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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 cites:
A setting method for setting information used for causing a work vehicle to travel automatically on a field, the setting method comprising:
setting whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field when the work vehicle travels automatically on the field.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental.
The claims recite setting whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “machine learning model” or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the work vehicle and its route, and mentally decide (set) whether the vehicle or a part of the vehicle can protrude outside the field . Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations
Claims are evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea or adding/performing insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claims recite setting whether or not to allow a vehicle to move outside a field using a computer readable non volatile medium, a processor, or a system. The above listed actions are recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry that facilitate the steps are described by the specification at a high level of generality. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental/extra solution processes using a generic or general-purpose processor. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than possible uses for the output of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., possible uses for information or mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 cites:
A computer-readable non-volatile medium storing a setting program for setting information used for causing a work vehicle to travel automatically on a field, the setting program being configured to cause one or more processors to perform: setting whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field when the work vehicle travels automatically on the field.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental.
The claims recite setting whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “machine learning model” or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the work vehicle and its route, and mentally decide (set) whether the vehicle or a part of the vehicle can protrude outside the field . Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations
Claims are evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea or adding/performing insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claims recite setting whether or not to allow a vehicle to move outside a field using a computer readable non volatile medium, a processor, or a system. The above listed actions are recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry that facilitate the steps are described by the specification at a high level of generality. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental/extra solution processes using a generic or general-purpose processor. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than possible uses for the output of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., possible uses for information or mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 12 cites:
A setting system for setting information used for causing a work vehicle to travel automatically on a field, the setting system being configured to set whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field when the work vehicle travels automatically on the field.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental.
The claims recite setting whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “machine learning model” or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the work vehicle and its route, and mentally decide (set) whether the vehicle or a part of the vehicle can protrude outside the field . Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations
Claims are evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea or adding/performing insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claims recite setting whether or not to allow a vehicle to move outside a field using a computer readable non volatile medium, a processor, or a system. The above listed actions are recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry that facilitate the steps are described by the specification at a high level of generality. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental/extra solution processes using a generic or general-purpose processor. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than possible uses for the output of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., possible uses for information or mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 cites:
The setting method according to claim 1, wherein the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for a specific location of an end part of the field.
Claim 3 cites:
The setting method according to claim 1, wherein the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for a plurality of outer edges of the field.
Claim 4 cites:
The setting method according to claim 3, wherein the part of the work vehicle is prohibited from protruding outside the field, for a specific region on an outer edge, of the plurality of outer edges, for which the part of the work vehicle is allowed to protrude outside the field.
Claim 5 cites:
The setting method according to claim 2, wherein
a target route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically includes a work route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically while performing predetermined work and a non-work route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically without performing the predetermined work, and the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for the non-work route in the specific location.
Claim 6 cites:
The setting method according to claim 1, wherein the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed based on information related to a work machine attached to the work vehicle.
Claim 7 cites:
The setting method according to claim 1, wherein the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for each portion of the work vehicle.
Claim 8 cites:
The setting method according to claim 1, wherein an allowable protrusion amount is set based on a size of a work machine attached to the work vehicle or a detection result of a field boundary acquired when the work vehicle has performed teaching travel at a time of field registration, in a case where the part of the work vehicle is allowed to protrude outside the field, the allowable protrusion amount being an upper limit value of a protrusion amount of the work vehicle.
Claim 9 cites:
The setting method according to claim 8, wherein a target route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically is generated based on the allowable protrusion amount.
Claim 10 cites:
The setting method according to claim 9, wherein a turning pattern of a turning route included in the target route is determined based on the allowable protrusion amount.
Claim 2 cites setting whether to allow the vehicle out of the field for a specific location of an end part of the field. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the particular location and determine whether to allow a part of the vehicle outside the field at that location. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Claim 5 cites setting whether to allow the vehicle out of the field for a non working part of the route. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the setting whether or not to allow the vehicle outside the field for the non working route. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Claim 6 cites setting whether or not to allow the vehicle outside the field based on information of a work machine attached to the vehicle. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the size or type of equipment attached to the vehicle and decide based off of that whether to allow the vehicle to leave the field at a location. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Claim 7 cites setting whether or not to allow the vehicle outside the field for each part of the work vehicle. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider each part of the vehicle and decide whether to allow that part to leave the field or not. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Claim 8 cites setting whether or not to allow the vehicle outside the field based on size of a work machine attached to the vehicle. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the size of equipment attached to the vehicle and decide based off of that whether to allow the vehicle to leave the field at a location. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Claim 9 cites that a target route is generated based on an allowable protrusion amount. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the allowable protrusion amount and set a route based on that information. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Claim 10 cites that a turning pattern is determined based on the allowable protrusion amount. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could consider the allowable protrusion amount and determine the angle of the turn and the movements of the turns based on that. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations
Claims are evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea or adding/performing insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claims recite setting whether or not to allow a vehicle to move outside a field, generating target routes, determining turning patterns using a computer readable non volatile medium, a processor, or a system. The above listed actions are recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry that facilitate the steps are described by the specification at a high level of generality. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental/extra solution processes using a generic or general-purpose processor. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than possible uses for the output of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., possible uses for information or mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawahata et al, US Pub (2025/0044797 A1), hereafter known as Kawahata.
For Claim 1, Kawahata teaches A setting method for setting information used for causing a work vehicle to travel automatically on a field, the setting method comprising: ([0006] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, an autonomous vehicle navigation system for a work vehicle capable of self-driving, the system comprising a controller configured or programmed to receive information that is regarding a location of the work vehicle or an environment of the work vehicle and is detected by at least one sensor, and receive input data entered at a terminal device from a user. The controller is configured or programmed to cause the work vehicle to traverse a first plot including a plurality of rows, exit the first plot from a first row included in the plurality of rows of the first plot, traverse a margin area located between the first plot and an adjacent area or a second plot that includes a plurality of rows, the adjacent area or the second plot being spaced away from the first plot with the margin area located between the first plot and the adjacent area or the second plot, and perform a turning maneuver process before entering a second row in the plurality of rows of the first plot. When the work vehicle performs the turning maneuver process, the controller is configured or programmed to allow at least a portion of the work vehicle to reverse into the adjacent area or a third row included in the plurality of rows of the second plot based on the controller judging whether or not at least one or more conditions is satisfied, the one or more conditions being based on the data detected from the at least one sensor and/or the input data entered at the terminal device from the user.
[0013] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the input data entered at the terminal device from the user includes an indication of whether or not the adjacent area is a field, and the work vehicle is allowed to reverse into the third row if the adjacent area is a field.)
setting whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field when the work vehicle travels automatically on the field. ([0078] However, referring to FIG. 1B, a geofence can be used to define a boundary between a travelable area (e.g., the margin area M) in which a vehicle is allowed to travel and an exclusion area where the vehicle should not travel. The geofence GF can be manually created by GPS in a planning interface of the travel route of the vehicle, for example. If a geofence, shown as a dashed line GF between the margin area M and the second plot PL2 (or other adjacent area instead of the second plot PL2), has been created (e.g., manually created using GPS in a planning interface), the vehicle is not allowed to enter the second plot PL2, and is therefore prohibited from reversing into the row R5 which is included in the second plot PL2. This restricts or limits movements of the tractor if the tractor is required to make multiple reverse movements R when turning from the turning path TP into the row R4. In some cases, it is necessary for the geofence GF to be established in order to prevent the tractor 100 from colliding with obstacles, building structures, or roads that may be present in the area of the second plot PL2.
[0103] Based on one or more of the above information for Judging Point 2, the controller decides if entering the opposite side trellis is physically available or not at step S107 in the process. If the enter trellis judging step at S107 is determined to be “YES”, at step S110, the controller allows the vehicle or tractor 100 to enter or reverse into the space (e.g., “third row” R5) of the opposite side trellis (e.g., plot PL2) as shown in FIG. 1a. More specifically, at step S110, the controller allows the vehicle 100 to enter the space between the trellises when the local path is created in the space between the trellises. In the other words, if the local path planner does not create a path (e.g., path R as shown in FIG. 1A) which enters the space (e.g., R5 as shown in FIG. 1A) between the opposite side (e.g., plot PL2 as shown in FIG. 1A), the vehicle does not need to enter the opposite side. After step S110, the controller commands the tractor 100 to switch back to forward driving mode to complete the turn along the turning path TP, and then the tractor proceeds to traverse through the next trellis, shown as, for example, the “second row” R4 in FIG. 1A.
Figure 2)
For Claim 2, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 1, wherein the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for a specific location of an end part of the field. ([0078] However, referring to FIG. 1B, a geofence can be used to define a boundary between a travelable area (e.g., the margin area M) in which a vehicle is allowed to travel and an exclusion area where the vehicle should not travel. The geofence GF can be manually created by GPS in a planning interface of the travel route of the vehicle, for example. If a geofence, shown as a dashed line GF between the margin area M and the second plot PL2 (or other adjacent area instead of the second plot PL2), has been created (e.g., manually created using GPS in a planning interface), the vehicle is not allowed to enter the second plot PL2, and is therefore prohibited from reversing into the row R5 which is included in the second plot PL2. This restricts or limits movements of the tractor if the tractor is required to make multiple reverse movements R when turning from the turning path TP into the row R4. In some cases, it is necessary for the geofence GF to be established in order to prevent the tractor 100 from colliding with obstacles, building structures, or roads that may be present in the area of the second plot PL2.
[0103] Based on one or more of the above information for Judging Point 2, the controller decides if entering the opposite side trellis is physically available or not at step S107 in the process. If the enter trellis judging step at S107 is determined to be “YES”, at step S110, the controller allows the vehicle or tractor 100 to enter or reverse into the space (e.g., “third row” R5) of the opposite side trellis (e.g., plot PL2) as shown in FIG. 1a. More specifically, at step S110, the controller allows the vehicle 100 to enter the space between the trellises when the local path is created in the space between the trellises. In the other words, if the local path planner does not create a path (e.g., path R as shown in FIG. 1A) which enters the space (e.g., R5 as shown in FIG. 1A) between the opposite side (e.g., plot PL2 as shown in FIG. 1A), the vehicle does not need to enter the opposite side. After step S110, the controller commands the tractor 100 to switch back to forward driving mode to complete the turn along the turning path TP, and then the tractor proceeds to traverse through the next trellis, shown as, for example, the “second row” R4 in FIG. 1A.
Figure 2)
For Claim 3, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 1, wherein the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for a plurality of outer edges of the field. ([0196] Referring to FIG. 4B, the trellis row direction T1 is the same or substantially the same as the trellis row direction T2, then no steering management is needed when reversing into the opposite trellis since the tractor can reverse straight, and the tractor will be allowed to enter the opposite side trellis. If the trellis row direction T1 is substantially different from the trellis row direction T2, then it would be preferable to not allow the tractor to enter the opposite row trellis since steering management would be required. In order to determine the trellis row direction in real time, T1 is calculated from the 2D information of the trellis that the tractor is currently traveling, and T2 is calculated based on 2D information of the adjacent trellis which is detected during the tractor turning. “During” means from the moment that the tractor starts turn to the end of the turn. The 2D information of the adjacent trellis is calculated from the same method as traveling straight. An angle between the direction T1 and T2 is measured. If the angle is less than or equal to a predetermined value, then the judging of entering the trellis is set to YES. Otherwise, the judging of entering the trellis is set to NO.
For Claim 4, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 3, wherein the part of the work vehicle is prohibited from protruding outside the field, for a specific region on an outer edge, of the plurality of outer edges, for which the part of the work vehicle is allowed to protrude outside the field. ([0078] However, referring to FIG. 1B, a geofence can be used to define a boundary between a travelable area (e.g., the margin area M) in which a vehicle is allowed to travel and an exclusion area where the vehicle should not travel. The geofence GF can be manually created by GPS in a planning interface of the travel route of the vehicle, for example. If a geofence, shown as a dashed line GF between the margin area M and the second plot PL2 (or other adjacent area instead of the second plot PL2), has been created (e.g., manually created using GPS in a planning interface), the vehicle is not allowed to enter the second plot PL2, and is therefore prohibited from reversing into the row R5 which is included in the second plot PL2. This restricts or limits movements of the tractor if the tractor is required to make multiple reverse movements R when turning from the turning path TP into the row R4. In some cases, it is necessary for the geofence GF to be established in order to prevent the tractor 100 from colliding with obstacles, building structures, or roads that may be present in the area of the second plot PL2.
[0181] At step S106, if the controller determines that there is “NO” trellis in the turning route, then a geofence GF is set to the border of Area M at step S109 as shown in FIG. 1B. If the geofence GF is set at S109, the system controller prohibits the vehicle from entering the area past the geofence GF.)
For Claim 6, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 1, wherein the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed based on information related to a work machine attached to the work vehicle. ([0180] Referring to FIG. 2, at step S106, the controller determines if there is a trellis in the turning route, based on the same information as “Trellis in the adjacent area” under the Details of Judging point 1 as shown in FIG. 3A. The determination algorithm of the controller compares between the location data of the calculated local path referred to GPS and the location data of the “Trellis in the adjacent area” referred to GPS when the tractor determines that the tractor needs to switch backwards (switch into reverse). The timing of this determination of switching backward may be when the tractor switches from straight traveling to turning traveling, or during the tractor turning and updating the local path. The “Trellis in the adjacent area” condition can be based on the same information as the information under Judging Point 1 that may be updated from the start of driving through the timing of the determination of switching backward, or the information based on real-time information that is updated by LiDAR or other sensors scanning the environment around the tractor when the tractor switches from straight traveling to turning or during the tractor turning. If the system references the same type of information as Judging Point 1, the information referenced should at least be updated information. The main purpose of Judging Point 2 is to evaluate real-time information during the turning process. When the controller determines step S106 based on real-time information, the “real-time” depends on the timing when the local path indicates that the tractor will switch backwards (i.e., switch into reverse). As described above, the timing of “when” can be both of before the turning start at S105 and during turning. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the step of S106 is determined at the moment when the local path indicates it includes backward direction. The controller 180 has the location data of the “Trellis adjacent area” and the location data of the future trajectory of the turning local path. The controller 180 compares the location data of the “Trellis adjacent area” and the location data of the future trajectory of the turning local path and determines whether the trajectory of the local path is in the adjacent Trellis or not. FIG. 4C shows a moment in time before turning, in which the controller recognizes and determines that the tractor will switch back into reverse since the path entering the trellis is more reasonable. FIG. 4D shows a moment in time during turning, in which the controller determines that the tractor will need to switch back into reverse. Step S106 can be performed at either of the moments in time shown in FIGS. 4C and 4D.
[0165] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, regarding the item, Type of Implement (length), if the length L of the implement is less than the length A of the tractor, then entering the trellis will be set to YES. There may be a risk of the tractor reversing into and entering the trellises. A long length L of the implement increases the risk of entering the trellis. Thus, in a preferred embodiment of the present invention, if the length L of the implement is greater than or equal to the length A of the tractor, then entering the trellis will be set to NO. A short length of L has a small risk of entering the trellis. When the length of the implement L is shorter, the collision risk of entering the trellises is smaller. Thus, in a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the function of entering the trellises is set to “YES” when L<A.
[0166] However, in another aspect according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, it is reasonable to consider a situation in which the implement is longer than the tractor length, in which more space to reverse and make the turn is required, and therefore reversing into the row between trellises may be helpful if there is sufficient area to make the turning and reversing maneuvers. Therefore, an additional condition includes entering the trellises being set to YES when W.sub.A<L+A is satisfied, W.sub.A being the width of the avenue or margin space M as shown in FIGS. 1A and 3. If L is longer than A and there is enough space to reverse, the tractor avoids entering the trellis as much as possible. If A+L is longer than W.sub.A, then entering the trellises is allowed because there is less space to reverse.)
For Claim 7, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 1, wherein the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for each portion of the work vehicle. ([0180] Referring to FIG. 2, at step S106, the controller determines if there is a trellis in the turning route, based on the same information as “Trellis in the adjacent area” under the Details of Judging point 1 as shown in FIG. 3A. The determination algorithm of the controller compares between the location data of the calculated local path referred to GPS and the location data of the “Trellis in the adjacent area” referred to GPS when the tractor determines that the tractor needs to switch backwards (switch into reverse). The timing of this determination of switching backward may be when the tractor switches from straight traveling to turning traveling, or during the tractor turning and updating the local path. The “Trellis in the adjacent area” condition can be based on the same information as the information under Judging Point 1 that may be updated from the start of driving through the timing of the determination of switching backward, or the information based on real-time information that is updated by LiDAR or other sensors scanning the environment around the tractor when the tractor switches from straight traveling to turning or during the tractor turning. If the system references the same type of information as Judging Point 1, the information referenced should at least be updated information. The main purpose of Judging Point 2 is to evaluate real-time information during the turning process. When the controller determines step S106 based on real-time information, the “real-time” depends on the timing when the local path indicates that the tractor will switch backwards (i.e., switch into reverse). As described above, the timing of “when” can be both of before the turning start at S105 and during turning. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the step of S106 is determined at the moment when the local path indicates it includes backward direction. The controller 180 has the location data of the “Trellis adjacent area” and the location data of the future trajectory of the turning local path. The controller 180 compares the location data of the “Trellis adjacent area” and the location data of the future trajectory of the turning local path and determines whether the trajectory of the local path is in the adjacent Trellis or not. FIG. 4C shows a moment in time before turning, in which the controller recognizes and determines that the tractor will switch back into reverse since the path entering the trellis is more reasonable. FIG. 4D shows a moment in time during turning, in which the controller determines that the tractor will need to switch back into reverse. Step S106 can be performed at either of the moments in time shown in FIGS. 4C and 4D.
[0165] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, regarding the item, Type of Implement (length), if the length L of the implement is less than the length A of the tractor, then entering the trellis will be set to YES. There may be a risk of the tractor reversing into and entering the trellises. A long length L of the implement increases the risk of entering the trellis. Thus, in a preferred embodiment of the present invention, if the length L of the implement is greater than or equal to the length A of the tractor, then entering the trellis will be set to NO. A short length of L has a small risk of entering the trellis. When the length of the implement L is shorter, the collision risk of entering the trellises is smaller. Thus, in a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the function of entering the trellises is set to “YES” when L<A.
[0166] However, in another aspect according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, it is reasonable to consider a situation in which the implement is longer than the tractor length, in which more space to reverse and make the turn is required, and therefore reversing into the row between trellises may be helpful if there is sufficient area to make the turning and reversing maneuvers. Therefore, an additional condition includes entering the trellises being set to YES when W.sub.A<L+A is satisfied, W.sub.A being the width of the avenue or margin space M as shown in FIGS. 1A and 3. If L is longer than A and there is enough space to reverse, the tractor avoids entering the trellis as much as possible. If A+L is longer than W.sub.A, then entering the trellises is allowed because there is less space to reverse.
[0019] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the input data entered at the terminal device from the user includes W1 which defines a trellis row width, and A1 which defines a total width of the work vehicle and an implement attached to the work vehicle. The information detected by the at least one sensor includes an inflation layer value (Inf), and the work vehicle is allowed to reverse into the third row of the second plot if A1<W1−(Inf×2).)
For Claim 8, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 1, wherein an allowable protrusion amount is set based on a size of a work machine attached to the work vehicle or a detection result of a field boundary acquired when the work vehicle has performed teaching travel at a time of field registration, in a case where the part of the work vehicle is allowed to protrude outside the field, the allowable protrusion amount being an upper limit value of a protrusion amount of the work vehicle. ([0170] Regarding the item, Trellis width vs. Tractor+Implement width, as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, the trellis width W1 is compared to the Tractor+Implement width A1. If the trellis width W1 is greater than the Tractor+Implement width A1, then there is sufficient space for the Tractor and Implement to enter the trellis and therefore the function is set to ON (Enter Trellis YES). Otherwise, if the trellis width W1 is equal to or less than the Tractor+Implement width A1, then there is insufficient space for the Tractor and Implement to enter the trellis and therefore the function is set to OFF (Enter Trellis NO).
[0171] In a preferred embodiment of the prevent invention, the width W1 of the row between trellises may be measured edge to edge, as shown in FIG. 3B. That is, the width W1 is measured from the edge of one vine to the edge of another vine as shown in FIG. 3B.)
For Claim 9, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 8, wherein a target route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically is generated based on the allowable protrusion amount. ([0091] Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3A, if the “Turning Area Wider function” at step S101 is determined to be OFF, then the process proceeds to the step of setting a geofence to the opposite trellis or adjacent area (S109). If the “Turning Area Wider function” is ON, then the process proceeds to step S102 of generate a driving route using Global Path Planning. FIGS. 5A and 5B show non-limiting examples of a driving travel route TR within an agricultural field map MP1 using Global Path Planning in Step 102. The travel route TR includes a start point SP, parallel paths PP, turning paths TP, and an end point EP. Referring back to FIG. 2, Step 101 involves Judging Point 1, the details of which are shown in FIG. 3A and further described below. As indicated in FIG. 3A, the information of Judging Point 1 is available information before driving (e.g., before the vehicle starts a traveling route or before a global path planning process is executed) and based on user input data at the terminal device or stable sources of information. When the Autonomous Driving Starts at S103, the Local Path Planning is created (S104) to generate a drive route using real-time data available from sensors. Global Path Planning at step S102, autonomous driving at S103, and local path planning at S104 is described in further detail below.)
For Claim 10, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 9, wherein a turning pattern of a turning route included in the target route is determined based on the allowable protrusion amount. ([0024] In accordance with another preferred embodiment of the present invention, a method being performed by a controller of autonomous vehicle navigation for a work vehicle capable of self-driving includes steps of receiving information that is regarding a location of the work vehicle or an environment of the work vehicle and is detected by at least one sensor, and receiving input data entered at a terminal device from a user. The controller causes the work vehicle to traverse a first plot including a plurality of rows, exit the first plot from a first row included in the plurality of rows of the first plot, traverse a margin area located between the first plot and an adjacent area or a second plot that includes a plurality of rows, the adjacent area or the second plot being spaced away from the first plot with the margin area located between the first plot and the adjacent area or the second plot, and perform a turning maneuver process before entering a second row in the plurality of rows of the first plot. When the work vehicle performs the turning maneuver process, the controller is configured or programmed to allow at least a portion of the work vehicle to reverse into the adjacent area or a third row included in the plurality of rows of the second plot based on the controller judging whether or not at least one or more conditions is satisfied, the one or more conditions being based on the information obtained from the at least one sensor and/or the input data entered at the terminal device from the user.
[0021] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the information detected by the at least one sensor includes T1 which is a trellis row direction of a trellis of the second row, and T2 which is a trellis row direction of a trellis of the third row. The work vehicle is allowed to reverse into the third row of the second plot if an angle between T1 and T2 is less than or equal to a predetermined value.
[0180] Referring to FIG. 2, at step S106, the controller determines if there is a trellis in the turning route, based on the same information as “Trellis in the adjacent area” under the Details of Judging point 1 as shown in FIG. 3A. The determination algorithm of the controller compares between the location data of the calculated local path referred to GPS and the location data of the “Trellis in the adjacent area” referred to GPS when the tractor determines that the tractor needs to switch backwards (switch into reverse). The timing of this determination of switching backward may be when the tractor switches from straight traveling to turning traveling, or during the tractor turning and updating the local path. The “Trellis in the adjacent area” condition can be based on the same information as the information under Judging Point 1 that may be updated from the start of driving through the timing of the determination of switching backward, or the information based on real-time information that is updated by LiDAR or other sensors scanning the environment around the tractor when the tractor switches from straight traveling to turning or during the tractor turning. If the system references the same type of information as Judging Point 1, the information referenced should at least be updated information. The main purpose of Judging Point 2 is to evaluate real-time information during the turning process. When the controller determines step S106 based on real-time information, the “real-time” depends on the timing when the local path indicates that the tractor will switch backwards (i.e., switch into reverse). As described above, the timing of “when” can be both of before the turning start at S105 and during turning. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the step of S106 is determined at the moment when the local path indicates it includes backward direction. The controller 180 has the location data of the “Trellis adjacent area” and the location data of the future trajectory of the turning local path. The controller 180 compares the location data of the “Trellis adjacent area” and the location data of the future trajectory of the turning local path and determines whether the trajectory of the local path is in the adjacent Trellis or not. FIG. 4C shows a moment in time before turning, in which the controller recognizes and determines that the tractor will switch back into reverse since the path entering the trellis is more reasonable. FIG. 4D shows a moment in time during turning, in which the controller determines that the tractor will need to switch back into reverse. Step S106 can be performed at either of the moments in time shown in FIGS. 4C and 4D.)
For Claim 11, Kawahata teaches A computer-readable non-volatile medium storing a setting program for setting information used for causing a work vehicle to travel automatically on a field, the setting program being configured to cause one or more processors to perform: ([0006] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, an autonomous vehicle navigation system for a work vehicle capable of self-driving, the system comprising a controller configured or programmed to receive information that is regarding a location of the work vehicle or an environment of the work vehicle and is detected by at least one sensor, and receive input data entered at a terminal device from a user. The controller is configured or programmed to cause the work vehicle to traverse a first plot including a plurality of rows, exit the first plot from a first row included in the plurality of rows of the first plot, traverse a margin area located between the first plot and an adjacent area or a second plot that includes a plurality of rows, the adjacent area or the second plot being spaced away from the first plot with the margin area located between the first plot and the adjacent area or the second plot, and perform a turning maneuver process before entering a second row in the plurality of rows of the first plot. When the work vehicle performs the turning maneuver process, the controller is configured or programmed to allow at least a portion of the work vehicle to reverse into the adjacent area or a third row included in the plurality of rows of the second plot based on the controller judging whether or not at least one or more conditions is satisfied, the one or more conditions being based on the data detected from the at least one sensor and/or the input data entered at the terminal device from the user.
[0013] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the input data entered at the terminal device from the user includes an indication of whether or not the adjacent area is a field, and the work vehicle is allowed to reverse into the third row if the adjacent area is a field.
[0071] A “processor” or “processing unit” is a device to generate a path along which the agricultural machine moves. In the following description, the processing unit may be referred to as a “path generating device”. The processing unit may be a computer that includes one or more processors and one or more memories, for example. In that case, the processor can generate a path by executing a computer program that is stored in the memory(s). The processing unit may be mounted in the agricultural machine, or set in a remote place from the agricultural machine. One of the electronic control units (ECU) mounted in the agricultural machine may function as the processing unit. Alternatively, an external computer, e.g., a server, that communicates with the agricultural machine via a network may function as the processing unit. Furthermore, the terminal device may function as the processing unit. In other words, a processor in the terminal device may generate a travel route, and transmit a signal including information of the travel route to the agricultural machine. In that case, the terminal device can be said to internalize or be provided in the aforementioned processing unit. Thus, the terminal device and the processing unit do not need to be separate and distinct devices. Instead, a single device may function as both the terminal device and the processing unit.)
setting whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field when the work vehicle travels automatically on the field. ([0078] However, referring to FIG. 1B, a geofence can be used to define a boundary between a travelable area (e.g., the margin area M) in which a vehicle is allowed to travel and an exclusion area where the vehicle should not travel. The geofence GF can be manually created by GPS in a planning interface of the travel route of the vehicle, for example. If a geofence, shown as a dashed line GF between the margin area M and the second plot PL2 (or other adjacent area instead of the second plot PL2), has been created (e.g., manually created using GPS in a planning interface), the vehicle is not allowed to enter the second plot PL2, and is therefore prohibited from reversing into the row R5 which is included in the second plot PL2. This restricts or limits movements of the tractor if the tractor is required to make multiple reverse movements R when turning from the turning path TP into the row R4. In some cases, it is necessary for the geofence GF to be established in order to prevent the tractor 100 from colliding with obstacles, building structures, or roads that may be present in the area of the second plot PL2.
[0103] Based on one or more of the above information for Judging Point 2, the controller decides if entering the opposite side trellis is physically available or not at step S107 in the process. If the enter trellis judging step at S107 is determined to be “YES”, at step S110, the controller allows the vehicle or tractor 100 to enter or reverse into the space (e.g., “third row” R5) of the opposite side trellis (e.g., plot PL2) as shown in FIG. 1a. More specifically, at step S110, the controller allows the vehicle 100 to enter the space between the trellises when the local path is created in the space between the trellises. In the other words, if the local path planner does not create a path (e.g., path R as shown in FIG. 1A) which enters the space (e.g., R5 as shown in FIG. 1A) between the opposite side (e.g., plot PL2 as shown in FIG. 1A), the vehicle does not need to enter the opposite side. After step S110, the controller commands the tractor 100 to switch back to forward driving mode to complete the turn along the turning path TP, and then the tractor proceeds to traverse through the next trellis, shown as, for example, the “second row” R4 in FIG. 1A.
Figure 2)
For Claim 12, Kawahata teaches A setting system for setting information used for causing a work vehicle to travel automatically on a field, the setting system being configured to set whether or not to allow part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field when the work vehicle travels automatically on the field. ([0006] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, an autonomous vehicle navigation system for a work vehicle capable of self-driving, the system comprising a controller configured or programmed to receive information that is regarding a location of the work vehicle or an environment of the work vehicle and is detected by at least one sensor, and receive input data entered at a terminal device from a user. The controller is configured or programmed to cause the work vehicle to traverse a first plot including a plurality of rows, exit the first plot from a first row included in the plurality of rows of the first plot, traverse a margin area located between the first plot and an adjacent area or a second plot that includes a plurality of rows, the adjacent area or the second plot being spaced away from the first plot with the margin area located between the first plot and the adjacent area or the second plot, and perform a turning maneuver process before entering a second row in the plurality of rows of the first plot. When the work vehicle performs the turning maneuver process, the controller is configured or programmed to allow at least a portion of the work vehicle to reverse into the adjacent area or a third row included in the plurality of rows of the second plot based on the controller judging whether or not at least one or more conditions is satisfied, the one or more conditions being based on the data detected from the at least one sensor and/or the input data entered at the terminal device from the user.
[0013] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the input data entered at the terminal device from the user includes an indication of whether or not the adjacent area is a field, and the work vehicle is allowed to reverse into the third row if the adjacent area is a field.)
([0078] However, referring to FIG. 1B, a geofence can be used to define a boundary between a travelable area (e.g., the margin area M) in which a vehicle is allowed to travel and an exclusion area where the vehicle should not travel. The geofence GF can be manually created by GPS in a planning interface of the travel route of the vehicle, for example. If a geofence, shown as a dashed line GF between the margin area M and the second plot PL2 (or other adjacent area instead of the second plot PL2), has been created (e.g., manually created using GPS in a planning interface), the vehicle is not allowed to enter the second plot PL2, and is therefore prohibited from reversing into the row R5 which is included in the second plot PL2. This restricts or limits movements of the tractor if the tractor is required to make multiple reverse movements R when turning from the turning path TP into the row R4. In some cases, it is necessary for the geofence GF to be established in order to prevent the tractor 100 from colliding with obstacles, building structures, or roads that may be present in the area of the second plot PL2.
[0103] Based on one or more of the above information for Judging Point 2, the controller decides if entering the opposite side trellis is physically available or not at step S107 in the process. If the enter trellis judging step at S107 is determined to be “YES”, at step S110, the controller allows the vehicle or tractor 100 to enter or reverse into the space (e.g., “third row” R5) of the opposite side trellis (e.g., plot PL2) as shown in FIG. 1a. More specifically, at step S110, the controller allows the vehicle 100 to enter the space between the trellises when the local path is created in the space between the trellises. In the other words, if the local path planner does not create a path (e.g., path R as shown in FIG. 1A) which enters the space (e.g., R5 as shown in FIG. 1A) between the opposite side (e.g., plot PL2 as shown in FIG. 1A), the vehicle does not need to enter the opposite side. After step S110, the controller commands the tractor 100 to switch back to forward driving mode to complete the turn along the turning path TP, and then the tractor proceeds to traverse through the next trellis, shown as, for example, the “second row” R4 in FIG. 1A.
Figure 2)
For Claim 13, Kawahata teaches An automatic travel method for causing a work vehicle to travel automatically on a field, the automatic travel method comprising:
setting according to claim 1 and
causing the work vehicle to travel automatically in accordance with setting content related to the protrusion of the work vehicle outside the field. ([0006] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, an autonomous vehicle navigation system for a work vehicle capable of self-driving, the system comprising a controller configured or programmed to receive information that is regarding a location of the work vehicle or an environment of the work vehicle and is detected by at least one sensor, and receive input data entered at a terminal device from a user. The controller is configured or programmed to cause the work vehicle to traverse a first plot including a plurality of rows, exit the first plot from a first row included in the plurality of rows of the first plot, traverse a margin area located between the first plot and an adjacent area or a second plot that includes a plurality of rows, the adjacent area or the second plot being spaced away from the first plot with the margin area located between the first plot and the adjacent area or the second plot, and perform a turning maneuver process before entering a second row in the plurality of rows of the first plot. When the work vehicle performs the turning maneuver process, the controller is configured or programmed to allow at least a portion of the work vehicle to reverse into the adjacent area or a third row included in the plurality of rows of the second plot based on the controller judging whether or not at least one or more conditions is satisfied, the one or more conditions being based on the data detected from the at least one sensor and/or the input data entered at the terminal device from the user.
[0156] The work vehicle 100 acquires (detects) field conditions while being autonomously driven along the travel path in the field area of plot PL1. Referring to FIGS. 13A and 13B, examples of the field or trellis conditions include an inclination (gradient) θ1 (herein referred to as “slope”) of the ground surface K2 of the field (or row between trellises), a condition of irregular portions 101 on the ground surface K2 of the field, a width W11 of an obstacle 102 on the field K2, a height H1 of the obstacle 102, a width W5 of the row K2, a size R1 of a curve of the row K2, and a condition of an intersection R2. The obstacle 102 may any structure or a human.)
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahata in light of Suzuki et al (US Pub 2022/0378033 A1), hereafter known as Suzuki.
For Claim 5, Kawahata teaches The setting method according to claim 2, wherein
a target route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically includes a work route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically while performing predetermined work and begins non-work when the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically without performing the predetermined work, and ([0146] When the work vehicle 100 turns along each turning path TP, the controller 180 of the work vehicle 100 is configured or programmed to calculate judging conditions in accordance with “Judging Point 2” as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. The control system 160 has functionality as a turning path management system to manage a sequence of operations to be executed during a turn in the turning path TP of the margin area M in step S110 shown in FIG. 2. The sequence of operations may include a field-out operation to be performed at the beginning of a turn and a field-in operation to be performed at the finish of a turn. The field-out operation may include at least one of the operations of raising the implement 300 that is linked to the work vehicle 100, suspending output of motive power to the implement 300, disabling the locking differential function of the work vehicle 100, switching from the two-wheel drive mode to the four-wheel drive mode, and lowering the engine revolutions of the work vehicle 100, for example. The field-in operation may include at least one of the operations of raising the implement 300, switching into reverse gear transmission, starting the locking differential function, switching from the four-wheel drive mode to the two-wheel drive mode, and increasing the engine revolutions, for example.)
Kawahata does not explicitly teach a target route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically includes a work route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically while performing predetermined work and a non-work route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically without performing the predetermined work, and
the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for the non-work route in the specific location.
Suzuki, however, does teach a work route and a non work route in which the work route goes outside the lanes of the field. ([0043] Furthermore, the work vehicle 10 may travel autonomously (travel in a self-directed way) along a previously set target route R. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the work vehicle 10 autonomously travels along the target route R including a work route R1 (work routes R1a to R1f) and a movement route R2 from a work start position S to a work end position G. The work route R1 is a straight route where the work vehicle 10 performs a spraying work on the crops V, and the movement route R2 is a route where the work vehicle 10 moves between the crop rows Vr without performing the spraying work. The movement route R2 includes, for example, a turning route and a straight route. In the example illustrated in FIG. 6, the crops V including crop rows Vr1 to Vr11 are provided in the field F. In FIG. 6, “Vp” denotes a position (crop position) where the crop V is planted. Further, the work vehicle 10 traveling in the field F in FIG. 6 includes a vehicle body 100 having a gate-like shape (see FIG. 4C) to spray the chemical on the crops V in the crop row Vr and in the adjacent crop row Vr while traveling over the one crop row Vr. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, when the work vehicle 10 travels over the crop row Vr5, a left vehicle body (a left portion 100L) of the work vehicle 10 travels in a work passage between the crop row Vr4 and the crop row Vr5, and a right vehicle body (a right portion 100R) of the work vehicle 10 travels in a work passage between the crop row Vr5 and the crop row Vr6 to spray the chemical on the crops V in the crop rows Vr4, Vr5, and Vr6.
Figure 6)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Kawahata in light of Suzuki such that a target route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically includes a work route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically while performing predetermined work and a non-work route along which the work vehicle is allowed to travel automatically without performing the predetermined work, and
the setting whether or not to allow the part of the work vehicle to protrude outside the field is performed for the non-work route in the specific location.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Kawahata in light of Suzuki in this way because the work that is being performed might not be suitable for areas that the vehicle would want move into. For example, the machine may be applying a pesticide, a fungicide, a fertilizer, or a watering for one area that might be unsuitable for another area that the vehicle wants to temporarily pass through. By ensuring that the vehicle is in “non work” mode when protruding outside of the field it can ensure that it does not apply treatment to areas that the user does not want treatment applied to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishii et al (US Pub 2022/0159899 A1) relates to autonomous traveling for work vehicles.
Tomita et al (US Pub 2020/0064144 A1), relates to determining work routes for working vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISTAN J GREINER whose telephone number is (571)272-1382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, Tran Khoi can be reached at Monday-Thursday. 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.
/T.J.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights