective stop of a transfer unit (here the robot is moving horizontally but this could be applied to a vertical movement as well) upon detecting an object (the abnormality), a waiting time to help autocorrection, a recovery step back ((no abnormality), and then a restart of the transfer robot. (pg. 5))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine a version of the self-recovery method, as outlined in Tomo, in the system of Bakus, as modified. The motivation would be to introduce some sort of an error self-recovery system.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakus-english in light of Goering and in light of Krog.
As for claim 12, Bakus-english teaches a work vehicle (Bakus-english: the robot) to which a work machine is attached (Bakus-english: “work machine” would be the possible add-ons: mentioned (1:22-1:47)) and which performs work while moving in a work site (Bakus-english: the vineyard) where a plurality of work target rows including a plurality of work objects is arranged (Bakus-english: the vines which are in rows), [a] traveling processing unit that causes the work vehicle to autonomously travel (Bakus-english: Robot is shown to be autonomously travelling straddling each row of vines (4:45 and following), which means the existence of some sort of travelling module to keep the robot on track); and a lifting and lowering processing unit that controls lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based on an arrangement of the work target rows in the work site. (Bakus-english: Looking at the video carefully, the robot makes a U-turn at the end of the field [6:06-6:32] (note that the associated subtitles [6:06-6:20] mention that this is a fully autonomous U-turn where the tool carrying boom has been raised, the U-turn is made, and then the tool carrying boom has been lowered again), as well as the passing between fields 6:42-7:09 which also either shows or mentions the boom being raised before crossing the path then mentions “then starts working again.” This corresponds to being controlled at a particular timing based on the arrangement of the work target rows (namely, as the robot comes to the end of a row) and means the existence of something that controls the lifting and lowering since the robot is autonomous.)
Bakus-english does not specifically teach controlling lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based [on] a type of work being carried out by the work machine. However, Goering teaches controlling lifting and lowering of the work machine during autonomous travel of the work vehicle at a timing determined based [on] a type of work being carried out by the work machine. (It is assumed that the type of work being carried out corresponds to a particular “work machine” (i.e. implement which differs by task). Goering: "When entering the headland to turn around between passes, the farming vehicle may raise the implement after determining that the entire implement is located within the headland. Based on the determined amount of time to lower the implement, the farming vehicle may begin lowering the implement with sufficient time such that the implement is fully lowered just prior to exiting the headland and returning onto the field." [0003]; "The farming machine management system 140 may use the determined location of the implement 325 to determine when to raise the implement when entering a headland adjacent to a field, as well as when to lower the implement when entering the field from the headland." [0027]. (different implements may have different sizes and extensions, the "determined location" may differ.) Using implement-specific lowering time: "The farming vehicle may determine 920 a lowering duration to lower an implement. The farming vehicle may lower the implement from a raised position to a lowered position. The farming vehicle may measure the time it took to lower the implement to the lowered position. In some embodiments, the implement may comprise one or more sensors, such as a depth sensor, that indicates when the implement has reached the appropriate lowered position." [0045]; That this measured time is factored into the lowering timing: "The farming vehicle 600 may begin lowering the implement 610 at a time such that the implement 610 begins operating on the field 630 once a portion of the implement 610 crosses the border between the headland 620 and the field 630. For example, the farming vehicle 600 may determine that it will take two seconds to lower the implement 610, and the farming vehicle 600 may begin lowering the implement 610 two seconds prior to a predicted time that any portion of the implement 610 enters the field 630."[0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the implement raising and lowering timing techniques as outlined in Goering in the robot of Bakus-english. The motivation would be to make sure the field has been adequately worked on near its edge while protecting the implement from possible damage (see Goering “Background”).
Bakus-english does not specifically teach a work vehicle control system comprising [a travelling processing unit] and a lifting and lowering unit. However, this is known in the art, as is shown in Krog: ("For example, the drive unit may be a fully autonomous machine having an on-board computing device configured to perform navigational operations of the drive unit, control mechanical operations of the drive unit (and optionally the implement being used on and/or with the drive unit), and monitor data associated with the operations and a surrounding field site."[0027])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to incorporate the drive unit as outlined in Krog, to carry out the functions of the robot as demonstrated in Bakus-english. The motivation would be to implement “robot” and “autonomous” as they are usually understood.
As for claim 13, Bakus-english, as modified by Goering and by Krog, teaches a work vehicle comprising: the work vehicle control system according to claim 12 (see above); and a machine body to which the work machine is detachably attached. (Bakus-english: the robot’s frame to which one of the specialized instruments can be attached (video: 1:22-1:47))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights