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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 24-26, and 33-38 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 11-23, 27-32, and 39-49 have been cancelled.
Drawings
The Replacement Drawings submitted 17 April 2026 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)-Withdrawn
The outstanding rejections over 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)-Withdrawn
The outstanding rejections over 35 USC 112(d) are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 4 herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101-Withdrawn
The outstanding rejections over 35 USC 101 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims herein, wherein the claims are directed to a specific system that includes specific sensors to measure parameters, when viewed as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 24-26, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0259496 to McPeek (IDS reference) in view of US 2015/0134152 to Coram et al. (IDS reference), in further view of US 2020/0294620 to Bauer et al. and evidenced by McCorkel et al. (SPIE Optics and Photonics (2009), San Diego, CA, Aug. 2-6, 2009); Document ID 20100019255; Goddard Space Flight Center conference paper; 8 pages).
This rejection is newly applied and is necessitated by claim amendment herein.
The prior art to McPeek discloses elements of claim 1 as follows:
A system for detecting or predicting a phenotype of a plant, comprising (McPeek at abstract, [0037]; [0071]; [0078]):
a plurality of imaging sensors of different modalities selected from the group consisting of: a Red-Green-Blue (RGB) sensor; a multispectral sensor; a hyperspectral sensor; a depth sensor; a time-of-flight camera; a LIDAR; and a thermal sensor, the plurality of sensors mounted on a bracket at predetermined geometrical relationships; at least one additional sensor selected from the group consisting of a digital compass, a global positioning system (GPS), a light sensor for determining lighting conditions, a radiation sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a motion sensor, an air pressure sensor, a soil sensor, an inertial sensor, and any combination thereof (McPeek discloses sensors at [0009]; [0013]; [0014]; [0046]; [0060]; [0064]; [0073]; 0094]; [0110] and Figure 3; McPeek discloses bracket mounting at [0007]; McPeek discloses at least one additional sensor, GPS systems, for example [0059]);
a computing platform comprising at least one computer-readable storage medium and at least one processor for (McPeek at [0007]; [0011]; [0073]; [0080]; [0092]; and Figure 3)
receiving data captured by the plurality of sensors, the data comprising at least two images of at least one part of a plant, the at least two images captured at a distance of between 0.05m and 10m from the plant (McPeek discloses receiving capture data from sensors at [0012]; [0040]; [0064]; [0068]; [0073]; [0110]; [0127]; and Figure 3; McPeek disclose at least two images of a part of a plant at [0013]; 0037]; [0040]; [0054]; [0064]; [0073]; [0083]; [0127]; and Figure 3; McPeek disclose capture at a distance of between 0.05m and 10m from the plant at [0040]; [0047]; [0064]; [0070]);
receiving from the at least one additional sensor additional data related to positioning and/or environmental conditions of the plant; processing the at least two images using the additional data to eliminate effects generated by the environmental conditions and/or positioning to obtain at least two enhanced images before preprocessing (McPeek disclose the processor is further adapted to: receive from at least one additional sensor additional data related to positioning and/or environmental conditions of the plant ([0013]; [0040]; [0049]-[0051]; [0068]; [0109]; [0118]; [0127]); and process the at least two images using the additional data to eliminate effects generated by the environmental conditions and/or positioning to obtain at least two enhanced images before preprocessing ([0013]; [0049]; [0054]; [0071]);
preprocessing the at least two enhanced images in accordance with the predetermined geometrical relationships, to obtain unified data (McPeek disclose preprocessing images to get unified data at [0013]; [0037]; [0054]; [0060]; [0073]; [0088]; [0109]; [0110]; Figure 3)
extracting features from the unified data; and (McPeek disclose feature extraction at [0071]; [0074]; [0078]; 0097]; 0114]; [0120]);
providing the features to an engine to obtain a phenotype of the plant (McPeek disclose feature provision to an engine at [0074]-[0078]; [0088]-[0089]);
wherein the computing platform is further configured to receive information related to mutual orientation among the sensors and information related to mutual orientation between the sensors and at least one of an illumination source and the plant; wherein each of the plurality of imaging sensors and/or the at least one additional sensor is calibrated independently of other sensors, the plurality of imaging sensors and the at least one additional sensor are calibrated as a whole, and at least one calibration is radiometric calibration; and wherein the system further comprises a cover and at least one light intensity sensor positioned on the cover for enabling radiometric calibration of the system.
McPeek does not specifically teach the limitations in the claims directed to the sensors mounted on a bracket at predetermined geometrical relationships and preprocessing in accord with the predetermined geometrical relationships or a cover for a light intensity sensor as in claim 1. However, the prior art to Coram et al. disclose a system for high spatial and temporal resolution when monitoring field plants that includes monitoring using sensors that are mounted on a gimbal with predetermined relationships and acquire image of the plants (Coram et al. at [abstract]; [0051]; [0008]; [0022]; [0025]; [0028]-[0030]; [0035]; Figures 5-6; [0045]). Further Coram et al. disclose preprocessing images in accord with geometrical relationships so as to indicate that target field of plants is in a particular field of view [0022]; [0031]; [0035]; [0042]-[0050]). I
As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mounted sensors on a bracket in a particular configuration as disclosed by Coram et al. and perform preprocessing as per said relationships and do so in the context of the systems disclosed by McPeek for the benefit of modification of the fields of view as needed and to further prevent blockage of any field of view from the varying sensors. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Coram et al. specifically indicate that such a system permits greater efficiency for the identification of objects [0051].
Neither McPeek nor Coram et al. specifically disclose the calibrations of sensors that include a sensor positioned on the cover for enabling radiometric calibration as claimed. However the prior art to Bauer et al. disclose a hyperspectral sensor which is a type of radiometric sensor, measuring the intensity of electromagnetic radiation (light). Radiometric sensors, as discussed in McCorkel et al. (providing definition herein) include cross-calibration methods that can transfer to well-known sensor of a different sensor (e.g., radiometric calibration of a hyperspectral imager). Bauer et al. disclose that the sensor is attached to the underside of a platform and thus would be on a cover or the system [0020].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a hyperspectral radiometric sensor as is provided in Bauer et al. and to have mounted sensors on a bracket in a particular configuration as disclosed by Coram et al. and perform preprocessing as per said relationships and do so in the context of the systems disclosed by McPeek for the benefit of modification of the fields of view as needed and to further prevent blockage of any field of view from the varying sensors. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Coram et al. specifically indicate that such a system permits greater efficiency for the identification of objects [0051] and Bauer et al. include that such provides high-resolution analysis by use of hyperspectral imaging (abstract). Each of said references is in the same field of endeavor and modification would have been met with a reasonable expectation of success to provide accurate and high-res data analysis of plant crops.
With respect to claim 6, Comar et al. disclose preprocessing steps for the purpose of enhancement of said images and thus in combination with McPeek make obvious the limitations of the instant claim, as pre-processing allows for calibration of differences in sensor conditions (Comar et al. at [0035]).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, McPeek discloses preprocessing that includes, for example, registration and resolution improvement (McPeek at [0013]; [0040]; [0073]; Figure 3-registration and [0009]; [0054]; [0057]; [0064]; [0070]; [0124]; and [0125]-resolution).
With respect to claim 24, McPeek discloses coordination of sensor activation and operation using a command/control unit at, for example, Figure 7c (Getac device).
With respect to claim 25, McPeek discloses that the control unit is operational to set up sensor parameters, for example (McPeek at [0046]; [0049]; [0053].
With respect to claim 26, McPeek discloses communication from sensors to computing environment [0034]; [0053].
With respect to claim 33, McPeek discloses assessment of phenotype selected from the group consisting of biotic stress status, an abiotic stress status, a feature predicting harvest time, a feature predicting harvest yield, a feature predicting yield quality, and any combination thereof at least at [0078]; [0079]; [0086]; and Table 1.
With respect to claim 34, McPeek disclose a system to generate an output of the phenotype, a quantitative phenotype, and agricultural recommendation or a combination of two or more hereof (McPeek at [0078]; [0079]; [0086]; and Table 1).
With respect to claim 35, McPeek disclose that the agricultural recommendation relates to yield, for example (McPeek at [0003]; [0011]; [0018]).
With respect to claim 36, McPeek disclose that the computing platform is further configured to deliver the output data to a remote device of at least one user (McPeek at [0122]).
2. Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0259496 to McPeek (IDS reference) in view of US 2015/0134152 to Coram et al. (IDS reference), in further view of US 2020/0294620 to Bauer et al. and evidenced by McCorkel et al. (SPIE Optics and Photonics (2009), San Diego, CA, Aug. 2-6, 2009); Document ID 20100019255; Goddard Space Flight Center conference paper; 8 pages).
This rejection is newly applied and is necessitated by claim amendment herein.
With respect to claim 37, McPeek disclose the following:
A system for training an engine for detecting or predicting a phenotype of a plant, comprising (McPeek at abstract, [0037]; [0071]; [0078]):
a plurality of imaging sensors of different modalities selected from the group consisting of: a Red-Green-Blue (RGB) sensor; a multispectral sensor; a hyperspectral sensor; a depth sensor; a time-of-flight camera; a LIDAR; and a thermal sensor, the plurality of sensors mounted on a bracket at predetermined geometrical relationships at least one additional sensor selected from the group consisting of a digital compass, a global positioning system (GPS), a light sensor for determining lighting conditions, a radiation sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a motion sensor, an air pressure sensor, a soil sensor, an inertial sensor, and any combination thereof (McPeek discloses sensors at [0009]; [0013]; [0014]; [0046]; [0060]; [0064]; [0073]; 0094]; [0110] and Figure 3; McPeek discloses bracket mounting at [0007]; McPeek discloses at least one additional sensor, GPS systems, for example [0059]);
a computing platform comprising at least one computer-readable storage medium and at least one processor for (McPeek at [0007]; [0011]; [0073]; [0080]; [0092]; and Figure 3)
receiving data captured by the plurality of sensors, the data comprising at least two images of at least one part of a plant, the at least two images captured at a distance of between 0.05m and 10m from the plant (McPeek discloses receiving capture data from sensors at [0012]; [0040]; [0064]; [0068]; [0073]; [0110]; [0127]; and Figure 3; McPeek disclose at least two images of a part of a plant at [0013]; 0037]; [0040]; [0054]; [0064]; [0073]; [0083]; [0127]; and Figure 3; McPeek disclose capture at a distance of between 0.05m and 10m from the plant at [0040]; [0047]; [0064]; [0070]);
receiving from the at least one additional sensor additional data related to positioning and/or environmental conditions of the plant; processing the at least two images using the additional data to eliminate effects generated by the environmental conditions and/or positioning to obtain at least two enhanced images before preprocessing (McPeek disclose the processor is further adapted to: receive from at least one additional sensor additional data related to positioning and/or environmental conditions of the plant ([0013]; [0040]; [0049]-[0051]; [0068]; [0109]; [0118]; [0127]); and process the at least two images using the additional data to eliminate effects generated by the environmental conditions and/or positioning to obtain at least two enhanced images before preprocessing ([0013]; [0049]; [0054]; [0071]);
preprocessing the at least two enhanced images in accordance with the predetermined geometrical relationships, to obtain unified data (McPeek disclose preprocessing images to get unified data at [0013]; [0037]; [0054]; [0060]; [0073]; [0088]; [0109]; [0110]; Figure 3);
obtaining annotations for the unified data, the annotations are associated with the phenotype of the plant; and (McPeek disclose feature extraction at [0071]; [0074]; [0078]; 0097]; 0114]; [0120]);
training an engine on the unified data and the annotations, to receive images of a further plant and determine or predict a phenotype of the further plant (McPeek disclose feature provision to an engine at [0074]-[0078]; [0082]; [0088]-[0089]);
wherein the computing platform is further configured to receive information related to mutual orientation among the sensors and information related to mutual orientation between the sensors and at least one of an illumination source and the plant; wherein each of the plurality of imaging sensors and/or the at least one additional sensor is calibrated independently of other sensors, the plurality of imaging sensors and the at least one additional sensor are calibrated as a whole, and at least one calibration is radiometric calibration; and wherein the system further comprises a cover and at least one light intensity sensor positioned on the cover for enabling radiometric calibration of the system.
McPeek does not specifically teach the limitations in the claims directed to the sensors mounted on a bracket at predetermined geometrical relationships and preprocessing in accord with the predetermined geometrical relationships or a cover for a light intensity sensor as in claim 37. However, the prior art to Coram et al. disclose a system for high spatial and temporal resolution when monitoring field plants that includes monitoring using sensors that are mounted on a gimbal with predetermined relationships and acquire image of the plants (Coram et al. at [abstract]; [0051]; [0008]; [0022]; [0025]; [0028]-[0030]; [0035]; Figures 5-6; [0045]). Further Coram et al. disclose preprocessing images in accord with geometrical relationships so as to indicate that target field of plants is in a particular field of view [0022]; [0031]; [0035]; [0042]-[0050]).
As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mounted sensors on a bracket in a particular configuration as disclosed by Coram et al. and perform preprocessing as per said relationships and do so in the context of the systems disclosed by McPeek for the benefit of modification of the fields of view as needed and to further prevent blockage of any field of view from the varying sensors. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Coram et al. specifically indicate that such a system permits greater efficiency for the identification of objects [0051].
Neither McPeek nor Coram et al. specifically disclose the calibrations of sensors that include a sensor positioned on the cover for enabling radiometric calibration as claimed. However the prior art to Bauer et al. disclose a hyperspectral sensor which is a type of radiometric sensor, measuring the intensity of electromagnetic radiation (light). Radiometric sensors, as discussed in McCorkel et al. (providing definition herein) include cross-calibration methods that can transfer to well-known sensor of a different sensor (e.g., radiometric calibration of a hyperspectral imager). Bauer et al. disclose that the sensor is attached to the underside of a platform and thus would be on a cover or the system [0020].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a hyperspectral radiometric sensor as is provided in Bauer et al. and to have mounted sensors on a bracket in a particular configuration as disclosed by Coram et al. and perform preprocessing as per said relationships and do so in the context of the systems disclosed by McPeek for the benefit of modification of the fields of view as needed and to further prevent blockage of any field of view from the varying sensors. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Coram et al. specifically indicate that such a system permits greater efficiency for the identification of objects [0051] and Bauer et al. include that such provides high-resolution analysis by use of hyperspectral imaging (abstract). Each of said references is in the same field of endeavor and modification would have been met with a reasonable expectation of success to provide accurate and high-res data analysis of plant crops.
With respect to claim 38, McPeek disclose training data are included from multiple unified data or from multiple geographic locations [0088].
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered in full. A new grounds of rejection are set forth above in view of the claim amendments and address said arguments as new art in now applied.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Inquiries
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central Fax Center Number is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori A. Clow, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0715. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 12:00PM to 10:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
/Lori A. Clow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights