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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2022-176120 and JP2022-176121 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim refers to the processor being configured or programmed to do an additional process, this should be “the processor further configured or programmed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the “ controller” in the limitation “a controller configured or programmed to control travel of the work vehicle based on the travel path” invokes 112(f) as controller is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the vehicle to be controlled.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0067]… The controller 124 may be implemented by an electronic control unit (ECU)”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “a target of the image processing” twice, it is unclear whether these are the same or different targets or if the image processing may occur singularly on one or the other.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the approximation curve…" despite not being dependent on claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected for the lack of determination of “a given point” although it is clear in the specification that the given point is among a group of points it isn’t clear how that becomes the given one. That point could be any point and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “a work vehicle, comprising: a first imager; a second imager…” despite this claim being dependent on claim 1, it is unclear whether the work vehicle and the imagers are those recited in claim 1. As written, it could be interpreted that the travel control system is on an unrelated work vehicle acquiring image information from an adjacent vehicle with the imagers of claim 1.
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claims 5 and 8 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A travel control system, comprising:
a processor configured or programmed to:
acquire first time-series images including a first portion of a crop row or a ridge in a field from a first imager attached to a work vehicle for agriculture so as to face in a first direction;
acquire second time-series images including a second portion of the crop row or the ridge from a second imager attached to the work vehicle so as to face in a second direction different from the first direction; and
execute image processing on the first time-series images and the second time-series images to determine a travel path of the work vehicle; and
a controller configured or programmed to control travel of the work vehicle based on the travel path; wherein the processor is configured or programmed to:
find a first fitted line of the first portion in a vehicle coordinate system fixed to the work vehicle, based on the first time-series images;
find a second fitted line of the second portion in the vehicle coordinate system, based on the second time-series images;
and determine the travel path based on the first fitted line and the second fitted line.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could receive image data of a field and use those images to fit a line to the rows of plants and determine a path that would allow a vehicle to drive the path for any given purpose.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of a controller and a processor multiple times. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “a controller configured or programmed to control travel of the work vehicle based on the travel path”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as it is intended use and not directly initiated by the determination of the travel path.
Claims 17 cites the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-16 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
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 1-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickson et al. (US 6,385,515 B1), hereinafter Dickson, in view of Wu (CN 112526989 A), hereinafter Wu.
With respect to claims 1 and 17, Dickson discloses a travel control system, comprising:
a processor configured or programmed to: acquire first time-series images including a first portion of a crop row or a ridge in a field from a first imager attached to a work vehicle for agriculture so as to face in a first direction; (see at least [col. 3, lines 58-67] “an agricultural vehicle 10 (e.g., a tractor or a combine) includes at least one sensor system, for example a vision sensor 30, and a guidance controller 40 for receiving data from the sensor system and generating a desired steering angle therefrom.” [col. 5, lines 16-20] “Images are continuously taken by a monochrome CCD camera 30”)
and execute image processing on the first time-series images and the second time-series images to determine a travel path of the work vehicle; (see at least [col. 8, lines 41-53] “vision guidance system 20 executes a trajectory path planner algorithm… based upon information provided by the image processing algorithms”)
and a controller configured or programmed to control travel of the work vehicle based on the travel path; (see at least [col. 8, lines 41-53] “The trajectory planner creates a path from the image frame 84… the system determines the desired wheel angle required such that the vehicle origin will pass through that point” [col. 3, lines 58-67] “In some situations, the guidance system must be capable of steering the vehicle in relation to rows of crops”)
Dickson discloses an agricultural vehicle using image processing to determine a path using line fitting and regions of interest, but does not explicitly disclose a camera used to collect rear image data.
However, Wu teaches acquire second time-series images including a second portion of the crop row or the ridge from a second imager attached to the work vehicle so as to face in a second direction different from the first direction; (see at least [n0112] “one or more cameras for real-time acquisition of images within the field of view of the image acquisition equipment in front of and behind the agricultural unmanned vehicle.”)
wherein the processor is configured or programmed to: find a first fitted line of the first portion in a vehicle coordinate system fixed to the work vehicle, based on the first time-series images; (see at least [n0072-n0073] “the navigation line determination module includes: The first navigation line fitting unit is used to fit the center line of the two edge lines of the crop area as the navigation line.”)
find a second fitted line of the second portion in the vehicle coordinate system, based on the second time-series images; (see at least [n0075] “The second navigation line fitting unit is used to fit the center line of two adjacent edge lines of two adjacent crop areas as navigation lines.”)
and determine the travel path based on the first fitted line and the second fitted line. (see at least [n0054] “A navigation line determination module is used to determine the navigation line of the agricultural unmanned vehicle based on the edge line of the crop area;”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 path determination of Dickson to include the rear image data disclosed in Wu, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for avoiding the inaccuracy of estimating rear information of path planning instead of using image data, see Dickson [col. 11, lines 48-54].
With respect to claim 2, Dickson discloses the processor is configured or programmed to find an approximation curve from a plurality of points on the first fitted line and the second fitted line to determine the travel path based on the approximation curve. (see at least [col. 11, lines 1-19] “If the current direction changes from the previous direction then a curve is detected… The look-ahead point is determined when the angle between the current point and the heading exceeds a fixed minimum angle”)
With respect to claim 3, Dickson discloses the processor is configured or programmed to: find a first pre-fitted line that linearly approximates the first portion in a first image coordinate system defining coordinates of pixels of the first time-series images; (see at least [col. 8, lines 41-53] “The trajectory path planner samples the crop row center points n times to form a matrix of [x,y]i locations representing a trajectory in the image space.”)
find a second pre-fitted line that linearly approximates the second portion in a second image coordinate system defining coordinates of pixels of the second time-series images; (see at least [col. 8, lines 41-53] “The trajectory path planner samples the crop row center points n times to form a matrix of [x,y]i locations representing a trajectory in the image space.” Note: This builds off the rear image data of Wu in claim 1, and is merely duplicating the process of Dickson.)
perform coordinate transformation on the first pre-fitted line from the first image coordinate system into the vehicle coordinate system to find the first fitted line in the vehicle coordinate system; (see at least [col. 12, lines 39-44] “By using the image-to-vehicle coordinate transformation, pixels in the image are mapped to points in the vehicle space uniquely with its origin at the center of the rear axle.”)
and perform coordinate transformation on the second pre-fitted line from the second image coordinate system into the vehicle coordinate system to find the second fitted line in the vehicle coordinate system. (see at least [col. 12, lines 39-44] “By using the image-to-vehicle coordinate transformation, pixels in the image are mapped to points in the vehicle space uniquely with its origin at the center of the rear axle.”)
With respect to claim 4, Dickson discloses the processor is configured or programmed to: transform the first time-series images and the second time-series images respectively into first plan-view images and second plan-view images as seen from above a ground surface on which the work vehicle travels; (see at least [col. 12, lines 1-10] “image processing algorithms of the vision guidance system, discussed above, include a calibration function used to transform the coordinates of a pixel in the image to the coordinates in the vehicle space…for use in transforming pixel coordinates to vehicle coordinates”)
and find the first fitted line and the second fitted line respectively from the first plan-view images and the second plan-view images. (see at least [col. 8, lines 50-62] “Row center points are transformed to vehicle space using an image-to-vehicle coordinate transformation matrix (Tc).”)
With respect to claim 5, Dickson discloses the first plan-view images include a first region of interest as a target of the image processing to be executed by the processor; (see at least [col. 12, lines 33-53] “The image processing algorithm may generate the four row region of interests 200 recursively using the row position that is determined in each iteration.”)
the first plan-view images include a second region of interest as a target of the image processing to be executed by the processor; (see at least [col. 12, lines 33-53] “The image processing algorithm may generate the four row region of interests 200 recursively using the row position that is determined in each iteration.”)
and the processor is configured or programmed to find the first fitted line from the first portion located in the first region of interest, and find the second fitted line from the second portion located in the second region of interest. (see at least [col. 5, lines 44-52] “The row regions of interest are used to indicate the approximate orientation of the crop rows being identified by the vision guidance system represented by crop row center lines 85.”)
With respect to claim 6, Dickson discloses the processor is configured or programmed to change a size of at least one of the first region of interest and the second region of interest in accordance with a travel speed of the work vehicle. (see at least [col. 8, lines 41-53] “The system determines a look-ahead distance along the y-axis in front of the vehicle origin. This distance depends on both vehicle speed and curvature of travel, and is used to determine which points in the path matrix the vehicle will be guided towards.” [¶ bridging col. 5-6] “The main region of interest 82 is moved vertically, relative to the display, to maintain processing within a region located at a desired look-ahead distance in front of the vehicle.”)
With respect to claim 7, Dickson discloses the first region of interest does not overlap the second region of interest on the vehicle coordinate system. (see at least Fig. 12-13)
With respect to claim 8, Dickson discloses the processor is configured or programmed to find the approximation curve from the plurality of points including a first intersection point as an intersection point of the first fitted line and the second fitted line. (see at least Fig. 10, [col. 11, lines 1-24] “If condition no. 1 is not met then condition no. 2 considers the path to be curved but does not change directions (see FIG. 10). The look-ahead point is determined when the angle between the current point and the heading exceeds a fixed minimum angle”)
With respect to claim 15, Dickson discloses an agricultural vehicle using image processing to determine a path using line fitting and regions of interest, but does not explicitly disclose a camera used to collect rear image data.
However, Wu teaches the first direction is a forward direction for the work vehicle, and the second direction is a rearward direction for the work vehicle. (see at least [n0112] “one or more cameras for real-time acquisition of images within the field of view of the image acquisition equipment in front of and behind the agricultural unmanned vehicle.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 path determination of Dickson to include the rear image data disclosed in Wu, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for avoiding the inaccuracy of estimating rear information of path planning instead of using image data, see Dickson [col. 11, lines 48-54].
With respect to claim 16, Dickson discloses a work vehicle, comprising: a first imager; and the travel control system of claim 1. (see at least [col. 3, lines 58-67] “an agricultural vehicle 10 (e.g., a tractor or a combine) includes at least one sensor system, for example a vision sensor 30, and a guidance controller 40 for receiving data from the sensor system and generating a desired steering angle therefrom.” [col. 5, lines 16-20] “Images are continuously taken by a monochrome CCD camera 30”)
Dickson discloses an agricultural vehicle using image processing to determine a path using line fitting and regions of interest, but does not explicitly disclose a camera used to collect rear image data.
However, Wu teaches a second imager; (see at least [n0112] “one or more cameras for real-time acquisition of images within the field of view of the image acquisition equipment in front of and behind the agricultural unmanned vehicle.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 path determination of Dickson to include the rear image data disclosed in Wu, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for avoiding the inaccuracy of estimating rear information of path planning instead of using image data, see Dickson [col. 11, lines 48-54].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 101, and are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended to overcome current rejections and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, taken alone or in combination, teach the specifics in claims 9 and 10. The examiner could find no motivation to combine references to read on all the limitations without improper hindsight.
The following references are the most relevant prior art and are representative of the current state of the art:
Dickson discloses a trajectory path planner that continuously updates based on regions of interest determined using image data. It does not explicitly disclose the use of a rear facing camera used to connect front and rear trajectory data, rather it states that the rear data is estimated based on the continuous front image information.
Wu discloses a navigation line determination for an agricultural vehicle that uses image information from both a front and rear camera to determine a centerline of a crop row. It does not contain the detailed coordinate information and line connection information of the indicated claims.
Bhupatiraju et al. (US 2023/0094371 A1) discloses a vehicle row follow system that has cameras which obtain information from the front and rear of a tractor. It does not explicitly use the rear camera data to determine a travel path or contain the detailed coordinate information and line connection information of the indicated claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Susko et al. (US 2022/0377962 A1) discloses guiding an agricultural vehicle through crop rows using a camera and signal processing to locate the crop row or centers of the crop row.
Stanhope (US 2019/0059199 A1) discloses system and method for strip till implement guidance monitoring and adjustment.
Campos et al. (US 2020/0250440 A1) discloses systems and methods for determining a curve for an autonomous vehicle using image processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights