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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 03/30/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 6, 10, 13 and 19 are 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.
The term “an elevated position” in claim 6 (similarly claims 13 and 19) is/are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elevated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim and specification does not definite the term “elevated” is relative to what (ground, axle, second sensor, crop row, vehicle frame, certain components or something else), and what mounting height is considered as elevated? Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The term “proximate to a rear axle” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 13 (similarly claim 19), the recited limitation “radar sensor mounted below a crop canopy” is indefinite because the term “crop canopy” does not provide an objective boundary for determining the claimed positional relationship. The claim does not define whether “below a crop canopy” refers to a position below the average height of the crop canopy, below the uppermost leaves of the crop plants, or any other measurable characteristics of crop canopy because the height and shape of a crop canopy vary depending on crop type, crop growth stage, environment conditions, field conditions, etc. Accordingly, the claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al. (US 2018/0095476 A1 hereinafter Madsen) in view of Ferrari et al. (US 2018/0325012 A1 hereinafter Ferrari).
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15), Madsen teaches A system for controlling an agricultural machine (see at least Abstract), comprising:
a first sensor assembly configured to detect a first orientation of the agricultural machine relative to a path reference in a field using a first sensor configured to measure a first characteristic; (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0029-0085]: A sensor may include a camera 102 in combination with a three-dimensional (3D) sensor so tracked features 104 are also localized in 3D by a direct measurement. Camera 102 identify features 104 in a field of view and continuously track features 104 to maintain a heading of vehicle without drifting. The system process the captured images in chronological order and track movements of the images from one frame to a next frame. Based on the tracked movement of the images, or sparse features in the images, the change in both position and orientation of camera 102 as well as vehicle orientation and pose can be determined from image to image.)
a second sensor assembly configured to detect a second orientation of the agricultural machine relative to the path reference using a second sensor configured to measure a second characteristic different than the first characteristic; (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0029-0085]: The system may include 3D sensors (e.g., integrated stereo cameras, radar, Lidar or any other 3Dsensor) to calculate the orientation and pose of the vehicle based on 3d sensor alone. However, for agricultural fields a combination of camera 102 and a 3D sensor may provide more accurate vehicle orientation and pose measurements. )and
one or more processors (see at least Fig. 1) configured to:
determine a slope of terrain being traversed by the agricultural machine; (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0029-0085]: Due to physical circumstance, such as the slope of a hill, the vehicle may travel along a different path referred to as course over ground.)
adjust a confidence value associated with position data from a global positioning system (GPS) antenna based on the determined slope; (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0006, 0029-0085]: Due to crabbing, such as on a slope, the vehicle heading is not always aligned with the direction of the course over ground. GNSS also requires a good line of sight to satellites. Trees, buildings, windmills etc. can cause the GPS position to degrade or not be available. The control system may assign lower weights to GNSS data based on vehicle operating parameters.)
calculate an actual heading of the agricultural machine using data from the first and second sensor assemblies when the confidence value of the GPS position data is below a threshold; and automatically control ground engaging elements of the agricultural machine based on the calculated actual heading. (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0029-0085]: The control system assign weights to sensors 102, 108 and 44 and fuses together the weighted data from the sensors to provide an improved estimate of the vehicle orientation/heading. The fused heading data output from fusion operation allows control system to project more accurate positions of vehicle and more accurately steer vehicle.)
it may be alleged that Madsen does not expressly teach a first sensor assembly configured to detect a first orientation of the agricultural machine relative to a path reference in a field using a first sensor configured to measure a first characteristic;
a second sensor assembly configured to detect a second orientation of the agricultural machine relative to the path reference using a second sensor configured to measure a second characteristic different than the first characteristic;
Ferrari is directed to agriculture system configured to acquire data representative of crop rows in an agricultural fields, Ferrari teaches a first sensor assembly configured to detect a first orientation of the agricultural machine relative to a path reference in a field using a first sensor configured to measure a first characteristic; and a second sensor assembly configured to detect a second orientation of the agricultural machine relative to the path reference using a second sensor configured to measure a second characteristic different than the first characteristic; (see at least Fig. 3-5 [0053-0077]: Fig. 4 shows positions where radar sensors can be positioned on an agricultural vehicle where a first radar sensor is located on a lower portion of the agricultural vehicle having a low field-of-view level with or beneath the crop canopy; and a second radar sensor located at an upper portion of the agricultural vehicle such that it has a high field of view above the crop canopy. The radar sensor can have a FOV in front of, to the side or behind the agricultural vehicle. The radar-sensor provides crop-radar-data to a controller for determining crop-property-data (crop-location data and/or crop-absence location data). The crop-property-data can represent one or more of the following parameters: (a) a desired radius of curvature, to define how sharply the agricultural vehicle 530 should turn in order to be properly aligned with the crop rows; (b) cross-track correction (AB line nudge); (c) lateral offsets of detected row(s); (d) direction of travel relative to row(s) (e.g. angle/degrees deviating left/right from the parallel rows); and determine a property-confidence-value associated with the crop-property-data, and determine the vehicle-control-instructions and/or route-plan-data also based on the property-confidence-value.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Madsen’s agricultural vehicle system to incorporate the technique of mounting multiple sensors at different location of an agricultural vehicle for detecting crop characteristics of determining vehicle alignment to detected crop rows as taught by Ferrari with reasonable expectation to ensure improve confidence through sensor fusion and improve crop row detection accuracy.
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The system of claim 1,
it may be alleged that Madsen does not expressly teach wherein the path reference includes one or more of a crop row, a furrow, a guidance path, a guidance line or a swath.
Ferrari is directed to agriculture system configured to acquire data representative of crop rows in an agricultural fields, Ferrari teaches wherein the path reference includes one or more of a crop row, a furrow, a guidance path, a guidance line or a swath. (see at least [0039-0078]: the crop-property-data can represent one or more of the following parameters: (a) a desired radius of curvature, to define how sharply the agricultural vehicle 530 should turn in order to be properly aligned with the crop rows; (b) cross-track correction; (c) lateral offsets of detected row(s); and (d) direction of travel relative to row(s) (e.g. angle/degrees deviating left/right from the parallel rows). )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Madsen’s agricultural vehicle system to incorporate the technique of detecting crop characteristics for determining vehicle alignment to detected crop rows as taught by Ferrari with reasonable expectation to ensure improve confidence through sensor fusion and improve crop row detection accuracy.
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The system of claim 1,
Madsen further teaches wherein at least one of the first and second sensors are optical sensors. (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0029-0085]: The system may include 3D sensors (e.g., integrated stereo cameras, radar, Lidar or any other 3Dsensor) to calculate the orientation and pose of the vehicle based on 3d sensor alone. However, for agricultural fields a combination of camera 102 and a 3D sensor may provide more accurate vehicle orientation and pose measurements. )
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The system of claim 1,
Madsen further teaches wherein at least one of the first and second sensors are radar sensors. (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0029-0085]: The system may include 3D sensors (e.g., integrated stereo cameras, radar, Lidar or any other 3Dsensor) to calculate the orientation and pose of the vehicle based on 3d sensor alone. However, for agricultural fields a combination of camera 102 and a 3D sensor may provide more accurate vehicle orientation and pose measurements. )
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The system of claim 1,
Madsen further teaches wherein the first sensor or the second sensor comprises at least one of an optical sensor, radar sensor, a global positioning sensor, an acoustic sensor, a LIDAR sensor, or a tactile sensor. (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0029-0085]: The system may include 3D sensors (e.g., integrated stereo cameras, radar, Lidar or any other 3Dsensor) to calculate the orientation and pose of the vehicle based on 3d sensor alone. However, for agricultural fields a combination of camera 102 and a 3D sensor may provide more accurate vehicle orientation and pose measurements. )
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The system of claim 1,
Madsen further teaches wherein the first sensor assembly is configured to couple to the agricultural machine at an elevated location relative to the path reference, and the first sensor is configured to detect the first orientation from the elevated location directed toward the path reference. (see at least Fig. 1-3, 13-14 [0031]: camera 102 is mounted in the front top center of the cabin of vehicle 50 . Camera 102 is looking forward and has a relatively wide field of view to view features 104 close to vehicle 50 and on the horizon.)
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The system of claim 6,
it may be alleged that Madsen does not expressly teach wherein the second sensor assembly is configured to couple to the agricultural machine at a lateral location relative to the path reference, and the second sensor is configured to detect the second orientation from the lateral location directed across the path reference.
Ferrari is directed to agriculture system configured to acquire data representative of crop rows in an agricultural fields, Ferrari teaches wherein the second sensor assembly is configured to couple to the agricultural machine at a lateral location relative to the path reference, and the second sensor is configured to detect the second orientation from the lateral location directed across the path reference. (see at least Fig. 3-5 [0053-0077]: Fig. 4 shows positions where radar sensors can be positioned on an agricultural vehicle where a first radar sensor is located on a lower portion of the agricultural vehicle having a low field-of-view level with or beneath the crop canopy; and a second radar sensor located at an upper portion of the agricultural vehicle such that it has a high field of view above the crop canopy. The radar sensor can have a FOV in front of, to the side or behind the agricultural vehicle. The radar-sensor provides crop-radar-data to a controller for determining crop-property-data (crop-location data and/or crop-absence location data). The crop-property-data can represent one or more of the following parameters: (a) a desired radius of curvature, to define how sharply the agricultural vehicle 530 should turn in order to be properly aligned with the crop rows; (b) cross-track correction (AB line nudge); (c) lateral offsets of detected row(s); (d) direction of travel relative to row(s) (e.g. angle/degrees deviating left/right from the parallel rows); and determine a property-confidence-value associated with the crop-property-data, and determine the vehicle-control-instructions and/or route-plan-data also based on the property-confidence-value.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Madsen’s agricultural vehicle system to incorporate the technique of mounting a second sensor at different location than the first sensor for detecting crop characteristics for determining vehicle alignment to detected crop rows as taught by Ferrari with reasonable expectation to ensure improve confidence through sensor fusion and improve crop row detection accuracy.
Regarding Claim 9 (similarly claim 16), The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The method of claim 8 (similarly claim 15),
Madsen further teaches wherein determining the slope comprises analyzing a velocity vector from GPS data and comparing it to a heading vector determined from the first and second sensor assemblies. (see at least Fig. 3, 13-15 [0041-0084]: Vehicle 50 may have a heading 130 . However, do to physical circumstances, such as the slope of a hill, vehicle 50 may travel along a different path referred to as course over ground 134 . The angle between vehicle heading 130 and course over ground heading is referred to as the crab angle 132 . Course over ground 134 is also referred to as the velocity heading 136. Control system 100 may initialize and align the relative vision heading indicated by path 212 to the north GNSS heading indicated by path 210. For example, a polynomial or spline function 214 is fitted to a previous traveled distance, such as the last 10 meters driven by vehicle 50 . Polynomial or spline function 214 provides robust information about the course over ground traveled by vehicle 50 even at low speed. Based on the GNSS course over ground 210 and a possible crab angle determined by visual data from camera 102 , control system 100 estimates and corrects a bias on vision heading 212 . The vision bias may be frequently updated to avoid big jumps in the vision measurements. Control system 100 also may measure crab angle using a sensor that measures the velocity of the vehicle in the body frame compared with the velocity of the vehicle in the GPS frame. Control system 100 uses the crab angle to align visual heading measurements 212 with the GPS measurements 210 . It is possible to measure this sideslip angle by estimating the velocity vector of the direction of motion relative to the vehicle frame (i.e. motion direction of the camera).
Regarding Claim 11 (similarly claim 17), The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The method of claim 8 (similarly claim 15), further comprising
Madsen further teaches calculating a crab vector representing movement of the agricultural machine at an angle perpendicular to a velocity vector. (see at least Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 13 (similarly claim 19), The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The method of claim 8,
Madsen further teaches wherein the first sensor assembly comprises a vision sensor mounted at an elevated position and the second sensor assembly comprises a radar sensor. (see at least Fig. 1-15 [0029-0085]: The system may include 3D sensors (e.g., integrated stereo cameras, radar, Lidar or any other 3Dsensor) to calculate the orientation and pose of the vehicle based on 3d sensor alone. However, for agricultural fields a combination of camera 102 and a 3D sensor may provide more accurate vehicle orientation and pose measurements. )
it may be alleged that Madsen does not expressly teach the second sensor assembly comprises a radar sensor mounted below a crop canopy.
Ferrari is directed to agriculture system configured to acquire data representative of crop rows in an agricultural fields, Ferrari teaches the second sensor assembly comprises a radar sensor mounted below a crop canopy. (see at least Fig. 3-5 [0053-0077]: Fig. 4 shows positions where radar sensors can be positioned on an agricultural vehicle where a first radar sensor is located on a lower portion of the agricultural vehicle having a low field-of-view level with or beneath the crop canopy; and a second radar sensor located at an upper portion of the agricultural vehicle such that it has a high field of view above the crop canopy. The radar sensor can have a FOV in front of, to the side or behind the agricultural vehicle. The radar-sensor provides crop-radar-data to a controller for determining crop-property-data (crop-location data and/or crop-absence location data). The crop-property-data can represent one or more of the following parameters: (a) a desired radius of curvature, to define how sharply the agricultural vehicle 530 should turn in order to be properly aligned with the crop rows; (b) cross-track correction (AB line nudge); (c) lateral offsets of detected row(s); (d) direction of travel relative to row(s) (e.g. angle/degrees deviating left/right from the parallel rows); and determine a property-confidence-value associated with the crop-property-data, and determine the vehicle-control-instructions and/or route-plan-data also based on the property-confidence-value.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Madsen’s agricultural vehicle system to incorporate the technique of mounting a second sensor below the crop canopy for detecting crop characteristics for determining vehicle alignment to detected crop rows as taught by Ferrari with reasonable expectation to ensure improve confidence through sensor fusion and improve crop row detection accuracy.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Ferrari and Reckow et al. (US 6789014 B1 hereinafter Reckow).
Regarding Claim 12 (similarly claim 18), The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The method of claim 8 (similarly claim 15),
It may be alleged that the combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari does not explicitly teach wherein adjusting the confidence value comprises decreasing the confidence value when the determined slope exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Reckow is directed to GPS based navigation system for agricultural vehicle, Reckow teaches wherein adjusting the confidence value comprises decreasing the confidence value when the determined slope exceeds a predetermined threshold. (see at least Fig. 3 Col. 5 Line 39 – Col 6 Line 33: when traversing non-level terrain (e.g., terrain having a slope, hills, valleys, ruts, bumps, or the like), the global positioning system determined position and course of the ground vehicle may be incorrect, resulting in cross-track errors and heading or course errors.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Madsen and Ferrari to incorporate the technique of determining GPS determined position and course of the ground vehicle maybe incorrected when the agricultural vehicle is determined to be traveling on a slope as taught by Reckow and subsequently lower the weights (or not use) of GPS positioning input of Madsen’s to resolve vehicle heading issues via sensor fusion and doing so would ensure only the mostly reliable sensor inputs are used to improve vehicle guidance accuracy.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Ferrari and Geier (US 5784029 A).
Regarding Claim 14 (similarly claim 20), The combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari teaches The method of claim 8 (similarly claim 15), further comprising
It may be alleged that the combination of Madsen in view of Ferrari does not explicitly teach projecting an antenna position backwards along a corrected heading based on the calculated actual heading rather than a GPS heading.
Geier is directed to system and method for GPS antenna lever arm compensation in integrated GPS/dead reckoning navigation systems, Geier teaches projecting an antenna position backwards along a corrected heading based on the calculated actual heading rather than a GPS heading. (see at least Fig. 1-3 Col. 2 Line 11-Col. 4 Line 43: The system compensates for the positional offset between a GPS antenna and a vehicle reference point by using a heading determined from non-GPS sensors rather than relying solely on a GPS-derived heading because the gps antenna may be physically displaced from the vehicle’s desired navigation reference point and performs a correction using the known antenna-to-vehicle offset and a vehicle heading. By applying the vehicle heading to the antenna position offset, the system transforms the GPS antenna position to a corrected vehicle position.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Madsen and Ferrari to incorporate the technique of correcting a vehicle position by compensating for the offset between a gps antenna location and a vehicle reference point using heading determined from non-gps sensors as taught by Geier with reasonable expectation of success to improve the accuracy of vehicle’s estimated position by correcting the physical offset between the GPS antenna and the vehicle reference point in order to prove a more accurate estimate of the vehicle’s true position and orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of prior arts Madsen, Ferrari, Reckow and Geier taken either individually or in combination with each other or other prior arts of records fail to render obviousness of wherein the first sensor assembly is positioned at a front axle of the agricultural machine and the second sensor assembly is positioned proximate to a rear axle of the agricultural machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights