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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-36 remain pending in this application, Claims 1, 7, 27, 29-31, 35, and 36 have been amended. Claims 1, 35, and 36 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to for the following informality: replace “connected to a spray boom” with “connected to the spray boom” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: to be executed by the spray controller to generate a target spray pattern … in claim 19 and to be executed by the treatment controller to dynamically adapt … in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification recites certain functions for the treatment (spray being an example of treatment) controller, as in [0028], [0116]-[0118] as well as processor(s) in [0071]. See also the processor 102 within computing device 104 on fig. 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-23 and 25-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheiner et al., WO 2020/049576 A2 (hereinafter as Scheiner) in view of Wu et al., US Patent No. 10,255,670 B1 (hereinafter as Wu).
Regarding independent claim 1, Scheiner teaches a system for dynamic adaptation of a treatment applied to an agricultural field growing crops [note the control system described on lines 9-22 of p. 11 and note the generation of recommendation data for the local plant growth system; see also the system shown in figs. 1, 2, and 5-7; see also p. 29, lines 7-13 indicating optimized treatments for new occurrences taking into account previous ones, thus indicating a dynamic adaptation], the system comprising:
at least one hardware processor executing a code [see both the hardware and software aspects of the control system indicated on line 21 of p. 14, on lines 16-21 of p. 45, and on lines 18-20 of p. 39] for:
receiving a first image from a first imaging sensor and a second image from a second imaging sensor [note the two cameras operating in stereoscopic mode described on p. 53, line 14; note also the generic first and second imaging devices described on p. 6, lines 20-23], wherein the first imaging sensor and the second imaging sensor are located on an agricultural machine and the first and second images are captured while the agricultural machine moves along the agricultural field [note on p. 53, lines 32-p. 54, line 5 the data collection module carrying a camera module (which can be the cameras operating in stereoscopic mode) and navigating in a path capturing a stereoscopic image; note also the at least one vehicle carrying data collection modules described on p. 6, line 30-p. 7, line 2; note the use of the system in a plant growing area, as per e.g. p. 2, lines 25-32], the agricultural machine having at least one treatment application element that applies the treatment to the agricultural field [note the exemplary treatment application elements listed on p. 42, lines 12-17], wherein the first image and the second image depict a portion of the agricultural field and overlap at an overlap region [note the depiction of plant growing area and the image overlap on p. 6, lines 20-25];
determining an overlap amount of the first and second images; computing at least one dynamic orientation parameter of the agricultural machine corresponding to the overlap amount [note on p. 53, lines 23-25 analyzing the stereoscopic images (which include overlapping areas) and calculating distances and angles between the cameras (which are the main reference location, as per p. 53, lines 14-16) and the poles supporting the plant, thus computing at least one dynamic orientation parameter of the machine (on which the cameras are mounted); see also on p. 54, lines 8-10 monitoring the distance of the data collections module (that is on the navigating vehicle) to the poles (within the area) using the stereoscopic cameras; especially note on p. 27, line 19 – p. 28, line 4 that the analysis may be used to adjust the height of the imaging sensors above the imaged portion of the filed which indicates the computation of a height variable based on the analyzed images; note also om p. 36, lines 9-15 the height of the vehicle being adjusted based on sufficient overlap between images (which indicates determining an overlap amount)];
receiving at least one analysis image depicting a structure of and/or in the portion of the agricultural field by the first imaging sensor and/or the second imaging sensor [note on p. 6, lines 6-15 the pre-stored analysis image; note that any of the captured images depict structure of the imaged portion of the field, so e.g. the images described on p. 53, lines 20-21 and 28-30 indicating a view of the plant supporting poles, planted rows, spaces between rows, etc., the image data collected as per p. 4, lines 14-17 indicates whole plant images, leaf images, images of supporting wires and poles, etc.];
analyzing the at least one analysis image to determine the structure depicted therein [see the portions cited above; see also p. 4, line 18-p. 5, line 7]; and
generating instructions, according to the at least one dynamic orientation parameter [note from p. 53, line 28-p. 54, line 10 the maintaining of the position of the machine by monitoring the distance by using the stereoscopic camera], for execution by at least one hardware component associated with the agricultural machine [again, note the exemplary hardware components in the plant growth modules listed on p. 42, lines 12-17 that are part of the agricultural machine and are used to execute the dynamic treatment] to dynamically configure the at least one hardware component such that the at least one treatment application element maintains a target treatment profile for the treatment applied to the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image [note the recommendation data examples enlisted on p. 5, lines 3-23 including analysis output as recommended treatment maps including subsections of interest; especially note, on p. 58, line 27-p. 59, line 6, the dynamic adaptation of the treatment (including generating a recommended treatment map) based on the analysis of the images and the mapping to the specific plant growing area and the status of the plants/crops in that area; especially note e.g. on p. 59, lines 19-22 the configuration of density and locations of spreading as well as spraying parameters which are hardware configurations to maintain a target treatment profile or map].
Scheiner does not explicitly teach that the first imaging sensor and the second imaging sensor are located on a spray boom of the agricultural machine, the spray boom extending in a horizontal direction with respect to the agricultural field, and the spray boom has at least one treatment application element that applies the treatment to the agricultural field.
Wu teaches imaging sensors that are located on a spray boom of an agricultural machine, the spray boom extending in a horizontal direction with respect to the agricultural field, and the spray boom has at least one treatment application element that applies the treatment to the agricultural field [see figs.1, 3, 12, and fig. 15 and the corresponding description as well as col. 5, lines 27-30 indicating spray boom 30 with herbicide sprayers and lines 40-57 indicating image sensing elements 50; see also col. 6, lines 49-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the agricultural machine taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying that the first imaging sensor and the second imaging sensor are located on a spray boom of the agricultural machine, the spray boom extending in a horizontal direction with respect to the agricultural field, and the spray boom has at least one treatment application element that applies the treatment to the agricultural field, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to easily enable using the images captured while crops are treated/harvested and in a unified view for determining best practices for the next crop cycle, as suggested by Wu [see col. 28, lines 45-47 and 58-61].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Scheiner further teaches that the instructions are generated according to the at least one dynamic orientation parameter and the structure depicted in the at least one image analysis [again, note the recommendation data examples enlisted on p. 5, lines 3-23 including recommended treatment maps including subsections of interest; especially note, on p. 58, line 27-p. 59, line 6, the dynamic adaptation of the treatment (including generating a recommended treatment map) based on the analysis of the images and the mapping to the specific plant growing area and the status of the plants/crops in that area; further note from p. 53, line 28-p. 54, line 10 that the creation of the navigation path/map of the field is based on the data including the at least one dynamic orientation parameter derived from comparing the images as in the example cited in the rejection of the second limitation of independent claim 1].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above is fully incorporated. Scheiner further teaches that the structure determined by the analysis of the at least one analysis image is selected from a group consisting of: presence or absence of the structure in the image, location of the structure in the image, agricultural crop, type of crop, undesired plants, weeds, stage of growth, crop diseased, presence of insects on crop, crop lacking water, crop receiving sufficient water, crop lacking fertilizer, crop having sufficient fertilizer, healthy, sufficient growth, and insufficient growth [note p. 4, line 26 - p.5, line 2 indicating that the analysis may include one or more of growing stage, location and/or severity of detrimental conditions, etc.].
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above is fully incorporated. Scheiner further teaches code [again, see the software aspect of the control system indicated on line 21 of p. 14] for scheduling the capture of the at least one analysis image according to the computed at least one dynamic orientation parameter [note from p. 49, lines 9-11 that imaging sessions are performed periodically and that the results are compared from run to run which applies to the analysis image and computed items/parameters].
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches a dynamic orientation parameter that comprises a speed of the agricultural machine and that the capture of certain images is scheduled according to the speed [note on p. 35, lines 24-26 the planning of image capture based on the forward velocity of the machine to select a certain distance and level of overlap].
Scheiner, however, does not explicitly teach that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter computed by analyzing the overlap comprises a speed of the agricultural machine, and the capture of the at least one analysis image is scheduled according to the speed.
As in the cited portion above, Scheiner teaches that a level of overlap of sequentially acquired images is corelated to the speed of the machine.
Wu teaches the capture of at least one analysis image being scheduled according to the speed of the machine [see col. 41, lines 24-29 indicating scheduling certain images for plant analysis based on the speed of the machine].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the known correlation taught by Scheiner, between the overlap extent and the machine speed, to explicitly specify that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises a speed of the agricultural machine and is computed by analyzing the overlap, and that the capture of the at least one analysis image is scheduled according to the speed, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing the known correlation between velocity, distance, and overlap extent to compute a speed of the machine, based on the image analysis, and to further enable targeting specific regions/plants by scheduling timed snapshots, as per the example provided by Wu [see col. 41, lines 24-29].
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner does not explicitly teach generating instructions for: adjusting a position adjustment mechanism to a target location according to the at least one dynamic orientation parameter, wherein the capture of the at least one analysis image is after the adjusting the position adjustment mechanism.
Wu teaches generating instructions for: adjusting a position adjustment mechanism to a target location according to an at least one dynamic orientation parameter, wherein the capture of at least one analysis image is after the adjusting the position adjustment mechanism [see col. 41, lines 24-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the agricultural machine taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying adjusting a position adjustment mechanism to a target location according to an at least one dynamic orientation parameter, wherein the capture of the at least one analysis image is after the adjusting the position adjustment mechanism, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to easily enable targeting specific regions/plants by making planned position adjustments to capture specific snapshots, as per the example provided by Wu [see col. 41, lines 24-29].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 above is fully incorporated. Scheiner further teaches that the same first imaging sensor and second imaging sensor capture the first image, the second image, and the at least one analysis image, and the same at least one hardware processor analyzes the overlap amount to compute the at least one dynamic parameter and analyzes the at least one analysis image to determine the structure depicted therein [note on p. 6, lines 6-15 the use of a first imaging sensor used with previous image data that is potentially obtained by the same imaging sensor to determine a movement path and access certain suspect locations; note also on p. 6, lines 20-29 the analysis of multiple overlapping images that can be obtained by the same imaging device to determine structure in context of the area being suspected which is mapped utilizing computed orientation parameters, as in the portions cited in the rejection of the independent claim, e.g. p. 27, line 19 – p. 28, line 4 indicating that the analysis may be used to adjust the height of the imaging sensors above the imaged portion of the filed which indicates the computation of a height variable based on the analyzed images; note also om p. 36, lines 9-15 the height of the vehicle being adjusted based on sufficient overlap between images (which indicates determining an overlap amount)].
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 above is fully incorporated. Scheiner further teaches that the at least one analysis image is the first image or the second image [note on p. 6, line 8 that a first image may be compared to a pre-stored (analysis) image, i.e. the pre-stored image may take place of the first or second image].
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above is fully incorporated. Scheiner further teaches that the at least one analysis image is in addition to the first image and to the second image [note on p. 24, lines 1-5 the usage of a series of images which indicates the use of additional analysis images (which can be more than two); see also p. 21, lines 4-7 and p. 49, lines 9-11].
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches a dynamic orientation parameter that comprises a height of the first imaging sensor and/or second imaging sensor above the portion of the field [note on p. 27, line 19 – p. 28, line 4 that the analysis may be used to adjust the height of the imaging sensors above the imaged portion of the filed which indicates the computation of a height variable based on the analyzed images].
Scheiner further teaches that analyzing the at least one analysis image to determine the structure depicted therein [Refer to the rejection of claim 2].
Scheiner, however, does not explicitly teach code for normalizing the at least one analysis image according to the height to generate at least one normalized analysis image.
Wu teaches normalizing images according to a height at which the sensor is mounted to generate normalized images [see col. 44, lines 44-46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the analysis image used by Scheiner by explicitly specifying normalizing it according to the height identified to generate at least one normalized analysis image, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable compensating for the geometric distances involved in the imaging to focus on elements of interest, as suggested by Wu [see col. 44, lines 41-46].
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is fully incorporated.
Wu further teaches that normalizing comprises normalizing a resolution of the at least one analysis image according to the height [see the portions of Wu cited for limitations of claim 10] and according to a target resolution of a computational process that analyzes the at least one normalized analysis image at the target resolution for determining structure depicted therein [see col. 41, lines 8-14 indicating changing the resolution to a target resolution].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the analysis image used by Scheiner and modified by the teachings of Wu by further explicitly specifying normalizing it according to a target resolution of a computational process that analyzes the at least one normalized analysis image at the target resolution for determining structure depicted therein, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow fir higher processing speeds and reducing the amount of data needed for saving the images while still allowing efficient structure identification, as suggested by Wu [see col. 41, lines 16-19].
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 above is fully incorporated. Scheiner further teaches selecting the target treatment profile according to the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image and according to the at least one dynamic orientation parameter [note e.g. on p. 39, lines 29-32 the selection of optimal locations for trimming based on the locations identified by the analysis, as also n 10G of fig. 8; note that the plant treatment path calculator shown in fig. 6 for performing the treatment relies on the orientation identified from the analysis; see fig. 8, especially steps 10C-10D].
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner does not explicitly teach that the agricultural machine is connected to the spray boom, wherein the at least one treatment application element and the first imaging sensor and the second imaging sensor are connected to the spray boom.
Wu teaches an agricultural machine that is connected to a spray boom, wherein the at least one treatment application element and the first imaging sensor and the second imaging sensor are connected to the spray boom [see figs. 1-3 and fig. 15, as well as col. 1, line 65- col. 2, line 9; see also col. 14, lines 22-33 and col. 28, lines 45-47 and 58-61].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the agricultural machine taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying that the agricultural machine is connected to a spray boom, wherein the at least one treatment application element and the first imaging sensor and the second imaging sensor are connected to the spray boom, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to easily enable using the images captured while crops are treated/harvested and in a unified view for determining best practices for the next crop cycle, as suggested by Wu [see col. 28, lines 45-47 and 58-61].
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is fully incorporated.
Wu further teaches an at least one dynamic orientation parameter that comprises an amount of movement of the boom relative to a target location of the boom, wherein at least one hardware component comprises a boom position adjustment mechanism, and wherein instructions for adjusting the boom position adjustment mechanism from an amount of movement to a target location from which treatment applied by the at least one treatment application element provides a target treatment profile [see e.g. figs. 10 and 11 and the description in col. 2, lines 35-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the agricultural machine taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises an amount of movement of the boom relative to a target location of the boom, wherein the at least one hardware component comprises a boom position adjustment mechanism, and wherein the instructions are for adjusting the boom position adjustment mechanism from an amount of movement to a target location from which treatment applied by the at least one treatment application element provides the target treatment profile, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to easily enable using the images captured to manipulate the hardware to respond to changing field topology, elevation, or crop surface, as suggested by Wu [see e.g. figs. 10 and 11 and the description in col. 2, lines 35-45].
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner does not explicitly teach that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises an amount of vertical movement of the agricultural machine relative to a target vertical location.
Wu teaches a dynamic orientation parameter that comprises an amount of vertical movement of the agricultural machine relative to a target vertical location [see e.g. fig. 10 and the description in col. 2, lines 35-42 as well as col. 23, lines 51-53 indicating a change in height relative to a default height].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the at least one dynamic orientation parameter taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises an amount of vertical movement of the agricultural machine relative to a target vertical location, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to utilize the imaging for preparing to respond to changing field topology and elevation, as suggested by Wu [see e.g. fig. 10 and the description in col. 2, lines 35-42].
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is fully incorporated.
Wu further teaches an at least one hardware component that comprises a vertical adjustment mechanism, and wherein the instructions are for adjusting the vertical adjustment mechanism by the amount of vertical movement to the target vertical location from which treatment applied by the at least one treatment application element provides the target treatment profile [again, see e.g. fig. 10 and col. 2, lines 35-42 as well as col. 23, lines 59-61 indicating adjusting boom height; see also col. 24, lines 42-45; note the movement of the boom sections].
Refer to the rejection of claim 15 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner does not explicitly teach that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises an amount of horizontal movement of the agricultural machine relative to a target horizontal location.
Wu teaches a dynamic orientation parameter that comprises an amount of horizontal movement of the agricultural machine relative to a target horizontal location [see e.g. fig. 10 and the description in col. 2, lines 35-42 as well as col. 23, lines 59-61 indicating a bend or change in boom angle; Examiner notes pointing forward (or bending) by an angle as indicated in col. 25, lines 11-13 which will have a horizontal component of movement relative to a default horizontal location].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the at least one dynamic orientation parameter taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises an amount of horizontal movement of the agricultural machine relative to a target horizontal location, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to utilize the imaging for preparing to respond to changing field topology before reaching the location, as suggested by Wu [see e.g. fig. 10 and the description in col. 2, lines 35-42].
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is fully incorporated.
Wu further teaches an at least one hardware component that comprises a horizontal adjustment mechanism, and wherein the instructions are for adjusting the horizontal adjustment mechanism by the amount of horizontal movement to the target horizontal location from which treatment applied by the at least one treatment application element provides the target treatment profile [again, see e.g. fig. 10 and col. 2, lines 35-42 as well as col. 23, lines 59-61 indicating adjusting boom angle; Examiner notes pointing forward (or bending) by an angle as indicated in col. 25, lines 11-13 which will have a horizontal component of movement relative to a default horizontal location].
Refer to the rejection of claim 17 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches that the at least one hardware component comprises a spray controller of the at least one treatment application element [note on p. 42, lines 12-13 a sprayer for delivering treatment], and the instructions are executed by the spray controller to generate a target spray pattern to obtain the target treatment profile applied to the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image [note e.g. on p. 16, lines 22-25 the recommended treatment map including density for spreading and spraying parameters which indicates a target spray pattern].
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of independent claim 19 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner does not explicitly teach that the target spray pattern comprises at least one of: (i) sufficiently even spraying of the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image, and (ii) a spot spray of the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image, and no spraying of a region exterior to the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image.
Wu teaches a target spray pattern that comprises at least one of: (i) sufficiently even spraying of structure, and (ii) a spot spray of the structure, and no spraying of a region exterior to the structure. [note in col. 5, lines 27-30 and in col. 16, lines 11-13, the spot spray for the herbicide on the candidate weeds and the even spray of the dry fertilizer].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the target spray pattern taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying that the target spray pattern comprises at least one of: (i) sufficiently even spraying of the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image, and (ii) a spot spray of the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image, and no spraying of a region exterior to the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable selectively applying the spray treatment based on needs, as suggested by Wu [col. 5, lines 27-30 and col. 16, lines 11-13].
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches a dynamic orientation parameter that comprises a speed of the agricultural machine (wherein a level of overlap of sequentially acquired images is corelated to the speed of the machine ) [note on p. 35, lines 24-26 the forward velocity of the machine being correlated to a certain distance and level of overlap].
Wu further teaches that the spray controller controls at least a member of a group consisting of: pressure of the applied spray and duty cycle of opening/closing of each at least one spray application element, for at least one of: (i) obtaining the even spraying of the field, and/or (ii) synchronizing the spraying for obtaining the spot spray [note in col. 38, lines 26-31 indicating controlling a pressure of the spray nozzle to adjust for spray pattern required; again, see col. 5, lines 27-30 and in col. 16, lines 11-13, teaching the spot spray for the herbicide on the candidate weeds and the even spray of the dry fertilizer].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the known correlation taught by Scheiner, between the overlap extent and the machine speed, to explicitly specify that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises a speed of the agricultural machine and is computed by analyzing the overlap, and that the spray controller controls at least a member of a group consisting of: pressure of the applied spray and duty cycle of opening/closing of each at least one spray application element, for at least one of: (i) obtaining the even spraying of the field, and/or (ii) synchronizing the spraying for obtaining the spot spray, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing the known correlation between velocity, distance, and overlap extent to compute a speed of the machine, based on the image analysis, and to further enable selectively applying the spray treatment based on needs, as suggested by Wu [col. 5, lines 27-30 and col. 16, lines 11-13].
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches a dynamic orientation parameter that comprises a height of the first imaging sensor and/or second imaging sensor above the portion of the field [note on p. 27, line 19 – p. 28, line 4 that the analysis may be used to adjust the height of the imaging sensors above the imaged portion of the filed which indicates the computation of a height variable based on the analyzed images].
Scheiner, however, does not explicitly teach that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises a height of the at least one treatment application element above the portion of the field.
Wu teaches an agricultural machine in which an at least one treatment application element and imaging sensors are rigidly connected [see e.g. fig. 3 as well as col.. 2, lines 5-9; see also col. 14, lines 22-33 and col. 28, lines 45-47 and 58-61].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the agricultural machine taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying an agricultural machine in which an at least one treatment application element and imaging sensors are rigidly connected, as per the teachings of Wu, which would enable deducing a height of the at least one treatment application element above the portion of the field. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to easily enable simplified real-time analysis and correlated treatment adaptation utilizing the at least one treatment application element, as suggested by Wu [see e.g. col. 4, lines 3-6 and col. 5, lines 25-30].
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 22 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches that the at least one hardware component comprises a treatment controller of the at least one treatment application element [note the control block 104 and plant growth control system 108 shown in fig. 5; see the description on p. 41, lines 1-29].
Scheiner, however, does not explicitly teach that the instructions are for execution by the treatment controller for dynamically adapting the treatment controller according to the height to apply the target treatment pattern.
Wu teaches dynamically adapting a treatment controller according to a height of at least one treatment application element to apply a target treatment pattern [see col. 17, lines 34-4 and fig. 4 indicating adapting a treatment control procedure based on the height of the spray apparatus from the ground to apply a certain target treatment pattern].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the instructions for execution by the treatment controller of the at least one treatment application element, taught by Scheiner, by explicitly specifying dynamically adapting the treatment controller according to the height to apply the target treatment pattern, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing the knowledge of the height of the spray controller to precisely plan the delivery of the target treatment pattern thus guaranteeing targeting specific regions/plants by compensating for the height, as per the example provided by Wu [see col. 17, lines 34-47 and fig. 4].
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches a dynamic orientation parameter that comprises a speed of the at least one treatment application element relative to the portion of the field (wherein a level of overlap of sequentially acquired images is corelated to the speed of the machine of which the treatment application element is an integral part) [note on p. 35, lines 24-26 the forward velocity of the machine being correlated to a certain distance and level of overlap; note on p. 42, lines 4-17 that the plant growth module elements (including treatment application elements)are an integral part of the vehicle].
Scheiner, however, does not explicitly teach that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter (computed by analyzing the image overlap) comprises a speed of the at least one treatment application element relative to the portion of the field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the known correlation taught by Scheiner, between the overlap extent and the machine speed, to explicitly specify that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises a speed of the agricultural machine and is computed by analyzing the overlap. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing the known correlation between velocity, distance, and overlap extent to compute a speed of the machine, based on the image analysis.
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 25 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches that the at least one hardware component comprises a treatment controller of the at least one treatment application element [note the control block 104 and plant growth control system 108 shown in fig. 5; see the description on p. 41, lines 1-29].
Scheiner, however, does not explicitly teach that the instructions are configured to be executed by the treatment controller to dynamically adapt the treatment controller according to the speed to apply the target treatment pattern.
Wu teaches dynamically adapting a treatment controller according to a speed of the vehicle (and at least one treatment application element) to apply a target treatment pattern [see col. 46, lines 4-9 indicating turning on a spray nozzle at a certain time based on a speed of travel of the vehicle carrying the nozzle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the instructions for execution by the treatment controller of the at least one treatment application element, taught by Scheiner, by explicitly specifying dynamically adapting the treatment controller according to the speed to apply the target treatment pattern, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing the knowledge of the speed of the vehicle to precisely plan the delivery of the target treatment pattern thus guaranteeing targeting specific regions/plants by scheduling timed sprays, as per the example provided by Wu [see col. 46, lines 4-9].
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches that computing the at least one dynamic orientation parameter of the agricultural machine corresponds to a percentage overlap and/or a number of overlapping pixels of the first image and the second image [note e.g. on p. 36, lines 9-15 that the height of the vehicle is being adjusted based on sufficient overlap between images, i.e. that there is a required quantified overlap (percentage of overlap) between the images being analyzed].
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 27 above is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches the first image and second image are simultaneously captured [note e.g. on p. 36, lines 4-5 the simultaneous capture of images].
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 28 above is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches that computing at least one dynamic orientation parameter of the agricultural machine comprises computing a height of the agricultural machine based on the percentage overlap and/or the number of overlapping pixels of the first and second images that are simultaneously captured [note e.g. on p. 36, lines 4-5 and 9-15 the height adjustment mechanism (which involves the height of the vehicle) being dependent on a certain required overlap (percentage of overlap) between images being analyzed].
Regarding claim 30, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches at least one dynamic orientation parameter that comprises a height above the agricultural field, and the height is computed based on a triangulation including a first angle of the first image sensor, a second angle of the second image sensor, and the overlap amount [note on p. 27, line 19 – p. 28, line 4 that the analysis may be used to adjust the height of the imaging sensors above the imaged portion of the filed which indicates the computation of a height variable based on the analyzed images; note also om p. 36, lines 9-15 the height of the vehicle being adjusted based on sufficient overlap between images; note on p. 54, lines 22-25 the triangulation for computing heights based on the images; note from p. 53, lines 23-25 the calculation of angles based on the image analysis].
Regarding claim 31, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches a first imaging sensor and a second imaging sensor that are the same single sensor that captures a first image and a second image a selected time interval apart [note e.g. p. 35, lines 24-26; see also on p. 53, lines 16-17 the option of sequential images using a single camera; not on p. 38, lines 31-32 indicating a delay between images creating], wherein a dynamic orientation parameter is involved that comprises a speed of the at least one treatment application element relative to the portion of the field (wherein a distance shift and a level of overlap of sequentially acquired images are corelated to the speed of the machine of which the treatment application element is an integral part) [note on p. 35, lines 24-26 the forward velocity of the machine being correlated to a certain distance and level of overlap; note on p. 42, lines 4-17 that the plant growth module elements (including treatment application elements) are an integral part of the vehicle].
Scheiner, however, does not explicitly teach that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter (computed by analyzing the image overlap) comprises a speed of the at least one treatment application element relative to the portion of the field, the speed computed based on the selected time interval between the first image and second image and the overlap amount of the overlap region between the first image and second image denoting a distance shift of the second image relative to the first image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the known correlation taught by Scheiner, between the overlap extent denoting a distance shift of the second image relative to the first image and the machine speed, to explicitly specify that the at least one dynamic orientation parameter comprises a speed of the agricultural machine and is computed based on the selected time interval between the first image and second image and the overlap amount of the overlap region between the first image and second image denoting a distance shift of the second image relative to the first image. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing the known correlation between velocity, time intervals, distance, and overlap extent to compute a speed, based on the image analysis and the selected time.
Regarding claim 32, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches a plurality of sets that are located on the agricultural machine, each set including two imaging sensors [note the sets of pairs indicated on lines 16-20 of p. 36 and shown in fig. 4A2].
Scheiner, however, does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of sets includes two imaging sensors and a processor, and wherein the receiving, the analyzing, and the generating instructions are independently iterated and executed for each set.
Wu teaches a plurality of sets that are located on the agricultural machine, each set including two imaging sensors and a processor, and wherein the receiving, the analyzing, and the generating instructions are independently iterated and executed for each set [see col. 5, lines 40-50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner and Wu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the agricultural machine taught by Scheiner by explicitly specifying a plurality of sets that are located on the agricultural machine, each set including two imaging sensors and a processor, and wherein the receiving, the analyzing, and the generating instructions are independently iterated and executed for each set, as per the teachings of Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable exercising a bank of targeted methods to manage and monitor the crops, as suggested by Wu [col. 5, lines 40-50].
Regarding claim 33, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches that the at least one treatment application element applies the treatment selected from the group consisting of: gas, electrical treatment, mechanical treatment, thermal treatment, steam treatment, and laser treatment [note e.g. the pruning/trimming and thinning treatments indicated on p. 39, lines 28-p. 40, line 16, as exemplary mechanical treatment options].
Regarding claim 34, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner further teaches:
collecting, for each respective portion of a plurality of portions of the agricultural field, the dynamically adapted treatment applied to the respective portion [note on p. 41, lines 28-29 the sending of data to the control system after or while applying treatment to the plants after the recommendations were generated; note on p. 5, lines 14-20 the portions (subsections ) for which the recommendation were generated]; and
generating a map of the agricultural field, indicating for each respective portion of the plurality of portions of the agricultural field, whether the target treatment profile was met indicative of properly applied treatment or not met indicative of improperly applied treatment [note the generation of reports in 10F of fig. 8 and note that steps 10B through 10G are repeated as needed, i.e. a report is generated after treatment have been applied and updated status reports show what has been treated and what has not; note that the reports include maps, as indicated on p. 51].
Regarding independent claim 35, Scheiner also teaches a computer-implemented method of dynamic adaptation of a treatment applied to an agricultural field [note the method described on lines 6-7 of p. 10; see also p. 29, lines 7-13 indicating optimized treatments for new occurrences taking into account previous ones, thus indicating a dynamic adaptation], the method comprising the steps of claim 1. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for further details].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheiner in view of Wu, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Solie et al., US PGPUB 2003/0019949 A1 (hereinafter as Solie).
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 22 is fully incorporated.
Scheiner/Wu does not explicitly teach that a default treatment pattern is selected for application to the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image by the at least one treatment application element when the height is outside of a target height range.
Solie teaches a default treatment pattern applied to a portion of agricultural field by at least one treatment application element when the height is outside of a target height range [see [0030] indicating a default treatment pattern that is applied for heights that are above certain typical distances; see also [0009]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner, Wu, and Solie, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the instructions taught by Scheiner and modified by Wu, by explicitly specifying a that a default treatment pattern is selected for application to the structure depicted in the at least one analysis image by the at least one treatment application element when the height is outside of a target height range, as per the teachings of Solie. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable dynamic adjustments resulting in only minor changes in distribution uniformity for large changes in spray material travel distance, as suggested by Solie [see the last 4 lines in [0030]].
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheiner in view of Wu and Muchfield, US Patent No. 11477935 B1 (hereinafter as Muchfield).
Regarding independent claim 36, Scheiner also teaches computer-readable instructions for dynamic adaptation of a treatment applied to an agricultural field, the instructions, when executed by a processor [see both the hardware and software aspects of the control system indicated on line 21 of p. 14, on lines 16-21 of p. 45, and on lines 18-20 of p. 39; Examiner notes that the software is a computer program product; note the description on lines 9-22 of p. 11 and note the generation of recommendation data for the local plant growth system; see also the system shown in figs. 1, 2, and 5-7; see also p. 29, lines 7-13 indicating optimized treatments for new occurrences taking into account previous ones, thus indicating a dynamic adaptation], cause the processor to perform the steps of claim 1 as taught by the combination of Scheiner and Wu. See the rejection of claim 1 for details.
Scheiner/Wu, however, does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing these instructions.
Muchfield teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for dynamic adaptation of a treatment applied to an agricultural field [see e.g. col. 10, lines 27-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Scheiner, Wu, and Muchfield, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing the instructions taught by Scheiner and modified by Wu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable portability and ease of access and execution of the instructions by utilizing a portable storage device and plugging it in, as needed, as suggested by Muchfield [see e.g. col. 10, lines 27-44].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended independent claim(s) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully emphasizes that Scheiner’s teachings regarding analyzing overlapping images entails overlap amounts of the images since Scheiner mentions different determined quantities that depend on sufficiently overlapping images which indicates that the amount of overlap has to be determined and utilized in any consecutive determinations [again, note on p. 53, lines 23-25 analyzing the stereoscopic images (which include overlapping areas) and calculating distances and angles between the cameras (which are the main reference location, as per p. 53, lines 14-16) and the poles supporting the plant, thus computing at least one dynamic orientation parameter of the machine (on which the cameras are mounted); see also on p. 54, lines 8-10 monitoring the distance of the data collections module (that is on the navigating vehicle) to the poles (within the area) using the stereoscopic cameras; especially note on p. 27, line 19 – p. 28, line 4 that the analysis may be used to adjust the height of the imaging sensors above the imaged portion of the filed which indicates the computation of a height variable based on the analyzed images; note also om p. 36, lines 9-15 the height of the vehicle being adjusted based on sufficient overlap between images (which indicates determining an overlap amount)].
Examiner refers Applicant to the new ground of rejection for the amended independent claims, which is presented above in full details.
Examiner Comments
Examiner invites Applicant to consider the suggestions discussed in the interview held with Applicant’s representative on 9/22/2026 as well as the teachings of the cited art of the record (including newly cited art) to move this case towards an allowance. Please refer to the attached interview summary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes from the cited art:
“Tian, Lei, John F. Reid, and John W. Hummel. "Development of a precision sprayer for site-specific weed management." Transactions of the ASAE 42.4 (1999): 893-900” which teaches a machine-vision-system-guided precision sprayer for site-specific weed management. It relies on multiple images to cover the target area in real-time and detects weed infestation zones for customized precise spraying [see e.g. abstract].
US 20030019949 A1 which teaches sensitivity to the height of the sprayer and speed of machine [see e.g. figs. 1-3 and the corresponding text].
US 20190357520 A1 which teaches a horizontal boom sprayer including machine feedback control [see fig. 2 and abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights