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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are overcome by amendment, consistent with the interpretations of the previous action.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s argument is that the signal ρ445 of Lin is not received by a reference receiver or included in a reference absorption band including a wavelength of 670 nm, however, this argument is not persuasive. This and the previous action rely on Lin to teach a particular functional form for a vegetative index (in which a signal at a third wavelength is subtracted from signals at first and second wavelengths, and the ratio of the differences is calculated). Henderson is relied on to teach the reference receiver channel and detection within an absorption band that includes 670 nm light. It may be noted that the claims do not have specific requirements for what makes a receiver channel a reference receiver channel beyond its signal being used as a reference for two other signals (by being subtracted from those other signals).
Since the independent claims are not allowable, the dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15, 17-20 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson (US Patent 3910701) in view of Lin (Non-Patent Literature “A novel reflectance-based model for evaluating chlorophyll concentrations of fresh and water-stressed leaves”).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson teaches a method of suppressing effects of at least one of dew and dust when determining a plant status, the method comprising: receiving light (FIG. 7, sensor 142) in mutually different wavelength bands (FIG. 7, wavelength bands from light emitting diodes 132-138, which each have a different characteristic wavelength (COL. 11, lines 55-60)) from one or more plants (FIG. 1, test material or test object 21, shown as a leaf) by a light receiver (FIG. 7, sensor 142) including a plurality of receiver channels (COL. 12, lines 12-14);
receiving light at a first wavelength of a known reflection or absorption band of interest (FIG. 7, sensor 142 receives reflected or absorbed light of wavelength emitted by light emitting diode 132);
receiving light at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (FIG. 7, sensor 142 receives reflected or absorbed light of wavelength emitted by light emitting diode 133, different from the wavelength of light emitted by light emitting diode 132 (COL. 11, lines 55-60));
receiving light at a third wavelength different from the first wavelength and second wavelength (FIG. 7, sensor 142 receives reflected or absorbed light of wavelength emitted by light emitting diode 134, different from the wavelength of light emitted by light emitting diodes 132 and 133 (COL. 11, lines 55-60)), the light at the third wavelength being received by a reference receiver channel (a channel whose signal is subtracted from another signal (as described in the next paragraph) falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a reference receiver channel); and
making a correction to suppress the effects of at least one of dew and dust (note that this is the result of performing the included steps), the correction including subtracting a signal received at the third wavelength from a signal received at the first wavelength to obtain a first value (FIG. 4 provides a circuit that performs subtraction between two signals. Light sensor 18 receives light based on alternating flashes of different wavelengths of light, returning a time varying signal in output line 63. Blocking capacitor 66 removes the DC component, leaving an alternating signal, illustrated by wave form 64, which is amplified and rectified into waveform 82, which has a DC level corresponding to the difference between the two signals), subtracting the signal received at the third wavelength from a signal received at the second wavelength to obtain a second value (FIG. 4 provides a means of subtracting two alternating signals as described above. Also see COL. 12, lines 22-25, which allows for calculating differential reflectance, transmission and/or absorption as they vary with respect to a changing wavelength (i.e., subtracting more than just one pair of wavelength signals to provide multiple differential (subtracted) signals))
wherein the third wavelength is included in a reference absorption band (COL. 6, lines 18-31, includes a list of some wavelengths available at the time, including 660 nm red LEDs that are in an absorption band of chlorophyll (see FIG. 1 of Maxik (US Patent Publication 20150061510), particularly the curve 110 corresponding to absorption by chlorophyll a, found in plants and other photosynthetic organisms). Note that considerably more varieties of LEDs entered the market between the publication of Henderson and the effective filing date of the claimed invention.), and
wherein the reference absorption band includes a wavelength of 670 nm (COL. 6, lines 18-31. The reference absorption band of chlorophyll a probed by the 660 nm red LED includes a wavelength of 670 nm (see FIG. 1 of Maxik, particularly the curve 110 corresponding to absorption by chlorophyll a, found in plants and other photosynthetic organisms)).
Henderson does not explicitly teach that making a correction to suppress the effects of at least one of dew and dust includes dividing one differential signal by another (determining a ratio of the second value to the first value).
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of plant health, Lin teaches then determining a ratio of the second value to the first value (table 1 teaches a variety of vegetation indices based on reflectance of light at different frequencies. Of particular similarity to the claimed calculation are the modified red edge simple ratio (mSR) and the MERIS total chlorophyll index (MTCI) (each index considered separately), each of which uses signals of three distinct wavelengths and consists of the ratio of the difference between a first-wavelength signal and a third-wavelength signal divided by the difference between a second-wavelength signal and the third-wavelength signal.). By using various indices of plant health, Lin is able to estimate the status of plants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical plant status inspection method of Henderson with determining the ratio of differences-based indices of Lin to determine a plant status based on an particular ratio between differences in signals generated at three wavelengths to estimate chlorophyll in a plant and thereby generate information about its health, while choosing at least the third wavelength from those recited by Henderson that falls within a particular reference absorption band.
Regarding claim 2, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
While Henderson does not explicitly teach adjusting the signal received at the third wavelength by a correction factor before (i) subtracting the signal received at the third wavelength from the signal received at the first wavelength to obtain the first value and (ii) subtracting the signal received at the third wavelength from the signal received at the second wavelength to obtain the second value, Henderson does teach calibrating the light output separately for different wavelengths of light emitting diodes (FIG. 4, variable resistors 61 and 62), which will impact the strength of the respective signals received, as would variable gain circuit 68, controlled by variable feedback resistor 72. Additionally, Henderson teaches calibrating the meter 42 that outputs the differential measurements (COL. 9, lines 42 -61, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical plant status inspection method of Henderson to also calibrate the detected signals of outputs 146 to adjust a particular value before using it in calculations in order to obtain a desired calibration.
Regarding claim 5, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the first wavelength is included in a chlorophyll absorption band (COL. 6, lines 18-31, includes a list of some wavelengths available at the time, including 660 nm red LEDs that are in an absorption band of chlorophyll (see FIG. 1 of Maxik, particularly the curve 110 corresponding to absorption by chlorophyll a, found in plants and other photosynthetic organisms). Note that considerably more varieties of LEDs entered the market between the publication of Henderson and the effective filing date of the claimed invention.).
Regarding claim 7, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the first wavelength is included in a water absorption band (COL. 9, lines 19-41).
Regarding claim 8, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 7 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the water absorption band includes a wavelength of 970 nm (COL. 6, lines 18-31. The 940 nm infrared LED listed is within the same water absorption band as 970 nm (see FIG. 3 of Collins (Non-Patent Literature “CHANGE IN THE INFRA-RED ABSORPTION SPECTRUM OF WATER WITH TEMPERATURE”)), and the second wavelength is within a range of 900-930 nm (COL. 6, lines 18-31, 900 nm infrared LED).
Regarding claim 9, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches determining a status of the one or more plants based on light received by the plurality of receiver channels (COL. 9, lines 19-41).
Regarding claim 10, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 9 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches controlling a variable rate applicator system based on the determined status of the one or more plants. wherein the variable rate applicator system is one of a fertilizer system, an irrigation system, a fertigation system, and a fertilizer spreader mounted on or pulled by a tractor (COL. 12, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 11, Henderson teaches a system for suppressing effects of at least one of dew and dust when determining a plant status, the system comprising: a light receiver (FIG. 7, sensor 142) including a plurality of receiver channels. the receiver channels (COL. 12, lines 12-14) arranged for receiving light from one or more plants in mutually different wavelength bands (FIG. 7, wavelength bands from light emitting diodes 132-138, which each have a different characteristic wavelength (COL. 11, lines 55-60)),
a first receiver channel arranged for receiving light at a first wavelength of a known reflection or absorption band of interest (FIG. 7, sensor 142 receives reflected or absorbed light of wavelength emitted by light emitting diode 132);
a second receiver channel arranged for receiving light at a second wavelength (FIG. 7, sensor 142 receives reflected or absorbed light of wavelength emitted by light emitting diode 133, different from the wavelength of light emitted by light emitting diode 132 (COL. 11, lines 55-60)); and
a third receiver channel arranged for receiving light at a third wavelength different from the first wavelength and the second wavelengths, the third receiver channel being arranged to have a sensitivity in a wavelength range including a reference wavelength (FIG. 7, sensor 142 receives reflected or absorbed light of wavelength emitted by light emitting diode 134, different from the wavelength of light emitted by light emitting diodes 132 and 133 (COL. 11, lines 55-60)),
wherein the system further comprises a processing unit configured to make a correction to suppress the effects of at least one of dew and dust (note that this is the result of performing the included steps), the correction including subtracting a signal received by the third receiver channel from a signal received by the first receiver channel to obtain a first value (FIG. 4 provides a circuit that performs subtraction between two signals. Light sensor 18 receives light based on alternating flashes of different wavelengths of light, returning a time varying signal in output line 63. Blocking capacitor 66 removes the DC component, leaving an alternating signal, illustrated by wave form 64, which is amplified and rectified into waveform 82, which has a DC level corresponding to the difference between the two signals), subtracting the signal received by the third receiver channel from a signal received by the second receiver channel to obtain a second value (FIG. 4 provides a means of subtracting two alternating signals as described above. Also see COL. 12, lines 22-25, which allows for calculating differential reflectance, transmission and/or absorption as they vary with respect to a changing wavelength (i.e., subtracting more than just one pair of wavelength signals to provide multiple differential (subtracted) signals)),
wherein the third receiver channel is a reference receiver channel tuned to a reference absorption band (COL. 6, lines 18-31, includes a list of some wavelengths available at the time, including 660 nm red LEDs that are in an absorption band of chlorophyll (see FIG. 1 of Maxik (US Patent Publication 20150061510), particularly the curve 110 corresponding to absorption by chlorophyll a, found in plants and other photosynthetic organisms). Note that considerably more varieties of LEDs entered the market between the publication of Henderson and the effective filing date of the claimed invention.), and
wherein the reference absorption band includes a wavelength of 670 nm (see FIG. 1 of Maxik, particularly the curve 110 corresponding to absorption by chlorophyll a, found in plants and other photosynthetic organisms)).
Henderson does not explicitly teach that making a correction to suppress the effects of at least one of dew and dust includes dividing one differential signal by another (determining a ratio of the second value to the first value).
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of plant health, Lin teaches then determining a ratio of the second value to the first value (table 1 teaches a variety of vegetation indices based on reflectance of light at different frequencies. Of particular similarity to the claimed calculation are the modified red edge simple ratio (mSR) and the MERIS total chlorophyll index (MTCI) (each index considered separately), each of which uses signals of three distinct wavelengths and consists of the ratio of the difference between a first-wavelength signal and a third-wavelength signal divided by the difference between a second-wavelength signal and the third-wavelength signal.). By using various indices of plant health, Lin is able to estimate the status of plants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical plant status inspection system of Henderson with determining the ratio of differences-based indices of Lin to determine a plant status based on an particular ratio between differences in signals generated at three wavelengths to estimate chlorophyll in a plant and thereby generate information about its health, while choosing at least the third wavelength from those recited by Henderson that falls within a particular reference absorption band.
Regarding claim 12, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 11 (as described above).
While Henderson does not explicitly teach that the processing unit adjusts the signal received by the third receiver channel by a correction factor before (i) subtracting the signal received by the third receiver channel from the signal received by the first receiver channel to obtain the first value and (ii) subtracting the signal received by the third receiver channel from the signal received by the second receiver channel to obtain the second value, Henderson does teach calibrating the light output separately for different wavelengths of light emitting diodes (FIG. 4, variable resistors 61 and 62), which will impact the strength of the respective signals received, as would variable gain circuit 68, controlled by variable feedback resistor 72. Additionally, Henderson teaches calibrating the meter 42 that outputs the differential measurements (COL. 9, lines 42-61, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical plant status inspection method of Henderson to also calibrate the detected signals of outputs 146 to adjust a particular value before using it in calculations in order to obtain a desired calibration.
Regarding claim 15, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 11 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the first receiver channel is tuned to an edge of a chlorophyll absorption band (COL. 6, lines 18-31, includes a list of some wavelengths available at the time, including 660 nm red LEDs that are in an absorption band of chlorophyll (see FIG. 1 of Maxik, particularly the curve 110 corresponding to absorption by chlorophyll a, found in plants and other photosynthetic organisms). Note that considerably more varieties of LEDs entered the market between the publication of Henderson and the effective filing date of the claimed invention.).
Regarding claim 17, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 11 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the first receiver channel is tuned to a water absorption band (COL. 9, lines 19-41).
Regarding claim 18, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 17 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the water absorption band includes a wavelength of 970 nm (COL. 6, lines 18-31. The 940 nm infrared LED listed is within the same water absorption band as 970 nm (see FIG. 3 of Collins (Non-Patent Literature “CHANGE IN THE INFRA-RED ABSORPTION SPECTRUM OF WATER WITH TEMPERATURE”)), and the second receiver channel is tuned to a wavelength within a range of 900-930 nm (COL. 6, lines 18-31, 900 nm infrared LED).
Regarding claim 19, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 11 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the receiver channels include a light detector (FIG. 7, sensor 142), an AC-coupled current to voltage converter (FIG. 4, blocking capacitor 66 removes the DC component from the incoming signal. See COL. 7, lines 47-49), a bandpass-AC-amplifier (FIG. 4, amplifiers 67, 71, and 76 perform amplification. Bandpass functionality is provided by capacitors 66 and 73 in series with the signal which impede low frequencies in the signal together with capacitor 81, provided in parallel with the output device 42, which filters out high frequencies from the output), a phase rectifier (FIG. 4, diode 77, together with amplifier 76, resistors 78 and 79, and filtering capacitor 81. See COL. 8, lines 1-8), an integrator (FIG. 4, capacitor 81 accumulates charge based on the output of the signal amplified by amplifier 76, effectively integrating the signal), and a hold circuit (FIG. 7, sample and hold circuits 144).
While Henderson only explicitly teaches that some of the recited components are provided separately for each receiver channel (such as the sample and hold circuits 144 provided separately in FIG. 7), mere duplication of parts generally is not sufficient to render a claimed invention non-obvious over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical plant status inspection system of Henderson, as modified by Lin, by the mere duplication of parts to have each receiver channel have the recited parts separately instead of sharing one or more of those parts between receiver channels.
Regarding claim 20, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 19 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the light receiver includes a multiplexer (FIG. 7, the arrow going from detector 142 to plurality of detection gates 143 contains the signals from multiple wavelengths multiplexed in a time-divisional manner), and an analog to digital converter (COL. 7, lines 37-38).
Regarding claim 23, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 11 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the processing unit is configured to determine a status of the one or more plants based on light received by the plurality of receiver channels (COL. 9, lines 19-41).
Regarding claim 24, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 23 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the processing unit is configured to control a variable rate applicator system based on the determined status of the one or more plants, and wherein the variable rate applicator system is one of a fertilizer system, an irrigation system, a fertigation system, and a fertilizer spreader mounted on or pulled by a tractor (COL. 12, lines 43-46).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson (US Patent 3910701) in view of Lin (Non-Patent Literature “A novel reflectance-based model for evaluating chlorophyll concentrations of fresh and water-stressed leaves”), further in view of Thorlabs (Non-Patent Literature “Mounted High-Power LEDs”).
Regarding claim 6, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim “ (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the chlorophyll absorption band includes a wavelength of 730 nm (the same chlorophyll absorption band that would be probed by the 660 nm red and 700 nm red LEDs of Henderson also includes wavelengths about 730 nm within its red edge (see FIG. 2(b) of Lin, which shows that reflectance has not yet reached its maximum at about 730 nm (as evidenced by the derivative still being positive), especially for higher chlorophyll concentrations)).
While the closest wavelength of LED to the claimed range that Henderson explicitly lists is 820 nm (COL. 6, lines 18-31), so Henderson does not explicitly teach that the second wavelength is within a range of 760-800 nm, other wavelengths of LED became available after the publication of Henderson and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the same field of endeavor of optics of particular wavelengths around the edge of the visible spectrum, Thorlabs does teach an LED that can emit a second wavelength within a range of 760-800 nm (page 1, product M780L2, which operates with a nominal center wavelength of 780 nm, at the center of the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical plant status inspection method of Henderson, as modified by Lin, with the 780 nm LED of Thorlabs after it became available to probe the optical properties of the plant at a particular wavelength of interest, rather than just the wavelengths easily available in 1973 when Henderson filed for the patent cited herein.
Regarding claim 16, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 15 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that the chlorophyll absorption band includes a wavelength of 730 nm (the same chlorophyll absorption band that would be probed by the 660 nm red and 700 nm red LEDs of Henderson also includes wavelengths about 730 nm within its red edge (see FIG. 2(b) of Lin, which shows that reflectance has not yet reached its maximum at about 730 nm (as evidenced by the derivative still being positive), especially for higher chlorophyll concentrations)),
While the closest wavelength of LED to the claimed range that Henderson explicitly lists is 820 nm (COL. 6, lines 18-31), so Henderson does not explicitly teach that the second receiver channel is tuned to a wavelength within a range of 760-800 nm, other wavelengths of LED became available after the publication of Henderson and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the same field of endeavor of optics of particular wavelengths around the edge of the visible spectrum, Thorlabs does teach an LED that can emit a second wavelength within a range of 760-800 nm (page 1, product M780L2, which operates with a nominal center wavelength of 780 nm, at the center of the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical plant status inspection system of Henderson, as modified by Lin, with the 780 nm LED of Thorlabs after it became available to probe the optical properties of the plant at a particular wavelength of interest, rather than just the wavelengths easily available in 1973 when Henderson filed for the patent cited herein.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson (US Patent 3910701) in view of Lin (Non-Patent Literature “A novel reflectance-based model for evaluating chlorophyll concentrations of fresh and water-stressed leaves”), further in view of Reusch (Foreign Patent Document WO 03026383 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 19, wherein each receiver channel includes a light detector (as described above).
Henderson does not explicitly teach that each receiver channel includes dedicated optics.
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of plant health, Reusch teaches that each receiver channel includes dedicated optics (FIG. 3, shows separate optics 16, including interference filters 15, for each of the photodiodes 14). By including dedicated optics, including interference filters, for each photodiode, Reusch can properly detect the light intended for each photodiode, including selecting the correct field of view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical plant status inspection system of Henderson with the dedicated optics of Reusch in order to capture the light intended for each of the duplicated detectors.
Regarding claim 22, Henderson, as modified by Lin, teaches or renders obvious the system according to claim 21 (as described above).
Henderson further teaches that all receiver channels are mounted in a common receiver frame (FIG. 7, single module 131).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877