DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment/remarks filed 01/29/2026. Claims 1, 11, 19, 21 and 23 have been amended. Claims 25-28 have been newly added and claims 6, 20 and 22 have been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 8, 11-13, and 15-19, 21, 23-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 22 has been withdrawn. Since claim 22 has been cancelled and newly added as claim 25, the same rationale for claim 25 applies.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11 filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. During the previous interview (with interview summary filed 02/09/2026), the examiner discussed that the proposed amendment appears to overcome the prior art on record. Upon further review and consideration of the lengthy specifications of Wu et al. US20190150357A1, the amended limitation does not overcome the primary reference prior art on record. The amendment requires “compare the confidence level value to a confidence level value threshold indicative of a desired confidence level value” and “control, based on the comparison of the confidence level value to the confidence level value threshold, the substance application subsystem to change the operation of the mobile agricultural machine from the targeted substance application to a broadcast substance application operation”. The primary reference Wu et al. US20190150357A1 discloses in Para. 0170, “If the predicted and detected spray drift pattern on the ground agree to within a predetermined threshold (e.g. 85 to 95%), and over-or-under spraying or drift is found, the spray nozzles or agricultural vehicle take corrective actions and/or alert the operator. For example, the spray nozzles are raised or lowered, a different spray nozzle is rotated in place, the spray release fan angle is increased/reduced, the spray pressure is adjusted, direct injection of other substances take place, and so on”. The predicted and detected spray drift pattern on being within 85% to 95% is the desired confidence level value. Furthermore, the “over-or-under spraying or drift” indicate a desired confidence level value as well, even though it does not specifically recite a desired confidence level value.
With regards to claim 15, after further consideration of the lengthy specifications of Wu et al. US20190150357A1, the one or more characteristics that have been amended into the independent claim are covered in Wu. See the new 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 15 below, wherein Wu discloses that the characteristics include a density or type of vegetation and a travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine. See the rejection of claim 15 below.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11-13, 15, 18-19, 21, 23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. US20190150357A1 (henceforth Wu),
Regarding claim 1,
Wu discloses:
A mobile agricultural machine, comprising: substance application subsystem configured to apply a substance to a surface in an environment in which the mobile agricultural machine performs an operation; (See at least Para. 0007 and Fig. 2, “agricultural vehicle towing a fluid tank carrying an articulated spray boom.”)
A sensor that detects a geographic location of a weed in the environment and generates a sensor signal indicative of the geographic location;
(See at least Para. 0098, “the spray vehicle releases herbicide from the spray nozzle that is associated with the image sensor (e.g. camera) unit 50 and processor that flagged or identified a weed”, wherein a camera sensor detects a geographic location of a weed via an image. Further see Para. 0168.)
One or more processors, and a data store storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the mobile agricultural machine to: control the substance application subsystem to perform a targeted substance application operation in which the substance application subsystem applies the substance to the geographic location of the weed in the environment based on the sensor signal, (See at least Para. 0103, “ In some embodiments, anomalies 11 in a crop row 12 are sprayed with herbicide. To avoid needless spray (e.g. crop residue, twig), such objects are calibrated out by void pattern instructions performed on an image captured.” An image is used to perform a targeted substance application operation.)
Access data indicative of a plurality of different characteristics that can affect an ability of the mobile agricultural machine to perform the target substance application operation, Generate a confidence level value indicative of a confidence in an ability of the mobile agricultural machine to perform the targeted substance application operation, based on the data indicative of the plurality of different characteristics; compare the confidence level value to a confidence level value threshold indicative of a desired confidence level value and Control, based on the comparison of the confidence level value to the confidence level value threshold, the substance application subsystem to change the operation of the mobile agricultural machine from the targeted substance application to a broadcast substance application.
(See at least Para. 0118, “In parts of the field where there is not a row pattern (e.g. near the edge of the field) and the location of the plant leaves is not readily calculated, one example procedure includes spraying that entire section (e.g. if there appears to be many weeds to the operator). The central computer controller can be programmed to automatically release the spray in that area of the field. For example, where the crop location is not calculable, a flag can be set in the computer memory, and this flag triggers full spraying from all the spray nozzles or the portion of the spray nozzles covering that region.” A broadcast substance application (i.e. full spraying from all the spray nozzles covering a region) is done when a target substance application cannot be met (i.e. the location of the plant leaves is not readily calculated), and therefore the entire section is sprayed. Therefore, when a confidence level (from not being able to calculate the crop location) indicates that the machine cannot perform the targeted application operation, the operation changes to a broadcast substance application.
The plurality of different characteristics include “a part of the field that is not a row pattern and wherein the location of the plant leave is not readily calculated”, which are two different characteristics.)
In another embodiment, see Para. 0168-0170, the agricultural machine determines a confidence for a spray envelop, and adjusts the spray fan angle (i.e. narrowing (targeted) or widening (broadcast)). This includes going from a targeted substance application (i.e. narrow fan angle) to a broadcast substance application (i.e. wide fan angle) based on a desired confidence level (i.e. from a predicted vs a detected spray drift calculation). The plurality of different characteristics include a wind velocity (i.e. an environmental characteristics) and cone geometry (i.e. a pre-existing characteristic).
Examiner Note: The claim limitations such as a “target substance application” and a “broadcast substance application” are not defined in the claim and are deemed broad. The term “broadcast substance application” can have two different meanings, such as an application operation that sprays an entire target area, and can also mean spraying over a larger (i.e. a wide fan angle) vs spraying at a target area (i.e. a narrow fan angle). Both of these definitions are included in the Wu reference.)
Regarding claim 8,
Wu discloses:
wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a mobile agricultural spraying system, and the substance application subsystem comprises a spraying subsystem that includes a plurality of spray nozzles.
(See Fig. 1 and Para. 0007, “ FIG. 1 depicts an example agricultural vehicle towing a fluid tank carrying an articulated spray boom having example image sensor units” and Para. 0049, “Spray nozzles are often spaced 15 to 30 inches apart depending on the crop row spacing”. The mobile agricultural machine comprises a mobile spraying system which comprises a plurality of spray nozzles (further see Fig. 2).)
Regarding claim 11,
Wu discloses:
wherein the plurality of different characteristics that can affect an ability of the mobile agricultural machine to perform the operation include one or more sensor characteristics that can affect an ability of the sensor to accurately detect the geographic location. (See at least Para. 0118, “For example, where the crop location is not calculable, a flag can be set in the computer memory, and this flag triggers full spraying from all the spray nozzles or the portion of the spray nozzles covering that region.” Additionally, see Para. 0168-0170.)
Regarding claim 12,
Wu discloses:
wherein the control of the substance application subsystem comprises changing an activated subset of the plurality of spray nozzles
(See at least Para. 0118, “For example, where the crop location is not calculable, a flag can be set in the computer memory, and this flag triggers full spraying from all the spray nozzles or the portion of the spray nozzles covering that region.”)
Regarding claim 13,
Wu discloses:
wherein the targeted substance application operation controls a first set of spray nozzles, of the plurality of spray nozzles, to spray the substance and the broadcast substance application operation controls a second set of spray nozzles, of the plurality of spray nozzles, that is different than the first set of spray nozzles
(See at least Para. 0118 and Para. 0053, wherein each nozzle (which includes a first and second set of spray nozzles) can be individually controlled.)
Regarding claim 15,
Wu discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Wu further discloses:
controlling a substance application system, during a current operation of the mobile agricultural machine, to perform a targeted substance application operation that applies a substance to a geographic location of the weed.
(See at least Para. 0118, the targeted substance operation is performed during a current operation of the machine)
wherein the one or more characteristics comprising at least one of: an accuracy or quality of the sensor signal; a density or type of vegetation; a travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine; or a height of the substance application system from a ground surface. (See at least Para. 0098, “ During pre-emergent stage of planting (crop leaf has not emerged from the soil), the following example methods or electronic triggers include 1) threshold detection in individual pixels (e.g. element 101) for off-color objects (e.g. greenish objects against brown or tan soil or residue); 2) threshold detection among pixels for protrusions (e.g. lump or height) from the ground; 3) aggregated percentage of pixels that do not match some baseline expectation (e.g. mass (density), color, shape, height); 4) enhance green and protrusions or mass; 5) filter out noise; 6) optionally, correlate results from multiple images; 7) pinpoint the location of any identified weed; 8) spray the area when the spray vehicle reaches the weed location. After the pixel data (images) are captured, the processor exercises these methods to decide whether to release the herbicide. As soon as one pixel (or element 101) triggers one or more than one of these conditions and indicates a likelihood of weeds, the spray vehicle releases herbicide from the spray nozzle that is associated with the image sensor (e.g. camera) unit 50 and processor that flagged or identified a “weed.” In some embodiments, to reduce the likelihood of false triggers, multiple pixels or at least a selected number of pixels are each required to satisfy one or more of the conditions stored or programmed into the computer processor in order to fully trigger the spray nozzle to actually release herbicide to kill the weeds. As an example, the selected number of pixels include adjacent pixels within a region of interest or distance among the pixels (e.g. all pixels within 10 pixel distance), and a peak value can be taken as a maximum average value among these pixels within such region of interest. In some embodiments, satisfying two or more particularly-selected conditions would trigger a herbicide spray response. For example, some types of weeds would likely be both a different height and have different number of leaves (bushiness) as compared to the crop plant. Then to reduce the likelihood of false triggers, both conditions would be passed in some embodiments in order for herbicide to be released. In some embodiments, no further processing of the image pixel data in that local area is performed once one trigger is satisfied. That is, the spray nozzle's spray would provide coverage (e.g. release spray for) that particular local region and it would not matter if there are multiple weeds in that region; all of the weeds would be simultaneously sprayed in that region.” The one or more characteristics include a type of vegetation (i.e. weeds vs non-weeds). Further see Para. 0168, “The spray cone envelope calculations are performed in a reference frame where the effective central axis is determined based on instantaneous wind and travel directions (vector sum of the vehicle travel velocity and wind velocity) with respect to the ground”, wherein the characteristics comprises a vehicle velocity.)
Regarding claim 18,
Wu discloses:
wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a mobile agricultural spraying system, wherein the targeted substance application operation comprises a targeted substance spraying operation, (See at least Para. 0103, “ In some embodiments, anomalies 11 in a crop row 12 are sprayed with herbicide. To avoid needless spray (e.g. crop residue, twig), such objects are calibrated out by void pattern instructions performed on an image captured.” An image is used to perform a targeted substance application operation.)
wherein the plurality of substance application dispensers comprise a plurality of spray nozzles (See Fig. 2) and wherein the broadcast application operation comprises a broadcast substance spraying operation. (See at least Para. 0118.)
Examiner Note: The claim limitations such as a “target substance application” and a “broadcast substance application” are not defined in the claim and are deemed broad. The term “broadcast substance application” can have two different meanings, such as an application operation that sprays an entire target area, and can also mean spraying over a larger (i.e. a wide fan angle) vs spraying at a target area (i.e. a narrow fan angle). The examiner ascertains that both these definitions are included in the Wu reference.)
Regarding claim 19,
Wu discloses:
comparing the confidence level value to a confidence level value threshold; and controlling the substance application system to change from the targeted substance application operation to the broadcast substance application operation based on the comparison of the confidence level value to the confidence level value threshold (See at least Para. 0118, wherein the confidence level value is when the location of the plant leaves are readily calculated, and wherein the threshold is when the location is not calculated, wherein the system changes from targeted to broadcast based on the comparison. Furthermore, see at least Para. 0168.)
Regarding claim 21,
Wu further discloses:
wherein the plurality of different characteristics that can affect an ability of the mobile agricultural machine to perform the targeted substance application operation include an environmental characteristic, and a historical characteristic from a prior operation
(See at least Para. 0098, wherein an environmental characteristics is included that affects an ability of the machine to perform the targeted substance application. Additionally, see Para. 0076, “Correlation of image sensor (e.g. camera) data with data from other sensors to improve future techniques, crop yield, cost management, and so on. A history of the data year over year is accumulated to determine best practices for the following year”, which includes a historical characteristic. Furthermore, see Para. 0189, “desirable spray patterns are used to train the neural network using deep learning procedures of trial and error to adjust the different training parameters and architecture of the network”. Additionally, see Para. 0084, “adaptive algorithms having an associated image system learn from the “past” or from stored data. For example, the terrain on each farm does not change much (e.g. trees, rocks, the poor crop regions, where weeds tend to grow, shape of good leaf versus bad leaf) and the sprayer can be ready as it gets near the system even if the sprayer is being operated in the darkness and the image system may produce less clear images.”)
Regarding claim 23,
Wu further discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Wu further discloses:
a perception sensor, that detects a geographic location of a weed on the surface ahead of a boom of a mobile agricultural sprayer that carries the substance from a substance source to a plurality of spray nozzles disposed along the boom and generates a sensor signal indicative of the geographic location of the weed on the surface. (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0098.)
perform a targeted substance application operation based on the geographic location, wherein the targeted substance application operation controls application of the substance from one or more spray nozzles, the one or more spray nozzles comprising some, but not all, of the plurality of spray nozzles disposed along the boom
(See at least Para. 0098 and Para. 0186, “In the field, different applications depend on determining the distances to the target in order to act on the target (e.g. turn on the spray nozzle equipment). For example, the location and distance to a weed or other anomalous object 11 should be determined before the spray vehicle and spray nozzle reach close enough to spray object 11. For example, we can use calibration results (e.g. location on image grid elements mapped to the time to turn on the spray nozzle, travel to the weed and spray the weed”. A spray nozzle (i.e. singular) is turned on to spray the weed, which comprises a target substance application operation that controls one spray nozzle but not all, of the plurality of spray nozzles along the boom. Further see Para. 0168-0170).
Regarding claim 25,
Wu discloses:
determine, as the mobile agricultural spraying system performs the targeted substance application operation, that the confidence level value is one of less than or greater than the confidence level value threshold and generate the threshold output as indicative of the confidence level value being the one of less than or greater than the confidence level value threshold. (See at least Para. 0118, when the confidence level is high (i.e. above a threshold), the system readily calculates the location of plant leaves and performs targeted spraying. When the confidence level is low (i.e. below a threshold), the location of the plant leaves is not readily calculated and the flag triggers full spraying.)
Regarding claim 26,
Wu discloses:
wherein the one or more criterions are defined, at least in part, based on a user input. (See at least Para. 0089-0090, wherein the one or more criterions are defined based in part on a user input.)
Regarding claim 27,
Wu discloses:
wherein the plurality of different characteristics comprises two or more of: (i) a surface characteristic representing at least one a vegetation type or vegetation density; (ii) a historical characteristic from a prior operation; or (iii) a sensor characteristic representing an accuracy or quality of the sensor signal.
(See at least Para. 0098, wherein the characteristics comprises a surface characteristics representing a weed, and Para. 0076, 0084, and 0189, wherein a historical characteristic from a prior operation is included in the plurality of different characteristics.)
Regarding claim 28,
Wu discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the mobile agricultural machine to dynamically adjust the confidence level value threshold during operation of mobile agricultural machine based on at least one criterion. (See at least Para. 0168, wherein the confidence level value is adjusted dynamically based on the current wind (i.e. at least one criterion).)
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.
Claims 2-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of ACKERMAN et al. US20190082582A1 (henceforth ACKERMAN)
Regarding claim 2
Wu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Wu does not specifically state controlling an interface mechanism of the mobile agricultural machine, accessible to an operator of the mobile agricultural machine, to generate a display including an indication of the confidence level value.
However, ACKERMAN teaches:
control an interface mechanism of the mobile agricultural machine, accessible to an operator of the mobile agricultural machine, to generate a display including an indication of the confidence level value.(See Para. 0050, “If any of a number of values of sensed field conditions is identified as outside of an expected range, it may be desired to gather further information with a ground based analysis. In these instances, the computing system sends a command or an alert to the operator or may even dispatch another autonomous machine to a desired location to perform a desired task” and Para. 0052, “One example operation is a cloud server 210 computing system that receives data from an agricultural sprayer (such as location, path planning, application prescription plan, current chemical solution and application rate). The computing system may also receive crop data (e.g., crop type and crop variety) from an operations database. In addition, the computing system optionally receives real-time data from drone 200 above the agricultural field. Analysis of the drone 200 data may indicate an area of crop that displays characteristics of disease or pest infestation. If further analysis is desired from the area of interest, then the computing system will identify a sampling location within the defined area as an optimal spot to direct scout 100 so as to obtain additional data to determine crop health (e.g. moisture sensor, gas chromatograph sensor). This ground sampling location is based on factors such as the current location of the scout 100, field characteristics of the defined area and the field characteristics of potential routes of the scout 100. The data collected from the scout 100 at the sampling location is then transmitted to the computing system for analysis. Computing algorithms will determine if machine adjustments should be made to the sprayer rate, or spray solution based on the field conditions. For instance, the machine adjustments are presented to the machine operator on an operator display/interface. The adjustments may be performed automatically (unless modified or overridden by the operator) or presented to the operator as a recommendation. And, by combining field mapping of the affected areas with sprayer location information, the machine adjustments can be made specifically to only cover the identified areas.” An indication of the confidence value is displayed on a user interface. The machine adjustments that are presented to the operator as a recommendation is based on an indication of the confidence value (i.e. based on location, application rate, current chemical solution, crop type, and crop variety) of the sprayer and further based on the field conditions.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of ACKERMAN to include “wherein controlling the mobile agricultural machine comprise controlling an interface mechanism of the mobile agricultural machine, accessible to an operator of the mobile agricultural machine, to generate a display including an indication of the confidence level value“ such that a user can effectively determine if adjustments to the spraying system should be made (Para. 0052, ACKERMAN), based on the combination of field mapping of the affected areas in combination with sprayer location information, such that the machine adjustments can be made specifically to only cover the areas with the highest confidence value. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and ACKERMAN. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3
Wu does not specifically state wherein the display further includes an indication of a recommendation to change the operation of the mobile agricultural machine.
However, ACKERMAN teaches:
wherein the display further includes an indication of a recommendation to change the operation of the mobile agricultural machine.
(See Para. 0052, “Computing algorithms will determine if machine adjustments should be made to the sprayer rate, or spray solution based on the field conditions. For instance, the machine adjustments are presented to the machine operator on an operator display/interface. The adjustments may be performed automatically (unless modified or overridden by the operator) or presented to the operator as a recommendation.” An indication of a recommendation to change an operation of the mobile agricultural machine is displayed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of ACKERMAN to include “wherein the display further includes an indication of a recommendation to change an operation of the mobile agricultural machine“ such that a user can effectively determine if adjustments to the spraying system should be made (Para. 0052, ACKERMAN), based on the combination of field mapping of the affected areas in combination with sprayer location information, such that the machine adjustments can be made specifically to only cover the areas with the highest confidence value. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and ACKERMAN. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 16,
Wu and ACKERMAN discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Regarding claim 17,
Wu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 15 above.
Wu further discloses:
changing from the targeted substance application operation to the broadcast substance application operation (See at least Para. 0118 and Para. 0168.)
Wu does not specifically state wherein controlling the interface of the mobile agricultural machine to generate the display comprises controlling the interface of the mobile agricultural machine to generate the display further including an indication of a recommendation to change an operation.
However, Ackerman teaches:
wherein controlling the interface of the mobile agricultural machine to generate the display comprises controlling the interface of the mobile agricultural machine to generate the display further including an indication of a recommendation to change an operation. (See Para. 0052, “Computing algorithms will determine if machine adjustments should be made to the sprayer rate, or spray solution based on the field conditions. For instance, the machine adjustments are presented to the machine operator on an operator display/interface. The adjustments may be performed automatically (unless modified or overridden by the operator) or presented to the operator as a recommendation.” An indication of a recommendation to change an operation of the mobile agricultural machine is displayed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of ACKERMAN to include “wherein controlling the interface of the mobile agricultural machine to generate the display comprises controlling the interface of the mobile agricultural machine to generate the display further including an indication of a recommendation to change an operation“ such that a user can effectively determine if adjustments to the spraying system should be made (Para. 0052, ACKERMAN), based on the combination of field mapping of the affected areas in combination with sprayer location information, such that the machine adjustments can be made specifically to only cover the areas with the highest confidence value. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and ACKERMAN. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and ACKERMAN further in view of CORTI ET AL. US20230117884A1 (henceforth CORTI).
Regarding claim 4,
Wu and ACKERMAN discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-3 above.
Wu and ACKERMAN do not specifically state the limitation “wherein the recommendation recommends changing the operation of the mobile agricultural machine, from the targeted substance application to a broadcast substance application operation.” However, CORTI teaches:
wherein the recommendation recommends changing the operation of the mobile agricultural machine, from the targeted substance application to the broadcast substance application operation
(See Para. 0125-0126, wherein an evaluation (i.e. a recommendation) on what type of spraying that is desired is determined which includes the determined radius to be sprayed (i.e. targeted vs broadcast).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu and ACKERMAN to incorporate the teachings of CORTI to include “wherein the recommendation recommends changing the operation of the mobile agricultural spraying system, from the targeted substance application to a broadcast substance application“ such that a user can effectively determine if adjustments to the spraying system should be made based the detection and identification module of each patch (See Para. 0125, CORTI). Furthermore, “An agricultural machine that incorporates these technologies could detect and distinguish different plant species, geolocate them, and make decisions to act on them or not, among many other possible functions” (Para. 0003, CORTI). This would create a more robust system by being able to effectively determine any adjustments to be made with an evaluation of the identified patch. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu, ACKERMAN, and CORTI. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Weidenbach et al. US20200029484A1 (henceforth Weidenbach).
Regarding claim 24,
Wu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 20 above. Wu does not specifically state wherein the data store storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the mobile agricultural machine to: identify one or more confidence issues adversely affecting the confidence level value; generate a confidence issue output indicative of the one or more identified confidence issues; control one or more controllable subsystems based on the confidence issue output to remediate the one or more identified confidence issues.
However, Weidenbach teaches:
wherein the data store storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the mobile agricultural machine to: identify one or more confidence issues adversely affecting the confidence level value; generate a confidence issue output indicative of the one or more identified confidence issues; control one or more controllable subsystems based on the confidence issue output to remediate the one or more identified confidence issues.
(See at least Para. 0053, “The systems described herein, such as the agricultural implement control system 420 shown in FIG. 4 select the control basis (e.g., ground or canopy) according to a variety of characteristics indicating the reliability or confidence in the corresponding measurements. For instance, the system assesses ground and canopy distance measurements (including changes in the measurements) relative to one or more predictive windows, described herein. Ground and canopy confidence values are determined based on the assessments and used to select either of ground distance or canopy distance control as a control basis (e.g., the implement is guided relative to selected corresponding measurements or preceding measurements if the measurements are deemed unreliable). The system 420 monitors the confidence values of ground and canopy distances in an ongoing manner and hands off control of the agricultural implement position (e.g., movement of the implement 102, such as the booms 106) to either of ground distance control basis or canopy distance control basis on the assessment of confidence values, thereby ensuring the implement position is controlled according to the control basis having the greatest confidence.” Further see Para. 0054, “FIG. 3 is a plot 300 of measured distances for each of the crop canopy and ground relative to one or more of the distance sensors 108. The distance sensor 108 in this example is positioned at the origin proximate to the top of the measured and predicted distances. As shown, the plot 300 includes the measured canopy distances (canopy distance 302) as a fluctuating line extending along the time axis and having varying distance measurements. In one example, the fluctuations correspond to variations in height of the crop (based on maturity or growth), hydration, and voids or gaps in the canopy. One example of a crop gap 212 (in FIG. 2) is shown in FIG. 3 as a canopy void 310. Alternatively, the canopy void 310 corresponds in other examples to one or more of a dehydrated crop 206, poorly reflected signal from the crop (e.g., the leaves or stem are misaligned relative to the sensor) or the like. Further, at the canopy void 310 the canopy distances appear to merge disappear) with the measured ground distance 304. The system 420 described herein is configured in one example to hand off control based on the canopy distance 302 (a preceding control basis) to control based on the ground distance 304 instead because of a higher confidence of the ground distance measurements while the canopy appears to disappear.” A plurality of confidence values are calculated, such that the implement position is controlled according to the control basis having the greatest confidence, while throwing out the confidence values that correspond to poorly reflected signals from the crop (i.e. misaligned values).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Weidenbach to include “identify one or more confidence issues adversely affecting the confidence level value; generate a confidence issue output indicative of the one or more identified confidence issues; control one or more controllable subsystems based on the confidence issue output to remediate the one or more identified confidence issues“, such that “the implement control module transitions the implement toward a minimal deviation (e.g., including an error of zero) indicating the implement is positioned proximate the target distance” (Para. 0015, Weidenbach). Furthermore, adaptively determining the highest confidence value would create a more robust system for controlling the implement, and therefore further increase the accuracy of the position of the implement. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and Weidenbach. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights