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 .
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 4 February 2026.
Claims 1 and 18-19 were amended. Claims 16 and 20 were cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-15 and 17-19 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of the Remarks, filed 4 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Takahashi et al., JP 2010226968 A in view of Nishioka et al., US 20170153327 A1.
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.
Claims 1- 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., JP 2010226968 A (“Takahashi”) in view of Nishioka et al., US 20170153327 A1 (“Nishioka”).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a vegetation observation device comprising: a vegetation model generator configured to generate a vegetation model being a three-dimensional model of a vegetation region (Fig. 8, laser scanner measurement device 2, three-dimensional point cloud data calculation unit 23, Paragraph [0060]), based on laser reflected light being light generated when laser light to be emitted to a light irradiation region including the vegetation region is reflected by vegetation within the vegetation region (Fig. 8, laser scanner measurement device 2, irradiation unit 21, light receiving unit 22, Paragraph [0060]); and a vegetation observer configured to observe vegetation within the vegetation region, based on the vegetation model generated by the vegetation model generator (Fig. 8, laser scanner measurement device 2, irradiation unit 21, light receiving unit 22, Paragraph [0060]).
Takahashi does not teach: wherein the vegetation observer includes a wind speed calculator configured to calculate a tremble speed of the vegetation, based on a difference of frequency between the laser light and the laser reflected light, and deriving, based on the tremble speed, a wind speed of a wind applied to the vegetation.
However, Nishioka teaches a laser radar device that calculates the speed of a moving body and the wind speed using the Doppler shift frequency of the backscattered light (Fig. 5, wind speed doppler fdop, moving speed doppler fmove, Paragraph [0096]-[0100]--). Nishioka also teaches using the distance to the observation target to determine the distribution of the wind speed (Paragraph [0107]-[0109]). This method of calculating the speed of moving bodies and wind speed can be applied to vegetation.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi’s laser scanner device by adding a heterodyne receiver to detect the Doppler shift of moving plant bodies, which is taught by Nishioka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the measurement accuracy of the moving speed of the observation target”, as suggested by Nishioka (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 1, wherein the vegetation observer includes a vegetation position detector configured to detect a position of the vegetation on a surface being perpendicular to a vertical direction (Takahashi, Fig. 8, laser scanner measurement device 2, irradiation unit 21, light receiving unit 22, three-dimensional point cloud data calculation unit 23, Paragraph [0060]; Fig. 4, configuration of laser scanner measurement device and crop, Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 1, further comprising a light source including a light irradiator configured to emit the laser light to the vegetation region (Takahashi, Fig. 8, laser scanner measurement device 2, irradiation unit 21, Paragraph [0060]) and light receiver configured to receive the laser reflected light (Takahashi, Fig. 8, laser scanner measurement device 2, light receiving unit 22, Paragraph [0060]), wherein the vegetation model generator generates the vegetation model, based on the laser reflected light received by the light receiver (Takahashi, Fig. 8, laser scanner measurement device 2, three-dimensional point cloud data calculation unit 23, Paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 3, wherein the vegetation observer includes a vegetation position detector configured to detect, as a position of the vegetation, a relative position of the vegetation to an arrangement position of the light source (Takahashi, Fig. 4, configuration of laser scanner measurement device and crop, Paragraph [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 4, wherein the vegetation position detector, as a position of the vegetation, an absolute position of the vegetation being derived based on a position of a vegetation position criterion point being a criterion point to be a criterion of a position within the vegetation region and being placed within the light irradiation region, and a relative position of the vegetation to an arrangement position of the light source (Takahashi, Fig. 4, configuration of laser scanner measurement device fixed with respect to crops, Paragraph [0043]-[0045]; Fig. 1, steps S4, Paragraph [0041]; See also Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 1, wherein the vegetation observer includes a vegetation height detector configured to detect a height of the vegetation within the vegetation region (Takahashi, Fig. 3, histogram of stem and leaf heights, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 6, wherein the vegetation height detector adds information indicating a height of the vegetation being detected by the vegetation height detector, to the vegetation model generated by the vegetation model generator (Takahashi, Fig. 3, histogram of stem and leaf heights, Paragraph [0039]; Fig. 1, step S3, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 6, wherein the vegetation height detector detects a height of the vegetation within the vegetation region, based on a vegetation height criterion point being a criterion point to be a criterion of a height of the vegetation and being placed within the light irradiation region (Takahashi, Fig. 4, configuration of laser scanner measurement device fixed with respect to crops, Paragraph [0043]-[0045]; Fig. 1, steps S3, Paragraph [0036]; See also Paragraph [0059]), and the vegetation model generated by the vegetation model generator (Takahashi, Fig. 1, steps S3, Paragraph [0036]; Fig. 8, laser scanner measurement device 2, three-dimensional point cloud data calculation unit 23, Paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 6, wherein the vegetation observer includes a poor growth detector configured to detect poor growth of the vegetation, based on a height of the vegetation (Takahashi, Fig. 1, steps S5 and S6, Paragraph [0046]-[0048], [0055]: estimate vegetation coverage rate based on penetration depth; See also: Fig. 6 and Paragraph [0019] and [0078]).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 9, wherein the poor growth detector detects poor growth of vegetation in the vegetation region, based on heights of a plurality of pieces of the vegetation (Takahashi, Fig. 1, steps S5 and S6, Paragraph [0046]-[0048], [0055]: estimate vegetation coverage rate based on penetration depth; See also: Fig. 6 and Paragraph [0019] and [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 9, wherein the poor growth detector detects poor growth of the vegetation, based on a previously set threshold value for a height of the vegetation and a height of the vegetation (Takahashi, Fig. 1, step S6, Fig. 6, Paragraph [0055]: desired penetration rate and penetration depth selected to determine ideal vegetation cover rate).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 9, wherein the poor growth detector detects poor growth of the vegetation, based on intensity of the laser reflected light and a height of the vegetation (Takahashi, Fig. 1, steps S5 and S6, Paragraph [0046]-[0048], [0055]; Fig. 4, laser scanner measurement device, laser pulse penetration depth LD, Paragraph [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 9, wherein, when poor growth of the vegetation is detected, the poor growth detector reports the poor growth of the vegetation to outside (Takahashi, Fig. 8, display unit 31, Paragraph [0062]: screen for analyzing the point cloud data).
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 6, wherein the vegetation observer includes an abnormality detector configured to detect an abnormality of the vegetation, based on a temporal change of a height of the vegetation (Takahashi, Fig. 3, diagnostic method records histogram of stem and leaf heights for a series of days, Paragraph [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 1, further comprising output portion configured to output information relating to vegetation within the vegetation region being observed by the vegetation observer (Takahashi, Fig. 8, display unit 31, Paragraph [0062]: screen for analyzing the point cloud data).
Claim 18 contains the same claim limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, in further view of Matsumura et al., US 20170131718 A1 (“Matsumura”).
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, discloses the vegetation observation device according to claim 14.
Takahashi, as modified in view of Nishioka, does not teach: wherein, when the abnormality of the vegetation is detected in an outer peripheral part of the vegetation region, the abnormality detector detects intrusion of an animal into the vegetation region.
However, Matsumura teaches a farm land monitoring device that observes an abnormality source, such as an animal, in farmland (Fig. 52, farm land monitoring device 500, abnormality source 1000, Paragraph [0386]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi’s laser scanner measurement device by adding functionality to detect an animal among the crops, which is disclosed by Matsumura . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “efficiently perform an appropriate process for responding to the abnormality”, as suggested by Matsumura (Paragraph [0410]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645