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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-18 are currently pending.
3. Claims 3, 7, and 11-12 are canceled.
4. Claims 1 and 18 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike (US 20210015039 A1), in view of Moran (WO 2020187424 A1), and in further view of Teruuchi (US 20190222797 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Vandike teaches a system for monitoring a distribution of residue material from a spreader tool of an agricultural machine, the system comprising: an imaging sensor having a sensing region rearward of the agricultural machine (Vandike: [0022] and [0058]);
And at least one controller, configured to: receive image data from the sensor indicative of residue material spread by the spreader tool within the sensing region (Vandike: [0022], [0058], and [0061]);
Apply a… transformation to the image data… (Vandike: [0023], [0043], and [0061]);
And cause the… image to be displayed on a user interface associated with the agricultural machine (Vandike: [0062] and [0064]).
Vandike fails to explicitly teach to apply a color transformation to the image data to convert the image data to RGB image data; apply at least one corrective transformation to the RGB image data to generate corrected RGB image data; convert the corrected RGB image data to a LAB color space to generate converted LAB image data and remap a tonality of the converted LAB image data; utilize the data buffer to extract an L-channel value of each equivalent pixel across the at least ten images; and utilize the extracted L-channel values of each equivalent pixel across the at least ten images to generate an enhanced image of the residue material distribution.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moran teaches to apply a color transformation to the image data to convert the image data to RGB image data (Moran: [Page 8, Lines 14-16]);
Apply at least one corrective transformation to the RGB image data to generate corrected RGB image data (Moran: [Page 12, Lines 27-28]);
Convert the corrected RGB image data to a LAB color space to generate converted LAB image data and remap a tonality of the converted LAB image data (Moran: [Page 13, Lines 19-23] Note that a adjusting the image luminance is equivalent to remapping the tonality of the image.);
Utilize the data buffer to extract an L-channel value of each equivalent pixel across the… image… (Moran: [Page 13, Lines 19-23] Note that an L-channel value is extracted of each equivalent pixel across a data buffer of at least one image.);
And utilize the extracted L-channel values of each equivalent pixel across the… image… to generate an enhanced image of the residue material distribution (Moran: [Page 13, Lines 27-30] and [Page 15, Lines 14-19]).
Vandike and Moran are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike to incorporate the teachings of Moran to apply a color transformation to the image data to convert to RGB data, apply a corrective transformation, and convert to a LAB color space because it provides the benefit of achieving consistent and high image quality.
Vandike and Moran fail to explicitly teach to receive a selection of a period of time for a data buffer of the converted LAB image data, the data buffer comprising at least ten images, wherein the selected period of time is at least partially dependent on a current speed of the agricultural machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Teruuchi teaches to receive a selection of a period of time for a data buffer of the converted LAB image data, the data buffer comprising at least ten images (Teruuchi: [0054], [0056], and [0155] Note that a frame rate of video data acquired by the shot data acquisition unit 111 is, for example, 15 to 30 fps." Note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to include at least ten images in a data buffer absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a different number of images in the data buffer. Further, Teruuchi teaches the data buffer stores images for a period of time (e.g., 10 seconds) and images are shot at a specific frame rate (e.g., 15 fps). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that capturing images at 15 fps for 10 seconds in the data buffer is greater than ten images.),
And wherein the selected period of time is at least partially dependent on a current speed of the agricultural machine (Teruuchi: [0074]).
Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike and Moran to incorporate the teachings of Teruuchi to receive a selection of a period of time for a data buffer dependent on a current vehicle speed and including at least ten images because it provides the benefit of recording and storing image data and to individually set a time to start recording for an event shot file.
10. Regarding Claim 2, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Moran teaches wherein the at least one controller is further configured to apply a Bayer filter to the image data prior to the color transformation (Moran: [Page 7, Lines 16-19]).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Moran teaches wherein applying a color transformation to the image data to convert the image data to RGB image data comprises using a Malvar Cutler method (Moran: [Page 2, Lines 1-4], [Page 7, Lines 7-12], and [Page 7, Lines 21-22] Note that a skilled practitioner would recognize that demosaicing is equivalent to the Malvar Cutler method.).
12. Regarding Claim 8, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Moran teaches wherein remapping the tonality of the converted LAB image data comprises applying an S-curve to the converted LAB image data (Moran: [Page 7, Lines 31-33; Page 8, Lines 1-2], [Page 12, Lines 26-27], and [Page 13, Lines 19-23] Note that a adjusting the image luminance or contrast is equivalent to remapping the tonality of the image. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, correcting the contrast is equivalent to the controller being configured to apply an S-curve.)
13. Regarding Claim 9, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Moran teaches wherein the at least one controller is further configured to apply a curve to an “L-channel” of the converted LAB image data (Moran: [Page 5, Lines 1-3] and [Page 13, Lines 19-30]).
14. Regarding Claim 10, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Moran teaches wherein the at least one controller is further configured to apply a haze removal transformation to the RGB image data (Moran: [Page 7, Lines 24-30] Note that applying a haze removal is equivalent to adjusting the contrast and saturation.).
15. Regarding Claim 14, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vandike teaches the at least one controller is further configured to apply a frequency filter to the image data, the frequency filter being dependent on a forward speed of the agricultural machine (Vandike: [0024] and [0032] Note that filters are applied to the image and a crop residue parameter value is determined at different points as the harvester moves. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claim, the filter is applied as the harvester moves. Being dependent on a forward speed is equivalent to the agricultural machine (harvester) moving at any speed. Also, the optical filter is a filter applied to the image data as the harvester moves across the field.).
16. Regarding Claim 15, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vandike teaches the user interface comprises a display and wherein the display comprises one of part of the agricultural machine or an interface on a portable device which is remotely operable from the machine (Vandike: [0062]).
17. Regarding Claim 17, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vandike teaches an agricultural machine comprising the system of claim 1 (Vandike: [0011]).
18. Regarding Claim 18, Vandike teaches a method for monitoring the distribution of residue material from a spreader tool of an agricultural machine, the method comprising: receiving image data from an imaging sensor indicative of residue material spread by the spreader tool within a sensing region rearward of the agricultural machine (Vandike: [0022] and [0058]);
Applying a… transformation to the image data… (Vandike: [0023], [0043], and [0061]);
And causing the… image to be displayed on a user interface associated with the agricultural machine (Vandike: [0062] and [0064]).
Vandike fails to explicitly teach applying a color transformation to the image data to convert the image data to RGB image data; applying at least one corrective transformation to the RGB image data to generate corrected RGB image data; converting the corrected RGB image data to a LAB color space to generate converted LAB image data and remap a tonality of the converted LAB image data; utilizing the data buffer of at least ten images of the converted LAB image data to extract an L-channel value of each equivalent pixel across the at least ten images; and utilizing the extracted L-channel values of each equivalent pixel across the at least ten images to generate an enhanced image of the residue material distribution.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moran teaches to applying a color transformation to the image data to convert the image data to RGB image data (Moran: [Page 8, Lines 14-16]);
Applying at least one corrective transformation to the RGB image data to generate corrected RGB image data (Moran: [Page 12, Lines 27-28]);
Converting the corrected RGB image data to a LAB color space to generate converted LAB image data and remap a tonality of the converted LAB image data (Moran: [Page 13, Lines 19-23] Note that a adjusting the image luminance is equivalent to remapping the tonality of the image.);
Utilizing the data buffer to extract an L- channel value of each equivalent pixel across the… image… (Moran: [Page 13, Lines 19-23] Note that an L-channel value is extracted of each equivalent pixel across a data buffer of at least one image.);
And utilizing the extracted L-channel values of each equivalent pixel across the… image… to generate an enhanced image of the residue material distribution (Moran: [Page 13, Lines 27-30] and [Page 15, Lines 14-19]).
Vandike and Moran are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike to incorporate the teachings of Moran to apply a color transformation to the image data to convert to RGB data, apply a corrective transformation, and convert to a LAB color space because it provides the benefit of achieving consistent and high image quality.
Vandike and Moran fail to explicitly teach receiving a selection of a period of time for a data buffer of the converted LAB image data, the data buffer comprising at least ten images, wherein the selected period of time is at least partially dependent on a current speed of the agricultural machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Teruuchi teaches receiving a selection of a period of time for a data buffer of the converted LAB image data, the data buffer comprising at least ten images (Teruuchi: [0054], [0056], and [0155] Note that a frame rate of video data acquired by the shot data acquisition unit 111 is, for example, 15 to 30 fps." Note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to include at least ten images in a data buffer absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a different number of images in the data buffer. Further, Teruuchi teaches the data buffer stores images for a period of time (e.g., 10 seconds) and images are shot at a specific frame rate (e.g., 15 fps). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that capturing images at 15 fps for 10 seconds in the data buffer is greater than ten images.),
And wherein the selected period of time is at least partially dependent on a current speed of the agricultural machine (Teruuchi: [0074]).
Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike and Moran to incorporate the teachings of Teruuchi to receive a selection of a period of time for a data buffer dependent on a current vehicle speed and including at least ten images because it provides the benefit of recording and storing image data and to individually set a time to start recording for an event shot file.
19. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike (US 20210015039 A1), in view of Moran (WO 2020187424 A1), in view of Teruuchi (US 20190222797 A1), and in further view of Slabaugh (US 20210073957 A1).
20. Regarding Claim 5, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi fail to explicitly teach wherein applying at least one corrective transformation to the RGB image data to generate corrected RGB image data comprises applying a Vignette Correction transformation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Slabaugh teaches applying at least one corrective transformation to the RGB image data to generate corrected RGB image data comprises applying a Vignette Correction transformation (Slabaugh: [0046]).
Vandike, Moran, Teruuchi, and Slabaugh are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi to incorporate the teachings of Slabaugh for the corrective transformation applied to be a vignette correction because it provides the benefit of enhancing an image by correcting the vignette into an image with the correct brightness, contrast, colors, and exposure. This provides the additional benefit of improving the quality of the image.
21. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike (US 20210015039 A1), in view of Moran (WO 2020187424 A1), in view of Teruuchi (US 20190222797 A1), and in further view of Zielke (US 20200267899 A1).
22. Regarding Claim 6, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi fail to explicitly teach wherein the at least one controller is further configured to apply a distortion correction transformation to the corrected RGB image data, wherein the distortion correction transformation comprises at least one of a delta angle correction; a barrel distortion correction, or a lens distortion correction.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zielke teaches the at least one controller is further configured to apply a distortion correction transformation to the corrected RGB image data, wherein the distortion correction transformation comprises at least one of a delta angle correction; a barrel distortion correction, or a lens distortion correction (Zielke: [0053] and [0056]).
Vandike, Moran, Teruuchi, and Zielke are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi to incorporate the teachings of Zielke to apply a distortion correction transformation to the image data because it provides the benefit of correcting anomalies in the image to improve the accuracy of detecting crops.
23. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike (US 20210015039 A1), in view of Moran (WO 2020187424 A1), in view of Teruuchi (US 20190222797 A1), and in further view of Fox (US 11074447 B1).
24. Regarding Claim 13, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi fail to explicitly teach wherein the at least one controller is further configured to apply a color transformation to the enhanced image of the residue material distribution to convert that enhanced image to a jet or turbo color space to generate a converted enhanced image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fox teaches the at least one controller is further configured to apply a color transformation to the enhanced image of the residue material distribution to convert that enhanced image to a jet or turbo color space to generate a converted enhanced image (Fox: [Column 36, Lines 30-37]).
Vandike, Moran, Teruuchi, and Fox are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi to incorporate the teachings of Fox to include converting the processed image to a jet color space as the color transformation because it provides the benefit of using processed images to moisture levels. Vandike teaches to use image data to identify moisture to then determine the crop residue parameter. Changing the color options provides the benefit of extracting data from images.
25. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike (US 20210015039 A1), in view of Moran (WO 2020187424 A1), in view of Teruuchi (US 20190222797 A1), and in further view of Posselius (US 20180310474 A1).
26. Regarding Claim 16, Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi fail to explicitly teach wherein the at least one controller is further configured to cause an indicator comprising a line to be overlaid on the enhanced image at a position corresponding to a maximum lateral extent at which the material is ejected from the spreader tool within the enhanced image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Posselius teaches wherein the at least one controller is further configured to cause an indicator comprising a line to be overlaid on the enhanced image at a position corresponding to a maximum lateral extent at which the material is ejected from the spreader tool within the enhanced image (Posselius: [0023], [0031], and [0032] Note that the output signal 82 displayed to an operator is equivalent to an indicator overlaid on the image because it corresponds to the residue coverage. Also, determining the residue spread is too narrow is equivalent a maximum lateral extent of the material ejected from the spreader tool.).
Vandike, Moran, Teruuchi, and Posselius are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike, Moran, and Teruuchi to incorporate the teachings of Posselius to indicate on an enhanced image an overlay on the image at a position corresponding to the maximum lateral extent of at which the material is ejected from the spreader tool because it provides the benefit of adjusting the agricultural machine using image data to improve the residue coverage by uniformly covering the field.
Response to Arguments
27. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Teruuchi (US 20190222797 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of receiving a selection of a period of time at least partially dependent on a current speed of the machine in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0074]. Teruuchi teaches to adjust the period of the buffer based on the speed of the vehicle.
28. The cited references in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
29. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-18 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663