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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (10,123,472) in view of Allgaier (2021/0144902) and Saini (11,754,726).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 20, Schneider discloses a system and method of tracking a position of an agricultural implement pulled by a vehicle (col 4 lines 17-23) comprising:
A GNSS receiver mounted on the vehicle (col 4 lines 23-28) for providing position data of the vehicle
An IMU mounted on the implement for providing inertial measurement data (column 4 lines 44-60)
A processing device (42) communicatively coupled to the GNSS receiver and the IMU configured to
Project position data of the vehicle to a connection point between the vehicle and the implement
Calculate a position and orientation of the implement by computationally combining the position data and the IMU data from the IMU (column 6 lines 38-48)
While Schneider discloses the invention as described above it discloses using hitch geometry rather than predefined measurements of the hitch. Like Schneider, Allgaier also discloses utilizing GNSS/GPS systems to determine and control position of the implement. Unlike Schneider, Allgaier discloses utilizing predetermined measurements (pgph 0039) to accurately input hitch point location into the processor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention as made to utilize and input known measurements instead of calculating using geometry to determine hitch point location in Schneider as taught by Allgaier to provide more precise monitoring and control of the implement as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
While the combination of Schneider and Allgaier discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose determining an initial heading of the implement based on a predetermined initialization procedure to aid in determining a position and orientation of the implement. Like the combination of Schneider and Allgaier, Saini discloses monitoring position of a vehicle/element while the vehicle is in motion. Unlike the combination, Saini teaches initializing an inertial navigation system during vehicle motion by determining a forward direction during substantially straight-line travel, determining a north direction based on GNSS heading information, and using the determined directions to initialize the orientation of the GNSS-INS filter (Saini, col. 10, ll. 30–48; col. 11, ll. 29–55). Schneider already employs inertial sensors mounted on the agricultural implement and uses information from those sensors to determine the position and orientation of the implement. Schneider further discloses the need for knowing the heading/direction measurement (column 5 lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the implement-mounted inertial navigation system requires an initial orientation from which subsequent inertial measurements may be referenced as taught by Saini. It would have been obvious to employ Saini’s known GNSS/INS initialization technique in Schneider’s implement-mounted inertial navigation system to establish an initial heading/orientation for the inertial navigation solution, thereby permitting the subsequent inertial measurements to be referenced to an initialized navigation frame and used to determine implement position and orientation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses using a Kalman filter to process the position data as a position input at the connection point (Saini – column 8 lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses the invention as described above but fails to specifically disclose the claimed vector shifts. Schneider does, however, disclose using known geometry to determine positions/attitudes of elements (column 5 lines 3-10). The examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize vector shifts to determine implement position since Schneider discloses that the location of any point on the implement can be determined using commonly known methods utilizing implement geometry.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses that the predetermined initialization procedure comprises driving the vehicle in a straight line.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 19, the combination discloses the invention as described above but fails to specifically disclose calibration of the IMU. The combination discloses that the IMU can be placed in any position and orientation but fails to specifically disclose calibration. The examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate the IMU before use after it is mounted to ensure accurate readings since calibration of instruments is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 8-9, the combination discloses that the calculated position and orientation allows any point (including planting and spraying tools) to be determined (Schneider – column 1 lines 29-35).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 18, the combination discloses controlling a position of the implement using the calculated position and orientation to maintain the implement on a predetermined path via active steering (Schneider – column 7 lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses generating a plan for a subsequent field operation based on the calculated position and orientation of the implement during a current field operation (Schneider disclose maintaining an intended path, which means it adjusts a plan for subsequent operation if the implement strays from the path) (Schneider – column 7 lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses using the system on an implement performing planting/tilling operations (column 1 lines 30-35).
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (10,123,472) in view of Allgaier (2021/0144902) and Saini (11,754,726) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and further in view of Koch (2015/0237795).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the combination discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose generating a map based on the GNSS/GPS and sensor data to control the implement based on the given location. Like the combination, Koch discloses an agricultural implement with a GPS receiver to determine the position of each tool on the implement. Unlike the combination, Koch further discloses generating a map for field operations based on sensor data including precise locations of operations performed by the implement. 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 implement positioning system of the combination to generate a map of field operations based on the calculated location of the implement as taught by Koch since Koch teaches determining the geographic position of each of a plurality of row units and associating operation data with its geographic location to generate a map to allow for improved monitoring, analysis and subsequent field management (abstract , pgph 001, 0014).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rekow (6,694,260) also discloses an inertial measurement and GPS monitoring system for an agricultural implement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
