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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 04/23/2025 (claimed priority date 10/09/2020):
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1.1 Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
1.1.1 Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 18-19 recite the following limitations/features: “mobile agricultural machine;” “mobile agricultural harvester;” “mobile agricultural sprayer;” “first mobile agricultural machine;” “second mobile agricultural machine;” “first mobile agricultural harvester;” “second mobile agricultural harvester;” “additional mobile agricultural machine” that are not supported or described in the specification. The specification is completely silent about any “mobile agricultural machine,” or “mobile agricultural harvester,” or “mobile agricultural sprayer.” The specification only specifies, in Para [0207], at least as published, the “other mobile machine or vehicle” that may have an automated, semi-automated, or manual information collection system that may be used for radio/wireless communication purposes, where wireless telecommunication service coverage is poor or nonexistent, when the combine harvester 600 comes close to the machine containing the information collection system, such as a fuel truck prior to fueling, and the information collection system then collects the information from the combine harvester 600 using any type of ad-hoc wireless connection. Clarification is required, and Applicant is kindly requested to provide information about where, in which paragraphs, drawings, the specification provides support for the currently claimed limitation/features “mobile agricultural machine;” “first mobile agricultural machine;” “second mobile agricultural machine;” “additional mobile agricultural machine”.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification and under BRI, the following limitations/features: “mobile agricultural machine;” “mobile agricultural harvester;” “mobile agricultural sprayer;” “first mobile agricultural machine;” “second mobile agricultural machine;” “first mobile agricultural harvester;” “second mobile agricultural harvester;” “additional mobile agricultural machine” are not given a patentable weight and withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, the current scope of the claims will be interpreted similarly to as and how it was interpreted during the previous examining the family parent applications US17067243, now U.S. Patent No.: 11927459 and US18426945, now U.S. Patent No.: 12320666.
1.1.2 Claims 2-11, 13-17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2.1 Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
2.1.1 Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 18-19 recite the following limitations/features: “mobile agricultural machine;” “first mobile agricultural machine;” “second mobile agricultural machine;” “additional mobile agricultural machine,” which is unclear what they are, and why they are presented/defined/claimed as “mobile” machines/combines/harvesters, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
Additionally, these limitations/features are not supported or described in the specification, which renders the claims indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification and under BRI, the following limitations/features: “mobile agricultural machine;” “mobile agricultural harvester;” “mobile agricultural sprayer;” “first mobile agricultural machine;” “second mobile agricultural machine;” “first mobile agricultural harvester;” “second mobile agricultural harvester;” “additional mobile agricultural machine” are not given a patentable weight and withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, the current scope of the claims will be interpreted similarly to as and how it was interpreted during the previous examining the family parent applications US17067243, now U.S. Patent No.: 11927459 and US18426945, now U.S. Patent No.: 12320666.
2.1.2 Claims 2-11, 13-17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt (US 5995895) in view of Dybro (US20140230392), and further in view of Blank (US10315655).
As per claims 1, 12 and 19, Watt discloses through the invention (see entire document) a mobile agricultural machine/computer implemented method/agricultural system for controlling a mobile agricultural machine during an agricultural operation at a worksite, configured to perform an agricultural operation at a worksite (fig. 1, abstract, c7, ln 57 through c8, ln 4), the mobile agricultural machine/method/system comprising:
one or more controllable subsystems (fig. 1-4, 7, 9, 12, 14-15; c8, line 57 through c12, line 40; c17 ln 3 through c18, ln 15);
a geographic position sensor configured to detect a geographic location of the mobile agricultural machine at the worksite (fig. 1-2, abstract, c6, ln 50-60);;
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors (fig. 1, 7-13; c3, ln 22-52; c4, ln 14-43; c8, ln 31-48; c9, ln 31-46), configure the one or more processors to:
obtain stalk diameter data (fig. 1-2, abstract, c6, ln 50-60; c10, ln 21-44); and
control the one or more controllable subsystems based the stalk diameter data (fig. 1-4, 7, 9, 12, 14-15; c8, ln 57 through c12, ln 40; c17 ln 3 through c18, ln 15).
Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing obtaining stalk diameter data indicating stalk diameter values at different/plurality of locations across the worksite; controlling the one or more controllable subsystems based, at least, on the geographic location of the mobile agricultural machine at the worksite and the stalk diameter data.
However, Dybro teaches through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1- 5, 17-18, 23-24, Para [0030; 0038, 0043-0045, 0048, 0057-0058, 0071, 0079-0080, 0090, 0110-0111, 0116, 0119, 0136, 0140] – teaching field map that graphically depicts derived crop attribute values for different rows; crop sensing control unit 956 that creates a yield map, similar to either of maps 300 or 400 shown in FIGS. 4 and 5; detecting/sensing plant/crop attribute or metric which indicates thickness or diameter of the plant stalks in particular row(s).
Blank, in turn, teaches through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-3, c5, ln 35 through c6 ln 8 – teaching yield impact determination system 130 that uses sensor signals from sensors 118 and mapping system 128 (such as the top soil compaction stress map and the subsoil compaction stress map and a historic yield map showing the historic yield for the field over which mobile machine 102 is operating), and that determines an impact on the yield based upon the compaction stress in the soil; control signal generator 132 that can identify sensitive areas in the field (or receive this information from another item), where compaction will more likely affect the yield, and that generates control signals to mitigate the compaction in those areas, where desirable; control signal generator 132 that may identify (or receive) the plant location and the root zone for the plants, based upon signals from sensors 118; that this may be an area of high sensitivity, where additional compaction may significantly affect yield; generating control signals to control the controlled systems 134 to mitigate compaction in those areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Blank. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to sense mobile machine characteristics and position to obtain an indication of the compactive effect of a mobile machine on a worksite; to generate a soil compaction stress map and control signals for controlling controlled systems, based upon the soil compaction stress map (see entire Blank document, particularly c1, ln 66 through c2, ln 4).
As per claims 2 and 13, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing stalk diameter data that comprises previous stalk diameter data generated during a previous operation at the worksite, the previous operation prior to the agricultural operation.
However, Dybro teaches these limitations features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, Para [0042, 0054, 0081] – teaching static database 700 that comprises a data storage containing data regarding historical or predefined data such as historical planting data, historical yield information, historical field or soil data (e.g., topography, soil type); static database 700 that may additionally contain tables and other information for correlating sensed crop attribute values to derived crop attribute values.
Blank, in turn, teaches these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-3, c5, ln 35 through c6 ln 8 – teaching yield impact determination system 130 that uses sensor signals from sensors 118 and mapping system 128 (such as the top soil compaction stress map and the subsoil compaction stress map and a historic yield map showing the historic yield for the field over which mobile machine 102 is operating), and that determines an impact on the yield based upon the compaction stress in the soil; control signal generator 132 that can identify sensitive areas in the field (or receive this information from another item), where compaction will more likely affect the yield, and that generates control signals to mitigate the compaction in those areas, where desirable; control signal generator 132 that may identify (or receive) the plant location and the root zone for the plants, based upon signals from sensors 118; that this may be an area of high sensitivity, where additional compaction may significantly affect yield; generating control signals to control the controlled systems 134 to mitigate compaction in those areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Blank. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to sense mobile machine characteristics and position to obtain an indication of the compactive effect of a mobile machine on a worksite; to generate a soil compaction stress map and control signals for controlling controlled systems, based upon the soil compaction stress map (see entire Blank document, particularly c1, ln 66 through c2, ln 4).
As per claims 3 and 14, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing previous stalk diameter data generated by one or more sensors on the mobile agricultural machine as the mobile agricultural machine performs the previous operation at the worksite.
However, Dybro teaches these limitations features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, Para [0031, 0042-0043, 0054, 0081] – teaching static database 700 that comprises a data storage containing data regarding historical or predefined data such as historical planting data, historical yield information, historical field or soil data (e.g., topography, soil type); static database 700 that may additionally contain tables and other information for correlating sensed crop attribute values to derived crop attribute values.
Blank, in turn, teaches these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-3, c5, ln 35 through c6 ln 8 – teaching yield impact determination system 130 that uses sensor signals from sensors 118 and mapping system 128 (such as the top soil compaction stress map and the subsoil compaction stress map and a historic yield map showing the historic yield for the field over which mobile machine 102 is operating), and that determines an impact on the yield based upon the compaction stress in the soil; control signal generator 132 that can identify sensitive areas in the field (or receive this information from another item), where compaction will more likely affect the yield, and that generates control signals to mitigate the compaction in those areas, where desirable; control signal generator 132 that may identify (or receive) the plant location and the root zone for the plants, based upon signals from sensors 118; that this may be an area of high sensitivity, where additional compaction may significantly affect yield; generating control signals to control the controlled systems 134 to mitigate compaction in those areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Blank. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to sense mobile machine characteristics and position to obtain an indication of the compactive effect of a mobile machine on a worksite; to generate a soil compaction stress map and control signals for controlling controlled systems, based upon the soil compaction stress map (see entire Blank document, particularly c1, ln 66 through c2, ln 4).
As per claim 4, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing mobile agricultural machine that comprises a first mobile agricultural machine and wherein the previous stalk diameter data is generated by one or more sensors on a second mobile agricultural machine as the second mobile agricultural machine performs the previous operation at the worksite, the second mobile agricultural machine different than the first agricultural machine.
However, Dybro teaches these limitations features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, Para [0031, 0042-0043, 0054, 0081] – teaching static database 700 that comprises a data storage containing data regarding historical or predefined data such as historical planting data, historical yield information, historical field or soil data (e.g., topography, soil type); static database 700 that may additionally contain tables and other information for correlating sensed crop attribute values to derived crop attribute values.
Blank, in turn, teaches these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-3, c5, ln 35 through c6 ln 8 – teaching yield impact determination system 130 that uses sensor signals from sensors 118 and mapping system 128 (such as the top soil compaction stress map and the subsoil compaction stress map and a historic yield map showing the historic yield for the field over which mobile machine 102 is operating), and that determines an impact on the yield based upon the compaction stress in the soil; control signal generator 132 that can identify sensitive areas in the field (or receive this information from another item), where compaction will more likely affect the yield, and that generates control signals to mitigate the compaction in those areas, where desirable; control signal generator 132 that may identify (or receive) the plant location and the root zone for the plants, based upon signals from sensors 118; that this may be an area of high sensitivity, where additional compaction may significantly affect yield; generating control signals to control the controlled systems 134 to mitigate compaction in those areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Blank. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to sense mobile machine characteristics and position to obtain an indication of the compactive effect of a mobile machine on a worksite; to generate a soil compaction stress map and control signals for controlling controlled systems, based upon the soil compaction stress map (see entire Blank document, particularly c1, ln 66 through c2, ln 4).
As per claim 5, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing first mobile agricultural machine that comprises a first mobile agricultural harvester and second mobile agricultural machine that comprises a second mobile agricultural harvester.
However, Dybro teaches these limitations features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, Para [0068, 0084] – teaching other on-site machines 712; other harvesters or other machines on a particular worksite or field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]).
As per claim 8, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing stalk diameter data that comprises a map.
However, Dybro teaches through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1- 5, 17-18, 23-24, Para [0030; 0038, 0043-0045, 0048, 0057-0058, 0071, 0079-0080, 0090, 0110-0111, 0116, 0119, 0136, 0140] – teaching field map that graphically depicts derived crop attribute values for different rows; crop sensing control unit 956 that creates a yield map, similar to either of maps 300 or 400 shown in FIGS. 4 and 5; detecting/sensing plant/crop attribute or metric which indicates thickness or diameter of the plant stalks in particular row(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]).
As per claim 9, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing map generated during the agricultural operation.
However, Dybro teaches through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1- 5, 17-18, 23-24, Para [0030; 0038, 0043-0045, 0048, 0057-0058, 0071, 0079-0080, 0090, 0110-0111, 0116, 0119, 0136, 0140] – teaching field map that graphically depicts derived crop attribute values for different rows; crop sensing control unit 956 that creates a yield map, similar to either of maps 300 or 400 shown in FIGS. 4 and 5; detecting/sensing plant/crop attribute or metric which indicates thickness or diameter of the plant stalks in particular row(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]).
As per claim 10, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing one or more sensors configured to detect stalk diameter values at the worksite and to generate, as the stalk diameter data, sensor data indicative of the detected stalk diameter values.
However, Dybro teaches through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0034] – teaching sensors 36 that detect a stalk thickness/diameter of an individual plant; stalk thickness/diameter of the individual plant detected either through physical contact with individual plant or through laser or optical and camera-based sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]).
As per claim 11, Watt further discloses through the invention (see entire document) one or more controllable subsystems that comprises one or more of: (i) a propulsion subsystem configured to control a travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine; (ii) a steering subsystem configured to control a travel direction of the mobile agricultural machine; or (iii) an actuator configured to controllably move a component of the mobile agricultural machine (fig. 1-4, 7, 9, 12, 14-15; c8, ln 57 through c12, ln 40; c17 ln 3 through c18, ln 15).
As per claim 15, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing obtaining the stalk diameter data that comprises obtaining sensor data generated by one or more sensors of an additional mobile agricultural machine during a previous operation at the worksite performed by the additional mobile agricultural machine, the additional mobile agricultural machine different than the mobile agricultural machine.
However, Dybro teaches these limitations features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, Para [0031, 0042-0043, 0054, 0081] – teaching static database 700 that comprises a data storage containing data regarding historical or predefined data such as historical planting data, historical yield information, historical field or soil data (e.g., topography, soil type); static database 700 that may additionally contain tables and other information for correlating sensed crop attribute values to derived crop attribute values; in fig. 8, Para [0068, 0084] – teaching other on-site machines 712; other harvesters or other machines on a particular worksite or field.
Blank, in turn, teaches these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-3, c5, ln 35 through c6 ln 8 – teaching yield impact determination system 130 that uses sensor signals from sensors 118 and mapping system 128 (such as the top soil compaction stress map and the subsoil compaction stress map and a historic yield map showing the historic yield for the field over which mobile machine 102 is operating), and that determines an impact on the yield based upon the compaction stress in the soil; control signal generator 132 that can identify sensitive areas in the field (or receive this information from another item), where compaction will more likely affect the yield, and that generates control signals to mitigate the compaction in those areas, where desirable; control signal generator 132 that may identify (or receive) the plant location and the root zone for the plants, based upon signals from sensors 118; that this may be an area of high sensitivity, where additional compaction may significantly affect yield; generating control signals to control the controlled systems 134 to mitigate compaction in those areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Blank. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to sense mobile machine characteristics and position to obtain an indication of the compactive effect of a mobile machine on a worksite; to generate a soil compaction stress map and control signals for controlling controlled systems, based upon the soil compaction stress map (see entire Blank document, particularly c1, ln 66 through c2, ln 4).
As per claim 16, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing obtaining the stalk diameter data that comprises obtaining a map of the worksite including the stalk diameter values at the different geographic locations across the worksite.
However, Dybro teaches through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1- 5, 17-18, 23-24, Para [0030; 0038, 0043-0045, 0048, 0057-0058, 0071, 0079-0080, 0090, 0110-0111, 0116, 0119, 0136, 0140] – teaching field map that graphically depicts derived crop attribute values for different rows; crop sensing control unit 956 that creates a yield map, similar to either of maps 300 or 400 shown in FIGS. 4 and 5; detecting/sensing plant/crop attribute or metric which indicates thickness or diameter of the plant stalks in particular row(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]).
As per claim 17, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing obtaining the stalk diameter data that comprises generating, during the agricultural operation, a map of the worksite including the stalk diameter values at the different geographic locations across the worksite.
However, Dybro teaches through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1- 5, 17-18, 23-24, Para [0030; 0038, 0043-0045, 0048, 0057-0058, 0071, 0079-0080, 0090, 0110-0111, 0116, 0119, 0136, 0140] – teaching field map that graphically depicts derived crop attribute values for different rows; crop sensing control unit 956 that creates a yield map, similar to either of maps 300 or 400 shown in FIGS. 4 and 5; detecting/sensing plant/crop attribute or metric which indicates thickness or diameter of the plant stalks in particular row(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]).
As per claim 18, Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing obtaining the stalk diameter data that comprises detecting, with one or more sensors on the mobile agricultural machine, stalk diameter values at the worksite and generating sensor data indicative of the detected stalk diameter values.
However, Dybro teaches through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0034] – teaching sensors 36 that detect a stalk thickness/diameter of an individual plant; stalk thickness/diameter of the individual plant detected either through physical contact with individual plant or through laser or optical and camera-based sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]).
As per claim 20, Watt further discloses through the invention (see entire document) predictive stalk diameter data is based on at least one of: at least one stalk diameter value detected during the agricultural operation and corresponding to a location at the worksite different than the plurality of locations at the worksite (fig. 1-2, abstract, c6, ln 50-60; c10, ln 21-44).
Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing predictive stalk diameter data based on at least one of: previous stalk diameter values at the worksite detected during a previous operation, the previous operation prior to the agricultural operation..
However, Dybro teaches these limitations features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, Para [0042, 0054, 0081] – teaching static database 700 that comprises a data storage containing data regarding historical or predefined data such as historical planting data, historical yield information, historical field or soil data (e.g., topography, soil type); static database 700 that may additionally contain tables and other information for correlating sensed crop attribute values to derived crop attribute values.
Blank, in turn, teaches these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-3, c5, ln 35 through c6 ln 8 – teaching yield impact determination system 130 that uses sensor signals from sensors 118 and mapping system 128 (such as the top soil compaction stress map and the subsoil compaction stress map and a historic yield map showing the historic yield for the field over which mobile machine 102 is operating), and that determines an impact on the yield based upon the compaction stress in the soil; control signal generator 132 that can identify sensitive areas in the field (or receive this information from another item), where compaction will more likely affect the yield, and that generates control signals to mitigate the compaction in those areas, where desirable; control signal generator 132 that may identify (or receive) the plant location and the root zone for the plants, based upon signals from sensors 118; that this may be an area of high sensitivity, where additional compaction may significantly affect yield; generating control signals to control the controlled systems 134 to mitigate compaction in those areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Dybro. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect crop attribute values for the individual plants themselves; to aggregate individual plant data to improve usability of the data by eliminating noise in the data (see entire Dybro document, particularly Para [0037]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Blank. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to sense mobile machine characteristics and position to obtain an indication of the compactive effect of a mobile machine on a worksite; to generate a soil compaction stress map and control signals for controlling controlled systems, based upon the soil compaction stress map (see entire Blank document, particularly c1, ln 66 through c2, ln 4).
2. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Watt, Dybro and Blank, further in view of Keller (US6199000).
As per claim 6, Watt further discloses through the invention (see entire document), first mobile agricultural machine as of a first machine type (fig. 1, abstract, c7, ln 57 through c8, ln 4).
Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing second mobile agricultural machine as of a second machine type, different from the first machine type.
However, Dybro teaches these limitations features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, Para [0068, 0084] – teaching other on-site machines 712; other harvesters or other machines on a particular worksite or field.
Keller further teaches through the invention (see entire document}, particularly in fig. 18-19, c19, ln 24-61 – teaching vehicle 900 that includes a boom 910 which supports multiple sensor clusters 917 and multiple sprayer arrangements 920; the sensor-controller arrangement 904 that includes a decision-making unit coupled to receive the sensor input and the position input; the decision-making unit (e.g., a general purpose or special purpose microprocessor, not shown in detail) is configured to use these inputs, along with reference position information, to classify the target.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Keller. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance automated mapping, precision farming techniques in the challenge to improve overall crops yields and comply with the ever increasing number of environmental regulations (see entire Keller document, particularly c1, ln 13-17).
As per claim 7, Watt further discloses through the invention (see entire document), first mobile agricultural machine that comprises a mobile agricultural harvester (fig. 1, abstract, c7, ln 57 through c8, ln 4).
Watt does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing second mobile agricultural machine that comprises a mobile agricultural sprayer.
However, Dybro teaches these limitations features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, Para [0068, 0084] – teaching other on-site machines 712; other harvesters or other machines on a particular worksite or field.
Keller further teaches through the invention (see entire document}, particularly in fig. 18-19, c19, ln 24-61 – teaching vehicle 900 that includes a boom 910 which supports multiple sensor clusters 917 and multiple sprayer arrangements 920; the sensor-controller arrangement 904 that includes a decision-making unit coupled to receive the sensor input and the position input; the decision-making unit (e.g., a general purpose or special purpose microprocessor, not shown in detail) is configured to use these inputs, along with reference position information, to classify the target.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Watt by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Keller. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance automated mapping, precision farming techniques in the challenge to improve overall crops yields and comply with the ever increasing number of environmental regulations (see entire Keller document, particularly c1, ln 13-17).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
1. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-10, 14 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No.: 12320666 and claims 1, 3, 5-12 and 14-17 of the U.S. Patent 11927459. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
it is obvious that the narrower claim combination of narrower claims 1, 6-10, 14 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No.: 12320666 and claims 1, 3, 5-12 and 14-17 of the U.S. Patent 11927459 covers the broader claim limitation of broader claims 1-3 of the instant application, wherein the “stalk diameter map” of U.S. Patent 11927459, and the “stalk diameter value based on a value of the agricultural characteristic in the map” of Patent No.: 12320666 cover the “previous stalk diameter data generated during a previous operation at the worksite” of the instant application, because it is well known in the art that a map with a data typically has/presents/shows/indicates, etc., and is generated/made/built/produced, etc., based on a data that has been obtained/detected/observed/generated, etc., previously, prior to the map with the data was generated/made/built/produced, etc.;
it is obvious that the narrower claim combination of narrower claims 1, 6-10, 14 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No.: 12320666 and claims 1, 3, 5-12 and 14-17 of the U.S. Patent 11927459 covers the broader claim limitation of broader claims 12-14 of the instant application, wherein the “stalk diameter map” of U.S. Patent 11927459, and the “stalk diameter value based on a value of the agricultural characteristic in the map” of Patent No.: 12320666 cover the “previous stalk diameter data generated during a previous operation at the worksite” of the instant application, because it is well known in the art that a map with a data typically has/presents/shows/indicates, etc., and is generated/made/built/produced, etc., based on a data that has been obtained/detected/observed/generated, etc., previously, prior to the map with the data was generated/made/built/produced, etc.;
it is obvious that the narrower claim combination of narrower claims 1, 6-10, 14 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No.: 12320666 and claims 1, 3, 5-12 and 14-17 of the U.S. Patent 11927459 covers the broader claim limitation of broader claims 19-20 of the instant application, wherein the “stalk diameter map” of U.S. Patent 11927459, and the “stalk diameter value based on a value of the agricultural characteristic in the map” of Patent No.: 12320666 cover the “previous stalk diameter data generated during a previous operation at the worksite” of the instant application, because it is well known in the art that a map with a data typically has/presents/shows/indicates, etc., and is generated/made/built/produced, etc., based on a data that has been obtained/detected/observed/generated, etc., previously, prior to the map with the data was generated/made/built/produced, etc.
2. Claims 2-11, 13-18 and 20 rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Laukka (US8770501) - (see entire Laukka document, particularly abstract — teaching a method, a system and a crushing plant for controlling a crushing process, which crushing plant includes a feeder for feeding material to be crushed to a crusher, a first crusher for crushing the fed material, a second crusher for crushing the crushed material and a conveyor for conveying the crushed material from said first crusher to said second crusher; a crushing plant that includes measurement means for measuring the volume flow of the crushed material and control means for controlling the feeding speed of the material to be crushed responsive to change in the volume flow of the crushed material);
Knobloch (US 10194574) - (see entire Knobloch document, particularly abstract — teaching an agricultural tillage implement and method for adjusting the angle of smoothing tools of a harrow according
to a present geographic location; the agricultural tillage implement that includes a main implement frame and a soil finish system having the harrow support in a trailing position with respect to the main implement frame for smoothing the soil tilled by ground-engaging tillage tools; a control system configured to actuate a hydraulic system to define the angle of a first set of ground-engaging tillage tools in response to the percentage of plant residue at the present geographic location according to a stored electronic map.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose telephone number is (571) 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on (571) 270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights