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 and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed on July 31, 2025 has been entered and made of record. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 31, 2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
In response to applicant’s remarks (see page 11) with respect to 112(f), it is noted the amendment does not change the claim “unit” to anything that would provide a sufficient structure to perform claim functions. Thus, claim interpretation under 112(f) are still applied to claims 1-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 11 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 11 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 11 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “analyzing each of the plurality of the images of the field” and “identifying at least one characteristic of the field having an unknown value and determining the unknown value of the at least one characteristic by comparing known values for all characteristics of the field over the predetermined period of time to at least one characteristic related to the unknown value” are considered to be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements (“gathering a plurality of images…”, “visualizing the…”, and “gathering information related…”) are nothing more than data gathering and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the other additional elements (“units”) are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claim do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: claim does include additional elements as pointed out above. However, these additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus and thus falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Claim recites similar claim elements called for in the counterpart claim 11. Thus, claim is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
The advanced statements as applied to claims 1 and 11 are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 2, limitations “wherein the information gathering unit gathers information on crops grown in the field” are nothing more than data gathering and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, limitations “wherein the information on crops includes soil information” are nothing more than data gathering and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, limitations “wherein a rule unit relates information from the gathered information to gathered images by applying at least one rule to each image” are nothing more than data gathering and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, limitations “wherein the rules applied by the rule unit are specific to each individual field” are nothing more than data gathering and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, limitations “wherein the rules applied by the rule unit are specific to a similar field” are nothing more than data gathering and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, limitations “wherein the information display unit modifies at least one of the plurality of images based on the rules applied” are nothing more than data gathering and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, limitations “wherein the image analysis unit modifies at least one of the plurality of the images of the field by adjusting at least one piece of information related to each of the plurality of the image” are nothing more than data gathering and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, limitations “wherein the image analysis unit determines the type of crop grown in the field” are considered to be performed by human mind. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, limitations “wherein the image analysis unit determines the rows of crops from the image of the field” are considered to be performed by human mind. Claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Furthermore, claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 8. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 9. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 10. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Logie et al . (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0005038 Al, referred as Logie hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Logie teaches an aerial analysis system including (see, for example, figure 1 and para. [0020]: system for detection of crop health change over an agricultural field using remoted-sensed image products):
an image gathering unit that gathers images of a field over a predetermined period of time (see, for example, abstract and para. [0006] (acquiring a companion image of a crop growing within field at a first point in time and second point in time, and a master image of the crop growing within the field at a second point in time); para. [0022] (images taken from remote sensing platforms such as an airplane, satellite or drone; thus, these platforms refer to the so-called image gathering unit); also see “multi-date images” described in para. [0005]));
an image analysis unit that analyzes each of the plurality of images gathered by the image gathering unit (see paras. [0024] & [0025] (image filtering module 122 and image processing module 123);
an information display unit that visualizes each of the plurality of images identified in the gathered images (see figure 6 and para. [0062]; display described in para. [0066]);
an information gathering unit that gathers information related to the field over the predetermined period of time (see figure 6 and para. [0062] (information related to the crop field are collected/gathered));
wherein,
the image analysis unit identifies at least one characteristic of the field having an unknown value and determines the unknown value of the at least one characteristic by comparing known values for all characteristics of the field over the predetermined period of time to at least one characteristic related to the unknown value (see para. [0025] & [0026] (image processing module 123 and change detection module 124); para. [0052] “change image” which represents the different between the companion image and master image and thus unknown and known thingy are included).
Regarding claim 2, Logie further teaches wherein the information gathering unit gathers information on crops grown in the field (see paras. [0042] – [0045] (the result of image processing module 123 is shown in table 1 which is used to detect change in crops as described in para. [0046])).
Regarding claim 3, Logie further teaches wherein the information on crops includes soil information (see paras. [0022] (ground characteristic includes a plant and a field) and [0041] (field conditions) and thus soil information is inherently included in the field conditions and ground characteristic); also, Logie uses NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) which includes soil information)).
Regarding claim 4, Logie further teaches wherein a rule unit relates information from the gathered information to gathered images by applying at least one rule to each image (see paras. [0023] – [0026] (image filtering module 122 outputs a filtered image; image processing module 123 processes the filtered image to generate image derivatives; and change detection module 124 processes image derivatives to detect changes in the crop condition within the agricultural field).
Regarding claim 5, Logie further teaches wherein the rules applied by the rule unit are specific to each individual field (see paras [0023] - [0026]: filtering image module 122, image processing module 123, and change detection module 124; all of these modules refer to rules and are applied to crop field images; also see para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Logie further teaches wherein the rules applied by the rule unit are specific to a similar field (see paras [0023] - [0026]: filtering image module 122, image processing module 123, and change detection module 124; all of these modules refer to rules and are applied to crop field images; also see para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Logie further teaches wherein the information display unit modifies at least one of the plurality of images based on the rules applied (see figure 6 and para. [0062]: modifying image with indicators such as positive change, negative change and minimal change; overlaid on the change image; showing layers for master and companion images).
Regarding claim 8, Logie further teaches wherein the image analysis unit modifies at least one of the plurality of the images of the field by adjusting at least one piece of information related to each of the plurality of the image (see para. [0033]: removing pixels from image by cropping/deletion; para. [0049]: date range parameter; max and min threshold for VI values).
Regarding claim 9, Logie further teaches wherein the image analysis unit determines the type of crop grown in the field (see para. [0038]: indicating weed growth in the field base on the increasing VI values; thus, determining type of crop grown in the field is inherently included in order to differentiate the difference between weed and crop so that it could indicate the weed growth in the field.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 8. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 9. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 9 above.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logie in view of Bongartz et al . (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0259108 Al, referred as Bongartz hereinafter).
The advanced statements with regard to Logie as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-19 above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 10, Logie does not further teaches claim limitations “wherein the image analysis unit determines the rows of crops from the image of the field”.
However, such claim limitations are well known in the art as evidenced by Bongartz.
Bongartz, in the same field of agricultural image processing, teaches wherein the image analysis unit determines the rows of crops from the image of the field (see para. [0398]: amount of rows; para. [0466]: number of plant rows).
The motivation for doing so is to improve air flow, easier to provide fertilizer, and mange weed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations as taught by Bongartz in combination with Logie for that reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 10. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 10 above.
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 DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
10/2025
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662