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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-2 and 4-22 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a mirror operably supported by the boom of the agricultural sprayer” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “the agricultural implement” in line 3. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the agricultural implement” to --the agricultural sprayer--. Claims 2 and 4-22 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “a mirror operably supported by the boom of the agricultural sprayer” in line 9. This renders the vague and indefinite, since it is unclear how exactly the mirror is “operably supported” by the boom. The applicant’s specification and figures do not specify the mirror as being connected to the boom. The figures show a mirror which is in front of the camera, but the support mechanism for the mirror is not specified. Further clarification or correction is required.
Claims 2 and 4-22 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
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 1-2, 4-10, 13-14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houis et al. (DE 102017211051) in view of Parker (U.S. Pat. 10044985) and McMenamy et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210068384).
In regard to claim 1, Houis et al. discloses an agricultural system, comprising: a camera operably supported by a boom of an agricultural sprayer (Fig. 4, where there are cameras 10 at least supported by a boom of an agricultural sprayer 20), the boom extending transverse to a forward direction of travel of the agricultural implement (Fig. 4, where there is at least a boom (structure to which cameras 10 are attached) extending transverse to a forward direction of travel of the agricultural implement 20), the camera oriented in a forward direction of travel of the agricultural implement such that the camera's forward field of view (FOV) is toward the forward direction of travel and forward of the boom (Fig. 4 and Abstract, where the cameras 10 are oriented in a forward direction of travel of the agricultural implement 20 such that the field of view of the cameras 10 is at least toward the forward direction of travel and forward of the agricultural implement 20), the camera configured to capture an image frame within the camera's forward FOV (Fig. 4 and Abstract, where the cameras 10 are at least configured to capture an image frame within the forward FOV of the cameras 10); a mirror at least operably supported by the boom of the agricultural sprayer (Fig. 2 and Translated Specification Page 3 line 17 – Page 4 line 25, where there is at least a movable mirror operably supported by the boom of the agricultural sprayer 20 which is utilized while capturing an image); determine where the nozzles sprayed using the reflected area of the captured image (Fig. 2 and Translated Specification Page 3 line 17 – Page 4 line 25, where there is a system configured to determine where the nozzles sprayed (“spraying means”) at least using the reflected area (“mirror images”) of the captured image). Houis et al. does not disclose positioned within a portion of the camera's forward FOV and separated from the camera by a distance, the mirror oriented at an angle with respect to vertical so that the captured image includes a reflected area, the reflected area being below and rearward of the camera. Parker discloses a mirror positioned within a portion of the camera's forward FOV and separated from the camera by a distance, the mirror oriented at an angle with respect to vertical so that the captured image includes a reflected area, the reflected area being below and rearward of the camera (Figs. 3 and 5A-5B and Column 9 lines 14-67, where there is a mirror 320a/b positioned within a portion of the camera's 310 forward FOV and at least separated from the camera 310 by a distance, where the mirror 320a/b is oriented at an angle with respect to vertical so that the captured image 500 includes a reflected area, and where the reflected area is at least below and rearward of the camera 310). Houis et al. and Parker are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include cameras and mirrors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Houis et al. such that a mirror positioned within a portion of the camera's forward FOV and separated from the camera by a distance, the mirror oriented at an angle with respect to vertical so that the captured image includes a reflected area, the reflected area being below and rearward of the camera in view of Parker. The motivation would have been to use a mirror to observe areas not directly in the field of view of a camera, in order to have a further detailed image of the areas surrounding the camera (see Parker, Fig. 5A-5B).
Houis et al. as modified by Parker does not disclose the boom includes a plurality of spray nozzles spaced along the boom, each of the plurality of spray nozzles in fluid communication with a supply of fluid product via fluid supply lines; a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver; and a monitor system configured to receive GPS data from the GPS receiver, receive the captured image from the camera, determine where the nozzles sprayed using the reflected area of the captured image, and use the GPS data and the image data to map where the nozzle sprayed within the field. McMenamy et al. discloses the boom includes a plurality of spray nozzles spaced along the boom, each of the plurality of spray nozzles in fluid communication with a supply of fluid product via fluid supply lines (Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0020-0023], where the boom at least supports a plurality of spray nozzles 20 spaced along the boom 14 with each of the plurality of spray nozzles 20 in fluid communication with a supply of fluid product (in tank 12) via at least fluid supply lines); a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver; and a monitor system configured to receive GPS data from the GPS receiver (Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0022-0029], where there is a GPS receiver 166 in signal communication with the monitor system 100), receive the captured image from the camera (Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0022-0029], where the monitor system 100 receives GPS data from the GPS receiver 166 and where the monitor system 100 receives (see Fig. 2, data communication diagram) the captured image (“pictures”) from the camera 135 and an aerial image used to create the map which was at least taken by a camera), determine where the nozzles sprayed at least using the captured image, and at least use the GPS data and the image data to map where the nozzle sprayed within the field (Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0022-0029], where the monitor system 100 determines where the nozzles 20 sprayed at least using the captured image (“pictures taken with the camera 135 may be associated with a global positioning system (GPS) position, stored in the memory 134 and transferred to the cloud storage server 140” and “The map may include a set of application map images superimposed on an aerial image”) and at least maps a respective location where the nozzle 20 sprayed based on the received GPS data and the image data (“the monitor device 110 receives raw as-applied data 181 including signals from the GPS receiver 166” and “map of the processed as-applied data… may include a set of application map images superimposed on an aerial image”) as the agricultural implement 10 traverses the field). Houis et al. and McMenamy et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Houis et al. as modified by Parker such that the boom includes a plurality of spray nozzles spaced along the boom, each of the plurality of spray nozzles in fluid communication with a supply of fluid product via fluid supply lines; a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver; and a monitor system configured to receive GPS data from the GPS receiver, receive the captured image from the camera, determine where the nozzles sprayed using the reflected area of the captured image, and use the GPS data and the image data to map where the nozzle sprayed within the field in view of McMenamy et al., since the captured image of Houis et al. as modified by Parker could be used with the monitor system of McMenamy et al. which at least utilizes GPS data and image data to map nozzle spray data. The motivation would have been to allow the device to better control and target application of the fluid to specific locations, as needed, in the areas surrounding the system.
In regard to claim 2, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1 further comprising: the monitor system including a display device visible to an operator of the agricultural implement, the monitor system having a split-screen, wherein a first screen of the split-screen displays a first portion of the captured image frame having the camera's forward FOV toward the direction of travel and forward of the boom and a second screen of the split-screen displays a second portion of the captured image frame having the reflected area (Parker, Fig. 5B and 10 and Column 25 lines 51-56, where there is at least a monitor system 1050 which includes a display device visible to an operator and where the monitor system at least has a split-screen (see Fig. 5B) that has a first screen (portion 540) of the split-screen displays a first portion of the captured image frame having the camera's forward FOV toward the direction of travel and forward of the boom and a second screen (portion containing reflected areas 522/524/526/528/530) of the split-screen displays a second portion of the captured image frame having the reflected area).
In regard to claim 4, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising a sprayer controller configured to control spraying of the fluid product from each of the plurality of spray nozzles (McMenamy et al., Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0020-0023], where there is a sprayer controller 200 configured to control spraying of the fluid product (in tank 12) from each of the plurality of spray nozzles 20); and wherein the monitor system is in signal communication with the sprayer controller, the monitor system configured to send command signals to the sprayer controller to cause each of the plurality of spray nozzles to spray the fluid product on command as the agricultural implement travels through a field in the forward direction of travel (McMenamy et al., Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0020-0024], where the monitor system 100 is in signal communication with the sprayer controller 200 and where the monitor system 100 is at least configured to send command signals to the sprayer controller 200 to cause each of the plurality of spray nozzles 20 to spray the fluid product on command as the agricultural implement 10 travels through a field in the forward direction 16 of travel).
In regard to claim 5, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 4, the Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver in signal communication with the monitor system, the monitor system receiving GPS data from the GPS receiver, whereby as the agricultural implement traverses the field, the monitor system associates a respective location within the field of each of the plurality of spray nozzles based on the received GPS data (McMenamy et al., Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0023] and [0028-0029], where there is a GPS receiver 166 in signal communication with the monitor system 100, the monitor system 100 receiving GPS data from the GPS receiver 166, and where the monitor system 100 at least associates a respective location of the plurality of spray nozzles 20 based on the received GPS data as the agricultural implement 10 traverses the field).
In regard to claim 6, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 5, further comprising flow rate sensors associated with each of the plurality of spray nozzles (McMenamy et al., Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0021] and [0027-0029], where there are at least flow rate sensors (“spray rate by nozzle”) associated with each of the plurality of spray nozzles).
In regard to claim 7, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 6, wherein the monitor system is configured to generate as-applied data based on output signals of the flow rate sensors and the respective location of each of the plurality of spray nozzles based on the received GPS data while the agricultural implement traverses the field (McMenamy et al., Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0028-0029], where the monitor system 100 is configured to generate as-applied data 182 based at least on output signals of the flow rate sensors and the respective location of each of the plurality of spray nozzles 20 based at least on the received GPS data while the agricultural implement 10 traverses the field).
In regard to claim 8, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 7, wherein the display device is adapted to rendering an as-applied spray rate map based on the generated as-applied data (McMenamy et al., Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0029-0035], where the display device 130 is adapted to rendering an as-applied “spray rate map” based on the generated as-applied data 182).
In regard to claim 9, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 7, wherein the display device is adapted to rendering an as-applied droplet size map based on the generated as applied data (McMenamy et al., Figs. 1-12 and Paragraphs [0029-0035], where the display device 130 is adapted to rendering an as-applied “droplet size map” based on the generated as applied data 182).
In regard to claim 10, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the monitor system is configured to identify areas of the captured image frames as presumed weed areas to be sprayed (Houis et al., Translated Specification Page 2 line 24 – Page 3 line 20, where the monitor system is configured to at least identify areas of the captured image frames as presumed weed areas (evaluation area with weeds) to be sprayed), and wherein the monitor system assigns each presumed weed area a confidence value (Houis et al., Claims and Translated Specification Page 2 line 24 – Page 3 line 5, where the monitor system at least assigns each presumed weed area (evaluation area with weeds) a confidence value (presence of weeds detected or not)).
In regard to claim 13, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 10 wherein the camera is one of a plurality of cameras, each of the plurality of cameras having its own forward FOV, and the forward FOV of each of the plurality of cameras is divided into distinct zones (Houis et al., Fig. 4, Translated Specification Page 2 line 24 – Page 3 line 20, and Abstract, where there are a plurality of cameras 10 and each camera 10 having its own forward FOV with the forward FOV at least divided into distinct zones 1).
In regard to claim 14, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 13, wherein the monitor system is configured to analyze the image frames of each of the distinct zones to identify presumed weed areas to be sprayed (Houis et al., Fig. 4, Translated Specification Page 4 lines 1-40, and Abstract, where the monitor system is configured to at least analyze the image frames of each of the distinct zones 1 to identify presumed weed areas (evaluation area with weeds) to be sprayed).
In regard to claim 22, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1 wherein the agricultural implement is a wheeled cart drawn by a tractor (Houis et al., Fig. 4, where the agricultural implement 20 is at least a wheeled cart (see the cart on back end of the tractor) drawn by a tractor).
Claims 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houis et al. (DE 102017211051) in view of Parker (U.S. Pat. 10044985) and McMenamy et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210068384) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Redden (U.S. Pub. 20130235183).
In regard to claim 11, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 10. Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. does not disclose the agricultural implement advances in the forward direction of travel, the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame of the camera's then current forward FOV to the captured image frame of the camera's immediately preceding forward FOV, whereby if the presumed weed area in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV corresponds to a previously identified presumed weed area in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV, the confidence value is increased. Redden discloses the agricultural implement advances in the forward direction of travel, the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame of the camera's then current forward FOV to the captured image frame of the camera's immediately preceding forward FOV (Paragraph [0026] and Claim 5, where the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame (first image) of the current forward FOV to the captured image frame (second image) of the immediately preceding forward FOV (“a first and a second sequential image”)), whereby if the presumed weed area in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV corresponds to a previously identified presumed weed area in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV, the confidence value is increased (Paragraphs [0017-0018] and [0026] and Claim 5, when the presumed weed area in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV corresponds to a previously identified presumed weed area in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV (a first and a second sequential image), the confidence value is at least increased). Houis et al. and Redden are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. such that the agricultural implement advances in the forward direction of travel, the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame of the camera's then current forward FOV to the captured image frame of the camera's immediately preceding forward FOV, whereby if the presumed weed area in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV corresponds to a previously identified presumed weed area in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV, the confidence value is increased in view of Redden. The motivation would have been to allow the device to systematically analyze a specific area by comparing two adjacent images of the specific area, in order to discern the presence of a desired plant in that area. This would increase the accuracy of the device in detecting the desired plants.
In regard to claim 12, Houis et al. as modified by Parker, McMenamy et al. and Redden discloses the agricultural system of claim 11, wherein as the agricultural implement advances in the forward direction of travel, the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame of the camera's then current forward FOV to the captured image frame of the camera's immediately preceding forward FOV (Redden, Paragraph [0026] and Claim 5, where the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame (first image) of the current forward FOV to the captured image frame (second image) of the immediately preceding forward FOV (“a first and a second sequential image”)), whereby if the presumed weed area in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV does not correspond to any previously identified presumed weed area in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV, the confidence value is decreased (Redden, Paragraphs [0017-0018] and [0026] and Claim 5, when the presumed weed area in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV at least does not correspond to any previously identified presumed weed area in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV (a first and a second sequential image), the confidence value is consequently decreased).
In regard to claim 17, Houis et al. as modified by Parker, McMenamy et al. and Redden discloses the agricultural system of claim 12 wherein, if the confidence value assigned to the presumed weed area is greater than a minimum confidence value (Redden, Paragraphs [0017-0018] and [0026-0034], where an elimination mechanism is initiated when the confidence value assigned to the presumed weed area is greater than a minimum confidence value), and a minimum distance threshold is met (e.g. overlapping distance), the monitor system generates a command signal to cause the sprayer controller to actuate one of the plurality of spray nozzles that is laterally nearest to the presumed weed area to spray the fluid product onto the presumed weed area as the agricultural implement passes over the presumed weed area as the agricultural implement advances through the field in the forward direction of travel (Redden, Paragraphs [0026-0034], [0038], [0040], and [0048-0049], where the monitor system generates a command signal to cause the sprayer controller 300 to actuate one of the plurality of spray nozzles that is at least laterally nearest to the presumed weed area (selects nozzle for use based on the row which contains the plant to be sprayed) to spray the fluid product onto the presumed weed area as the agricultural implement advances through the field).
In regard to claim 18, Houis et al. as modified by Parker, McMenamy et al. and Redden discloses the agricultural system of claim 17, wherein the monitor system is configured to distinguish between certain weed types, and wherein the monitor system is configured to cause the sprayer controller to spray a different fluid product depending on which weed type is determined to be within the presumed weed area (Redden, Paragraphs [0038], [0040], and [0048-0049], where the monitor system is configured to distinguish between certain weed types (“properties of the plant to be removed”) and where the monitor system is configured to cause the sprayer controller 300 to spray a different fluid product at least depending on which weed type (elimination by reacting two fluids together, manipulating concentration of fluids, or choosing an appropriate elimination mechanism depending on the properties of the plant) is determined to be within the presumed weed area).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houis et al. (DE 102017211051) in view of Parker (U.S. Pat. 10044985) and McMenamy et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210068384) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Redden (U.S. Pub. 20130235183).
In regard to claim 15, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 14. Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. does not disclose the agricultural implement advances in the forward direction of travel, the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame of each of the distinct zones of each camera's then current forward FOV to the captured image frame of each of the distinct zones of each camera's immediately preceding forward FOV, whereby if the presumed weed area in one of the distinct zones in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV corresponds to a previously identified presumed weed area in that same one of the distinct zones in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV, the confidence value is increased. Redden discloses the agricultural implement advances in the forward direction of travel, the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame of each of the distinct zones of each camera's then current forward FOV to the captured image frame of each of the distinct zones of each camera's immediately preceding forward FOV (Paragraph [0026] and Claim 5, where the monitor system is configured to at least compare each of the distinct zones of the captured image frame (first image) of the current forward FOV to each of the distinct zones of the captured image frame (second image) of the immediately preceding forward FOV (“a first and a second sequential image”)), whereby if the presumed weed area in one of the distinct zones in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV corresponds to a previously identified presumed weed area in that same one of the distinct zones in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV, the confidence value is increased (Paragraphs [0017-0018] and [0026] and Claim 5, when the presumed weed area in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV corresponds to a previously identified presumed weed area in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV (a first and a second sequential image), the confidence value is at least increased). Houis et al. and Redden are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. such that the agricultural implement advances in the forward direction of travel, the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame of each of the distinct zones of each camera's then current forward FOV to the captured image frame of each of the distinct zones of each camera's immediately preceding forward FOV, whereby if the presumed weed area in one of the distinct zones in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV corresponds to a previously identified presumed weed area in that same one of the distinct zones in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV, the confidence value is increased in view of Redden. The motivation would have been to allow the device to systematically analyze a specific area by comparing two adjacent images of the specific area, in order to discern the presence of a desired plant in that area. This would increase the accuracy of the device in detecting the desired plants.
In regard to claim 16, Houis et al. as modified by Parker, McMenamy et al. and Redden discloses the agricultural system of claim 15, wherein as the agricultural implement advances in the forward direction of travel, the monitor system is configured to compare the captured image frame of each of the distinct zones of each camera's then current forward FOV to the captured image frame of each of the distinct zones of each camera's immediately preceding forward FOV (Redden, Paragraph [0026] and Claim 5, where the monitor system is configured to at least compare each of the distinct zones of the captured image frame (first image) of the current forward FOV to each of the distinct zones of the captured image frame (second image) of the immediately preceding forward FOV (“a first and a second sequential image”)), whereby if the presumed weed area in one of the distinct zones in the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV does not correspond to any previously identified presumed weed area in that same one of the distinct zones in the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV, the confidence value is decreased (Redden, Paragraphs [0017-0018] and [0026] and Claim 5, when the presumed weed area in each of the distinct zones of the captured image frame in the then current forward FOV at least does not correspond to any previously identified presumed weed area in that same one of the distinct zones of the captured image frame of the immediately preceding forward FOV (a first and a second sequential image), the confidence value is consequently decreased).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houis et al. (DE 102017211051) in view of Parker (U.S. Pat. 10044985) and McMenamy et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210068384) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Redden (U.S. Pub. 20130235183).
In regard to claim 19, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1. Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. does not disclose each of the plurality of cameras is disposed within a camera enclosure supported from the boom. Redden discloses each of the plurality of cameras is disposed within a camera enclosure supported from the boom (Figs. 9-10, where each of the plurality of cameras 240 is at least disposed within a camera enclosure 200 supported from the boom 100). Houis et al. and Redden are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. such that each of the plurality of cameras is disposed within a camera enclosure supported from the boom in view of Redden. The motivation would have been to better protect the detection mechanism (camera) from weather and environmental stressors which could cause damage.
In regard to claim 20, Houis et al. as modified by Parker, McMenamy et al. and Redden discloses the agricultural system of claim 19, wherein a lens of each of the cameras is disposed behind a window of the camera enclosure (Redden, Figs. 9-10, where wherein a lens of each of the cameras 240 is at least disposed behind a window (opening though which the lens of the camera 240 receives light) of the camera enclosure 200).
In regard to claim 21, Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1. Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. does not disclose the agricultural implement is self-propelled. Redden discloses the agricultural implement is self-propelled (Paragraph [0051], where the system has an autonomous vehicle). Houis et al. and Redden are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Houis et al. as modified by Parker and McMenamy et al. such that the agricultural implement is self-propelled in view of Redden. The motivation would have been to allow the device to operate without manual input or a driver to propel the tractor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 01/12/2026) with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Houis et al. (DE 102017211051) in view of Parker (U.S. Pat. 10044985) and McMenamy et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210068384) disclose the applicant’s claim 1, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
Specifically, Houis et al. teaches a mirror at least operably supported by the boom of the agricultural sprayer in Fig. 2 and Translated Specification Page 3 line 17 – Page 4 line 25, where there is at least a movable mirror operably supported by the boom of the agricultural sprayer 20 which is utilized while capturing an image.
Furthermore, Parker teaches a mirror positioned within a portion of the camera's forward FOV and separated from the camera by a distance in Figs. 3 and 5A-5B and Column 9 lines 14-67, where there is a mirror 320a/b positioned within a portion of the camera's 310 forward FOV and at least separated from the camera 310 by a distance.
Parker also teaches the reflected area being below and rearward of the camera in Figs. 3 and 5A-5B and Column 9 lines 14-67, where the reflected area is at least below and rearward of the camera 310. The angle of the mirror is at least pointing in a direction back toward and down relative to the camera, therefore the mirror must be reflecting an area below and rearward of the camera, when considering the field of view of the mirror to its full extent.
Lastly, the motivation to combine Houis et al. and Parker is found in Parker (as noted in the rejections), as well as known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Using a mirror to extend a view is old and well known.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of agricultural devices and cameras.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647