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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/03/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calleija et al. (US 2018/0153084).
As concerns claim 1, Calleija shows a method for monitoring a mechanical automated removal of weeds during field cultivation of crops growing on a field with a mobile hoeing machine (1), in which at least one of the following steps is carried out: i) emitting ultrasonic waves perpendicularly in a direction of soil with at least one ultrasonic distance sensor arranged in a region of a tool on the hoeing machine, and determining the distance to the soil surface by determining the propagation time of the emitted ultrasonic waves reflected by the soil until detection of the waves; ii) emitting electromagnetic radiation with at least one radiation source in the direction of the soil into a surface region, in which mechanical weed removal is carried out or is to be carried out, and registering the intensity of electromagnetic radiation reflected or scattered there with at least one optical detector arranged on the hoeing machine, and determining with the registered intensity whether a sufficient tillage has taken place, which has resulted in weed removal, and/or whether too much dust has been whirled up (paragraph 0037, 0086, 0104 & 0105); iii) detecting and taking into account during monitoring of shear and/or bending stresses at individual tools with strain gauges and comparing the shear and/or bending stresses with calibration values, which have been determined at the corresponding tool in case of a correct removal of weeds; and iv) detecting airborne sound waves emitted by at least one tool as a result of weed removal with at least one microphone and comparing the detected airborne sound spectra with an electronic evaluation unit with airborne sound spectra registered in advance during faultless weed removal.
As concerns claim 2, Calleija shows wherein at the individual tools, speeds of rotating elements at tools are registered and taken into account for a functionality monitoring (paragraph 0085 & 0172).
As concerns claim 3, Calleija shows wherein similar measured values registered at all tools at same points in time are compared with one another (paragraph 0097 & 0104: operator can interact with the system, receive data, analyze data, and process data).
As concerns claim 5, Calleija shows wherein the intensity of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the at least one radiation source and scattered and reflected by the soil is registered by a plurality of optical detectors arranged in the region of a tool on the hoeing machine and, if a predetermined threshold value is exceeded, it is determined by optical detectors with a predeterminable number that sufficient processing has been carried out with the respective tool (paragraph 0037, 0086, 0104 & 0105).
As concerns claim 6, Calleija shows wherein determining the intensities is carried out with a plurality of optical detectors arranged at a distance from each other and arranged in a row and/or column arrangement or along circular rings with different diameters (paragraph 0037, 0086, 0104 & 0105).
As concerns claim 7, Calleija shows wherein images of regions on the tools are monitored with at least one camera and the images are transmitted to a monitoring center in the event of a malfunction registered with a detector, so that measures can be initiated to remedy the malfunction (paragraph 0037, 0086, 0104 & 0105).
As concerns claim 10, Calleija shows wherein in the event of clogging, the hoeing machine is raised and, after a short run, lowered again (paragraph 0014-0018 & 0089).
As concerns claim 11, Calleija shows transmitting registered signals of at least one camera present on the hoeing machine to an electronic image evaluation unit, and using data evaluated with the electronic image evaluation unit to monitor whether weed plants have been sufficiently covered with soil after being burrowed, have been torn out of the soil and/or whether cultivated plants have been damaged (paragraph 0037, 0086, 0104 & 0105).
As concerns claim 12, Calleija shows using an electronic control system to adjust a travel speed, a working depth and/or distances between the tools when at least one predetermined threshold value of a measurement signal registered is exceeded or not reached (paragraph 0039, 0085 & 0172).
As concerns claim 13, Calleija shows wherein a force and/or power required for advancement of the hoeing machine is/are determined and thus a working depth of the tools is/are affected and/or a travel speed is/are adapted to soil conditions in a locally defined manner (paragraph 0039, 0085 & 0172).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calleija et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Snyder et al. (US 2021/0243940).
As concerns claim 4, Calleija discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a calibration run is carried out before the start of monitoring and/or at least one calibration run is carried out during processing. Snyder teaches wherein a calibration run is carried out before a start of monitoring and/or at least one calibration run is carried out during processing (paragraph 0092). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Calleija, as taught by Snyder, to include a calibration run for the expected benefit of setting up the parameters of the system for autonomous control of the weeding device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that carrying out a calibration run before a start of monitoring and/or during processing would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the system design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “detection of disturbances during a mechanical automated removal of weeds” is not limiting because the body of the claim, except for step i), which is not required as the claim only recites that “at least one of the following steps is carried out”, describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Thus, steps ii)-iv) do not require the language solely recited in the preamble recitations, and are taught by Calleija as shown above in the rejection. Therefore, Calleija meets the claim language.
In response to applicant’s argument that Calleija does not teach or suggest step ii) of claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Calleija shows, in paragraph 0037, 0086, 0104 & 0105, the step of emitting electromagnetic radiation (laser ranging or LiDAR) with at least one radiation source (laser) in the direction of the soil into a surface region, in which mechanical weed removal is carried out or is to be carried out, and registering the intensity of electromagnetic radiation reflected or scattered there with at least one optical detector (sensor) arranged on the hoeing machine (laser ranging or LiDAR works by emitting laser pulses and calculating the time it takes for the light to reflect back to a sensor, enabling detailed mapping, object detection, and environmental analysis), and determining with the registered intensity whether a sufficient tillage has taken place, which has resulted in weed removal, and/or whether too much dust has been whirled up (the information from the sensors may be used for data collection purposes, or more actively as part of a high level methodology where only targets meeting a certain criteria are targeted by the system; this could be used for selective weeding by being connected to a separate or integrated computer system that identifies which weeds should be targeted using the various sensors, and controls the end effector and manipulation devices to weed the targets; in more advanced embodiments, the system can automatically detect and distinguish between types of weeds and take various corrective actions for each one, as for example, all weeds of type A can be mechanically weeded, but all weeds of type B should not be mechanically weeded due to some adverse effects such as spreading seedlings; in this case, the system can automatically log and report on the success rate of the automatic mechanical weeding system as well as any outstanding weeds which may need require alternative methods such as hand removal, flaming or herbicide). Therefore, Calleija meets the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679