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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 3/6/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 15 are amended.
Claims 19-21 are added.
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant Argues
The combination of Peters in view of Tempel fails to teach or suggest the independent claims 1 and 15.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered but are moot because arguments are over amended features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20
Claim 20 recites “large” and “small”. However, this is relative terminology. The specification was referenced, however no objective standard is clearly provided or reflected in the claims. MPEP 2173.05(b).
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 1-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERS (US20200242754A1) in view of APPLEGATE (US20070083293A1) (hereinafter – “PETERS-APPLEGATE”).
Regarding claim 1
PETERS teaches a method for operating a treatment device applying a treatment product to an agricultural area ([0001]: invention relates to a method for plant management; [0002]: “background of this invention is the management of plants in an agricultural field. The management of plants, in particular the actual crops, also comprises the management of weed in the agricultural field, as well as management of the insects in the agricultural field”), the method comprising:
obtaining at least one dataset relating to an area of interest within the agricultural area to a control system ([0008], [0011]: “The input unit is configured to provide the processing unit with at least one image of a field. The processing unit is configured to analyse the at least one image to determine information relating to a plant that is present. The processing unit is configured also to determine if the plant is to be controlled or is not to be controlled by a plant control technology based on the information relating to the plant. If the determination is made that the plant is to be controlled by the plant control technology, the output unit is configured to output information useable to activate the plant control technology”; [0094]: “input unit 20 is configured to provide the processing unit 30 with at least one image of a field”, i.e., in order for input unit to provide processing unit (processing unit is configured to determine control actions and is thus a control system) with at least one image/dataset the image/dataset must be obtained, it is implied that the “at least one image of a field” would be an image taken relating to “an area of interest within the agricultural area”);
determining, by the control system, from the at least one dataset a vegetative indicator relating to real-time conditions on the agricultural area ([0009], [0011], [0096]: “processing unit 30 is configured to analyse the at least one image to determine information relating to a plant that is present”; [0097] “operating in real-time, where images are acquired and immediately processed”), wherein a basic threshold for triggering application of the treatment product is dynamically adjusted [0011], [0029]: “processing unit is configured to analyse the at least one image to determine that a weed is present, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the weed is to be controlled by a weed control technology or is not to be controlled by the weed control technology”; [0030]: “processing unit is configured to determine if the plant is to be sprayed with an insecticide and/or herbicide or is not to be sprayed with the insecticide and/or herbicide based on the information relating to the plant"; [0031]: “determination if the plant is to be controlled by the plant control technology comprises application of at least one biodiversity setting and/or at least one agronomic rule” [0032]: “The thresholds for determining, whether a control technology should be applied include determination of the size and the growth stage of plants. The processing unit is configured to determine the size and the growth stage of the plants in the image” and configured to “apply growth stage models to determine, in which size the plant has or in which growth stage the plant is”; [0034]: “to determine if the plant is to be controlled or not, the processing unit preferably weighs the various determined factors” i.e., paragraph 0030’s disclosure of “unit is configured to determine if the weed is to be controlled” teaches a basic threshold for triggering application treatment, paragraph 0031 discloses settings/rules used to adjust determination/threshold, paragraph 0032 discloses determining thresholds based weed size/growth stage, paragraph 0034 discloses to weight factors to determine if the plant is to be controlled or not, implying a dynamically adjustable threshold); and
providing a control signal, by the control system, to control the treatment device based on the determined vegetative indicator and the threshold for trigger application of the treatment product ([0010], [0011], [0012]: plant control technology comprises chemical control via “application of insecticides and/or herbicides”; [0094], [0096]: “processing unit 30 is configured also to determine if the plant is to be sprayed with an insecticide and/or herbicide or is not to be sprayed with the insecticide and/or herbicide based on the information relating to the plant. If the determination is made that the plant is to be sprayed with the insecticide and/or herbicide, the output unit is configured to output information useable to activate at least one spray gun”).
PETERS is not relied on for determining a weed size value.
However, APPLEGATE in analogous art teaches determining a weed size value ([0063]: “If weeds are at a four inch height the required amount of herbicide will differ from that required if weeds are six inch height”).
PETERS and APPLEGATE are analogous art to the claimed invention because they from the field of agriculture/crop management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of APPLEGATE to the teachings of PETERS such that APPLEGATE’s subroutine of determining a weed size value could be used with PETERS’ processing unit that weighs various factors in determining if a threshold has been met for triggering application of the treatment product in order to prevent applying a treatment product when it would not have the intended effect (i.e., if the size value was not accounted for, then the threshold would not be adjusted and the six inch weed would be sprayed according to the four inch weed and would not be killed, thus wasting chemicals/money and unnecessarily introducing chemicals into the environment). PETERS provides the motivation in paragraph 0016 by teaching that the reduction of chemicals used in weed control can improve/maintain biodiversity as well as lead to cost savings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine APPLEGATE with PETERS, for the benefit of preventing the application of a treatment product when it would not have the intended effect, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
APPLEGATE also teaches wherein the weed size value is determined based on a size of one or more weeds detected in the dataset ([0063]: “weeds are at a four inch height”).
Regarding claim 3
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches wherein the vegetative indicator is an insect indicator, wherein the determined insect indicator includes one or more inspect specie(s) or insect type(s) detected in the obtained dataset ([0049]: “processing unit is configured to analyse the at least one image to determine a type of insect for an insect of the at least one insect detected. The information relating to the plant can then comprise the type of insect”).
Regarding claim 4-7 and 9
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 4 are not invoked, as the basic threshold for triggering application of the treatment product is dynamically adjusted based on a weed size value determined from the at least one data set, and not based on a weed density determined from the at least one data set.
Claims 5-7 and 9 depend from claim 4 and thus are not invoked.
Regarding claim 8
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 4 are not invoked, as the basic threshold for trigger application of the treatment product is dynamically adjusted based on a weed size value determined from the at least one data set, and not based on the ratio between weed coverage and crop coverage.
Regarding claim 10
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches wherein vegetative metadata associated with the agricultural area to be treated is provided to the control system, and the dynamic adjustment of threshold is activated based on vegetative metadata ([0053]: “processing unit is configured to analyse the at least one image to determine a location of the plant, in particular the weed, in the at least one image”; [0064]: “Thus, by correlating an image with the geographical location where it was acquired, the weed control technology can be accurately applied to that location”).
Regarding claim 11
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches wherein a basic threshold for triggering application of the treatment product relating to a basic parameter is provided to the control system, wherein the dataset is analyzed to determine the basic parameter, and wherein the control signal is provided to control the treatment device based on the determined basic parameter and the basic threshold ([0048]: “decision can be made to control crop plants or weeds in the field on the basis ofwhether there are insects present […] depending upon whether they are predicted to be pests or beneficial insects or a predicted high enough percentage of beneficial insects in comparison to pests that it would be best not to control by insect control technology. Thus, insects could be predicted to be pests and the plant controlled by an insect control technology, and if the plant was determined to be a detrimental weed the plant could also be controlled by a weed control technology”).
Regarding claim 12
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches wherein the vegetative indicator is determined based on a classification of vegetative species and/or vegetative types detected in the dataset ([0036]: “processing unit is configured to analyse the at least one image to determine if the plant is a specimen of a crop grown in the field or if the plant is a weed”).
Regarding claim 13
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches wherein determining the vegetive indicator is performed by use of a data driven model, wherein the data driven model is used to analyze the dataset for determining the vegetative indicator ([0067], [0117]: “analysis of the at least one image comprises utilisation of a machine learning algorithm”, [0121]: “machine learning algorithm has been taught on the basis of a plurality of images”).
Regarding claim 14
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches wherein a set of thresholds is provided by a cloud-based preparation system or by a treatment device-based system as embedded software or by a combination thereof ([0157]: “UAV has a camera, and as it flies over the field imagery is acquired […] The image data acquired by the camera is transferred to a processing unit external to the UAV. The processing unit image processes the images, using a machine learning algorithm based on an artificial neural network that has been trained on numerous image examples of different types of weeds, crop plans, and insects to determine if a plant being imaged is a crop plant, is a weed and if a weed to determine the type of weed, and whether there are insects on the plant and what insects are present. The processing unit then utilizes biodiversity settings and insect management settings, for this crop in this part of the world, and at the stage of its growth between seeding and harvesting, to determine if the plant should be sprayed with an insecticide and/or herbicide”).
Regarding claim 15
PETERS teaches a control system for operating a treatment device for applying a treatment product to an agricultural area (Abstract, [0001], [0011], Claim 1).
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are rejected as per claim 1.
Regarding claim 16
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 15 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches at least one detection component, and the control system of claim 15 connected to the at least one detection component ([0094]: “input unit 20 is configured to provide the processing unit with at least one image of a field”).
Regarding claim 18
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a data processing unit, cause the data processing unit to perform the method according to claim 1 ([0176]: computer readable medium).
Regarding claim 20
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches if one large weed is recognized based on the at least one dataset, the basic threshold is lowered, and if multiple small weeds are recognized based on the at least one dataset, the basic threshold is increased (not invoked).
Regarding claim 21
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS also teaches wherein dynamically adjusting the basic threshold comprises selecting an area-specific threshold associated with an agricultural zone or subarea, based on a geo-specific location associated with the at least one dataset ([0063]: “imagery can be acquired by one platform, that could analyse it to detect weeds and determine which weeds are to be controlled, and the locations of the weeds to be controlled determined”; [0065]: “by correlating an image with the geographical location where it was acquired, the weed control technology can be accurately applied to that location”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERS-APPLEGATE in view of FU (US20220101554A1).
Regarding claim 19
PETERS-APPLEGATE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PETERS-APPLEGATE are not relied on for dynamically adjusting an application rate of the treatment product based on the weed density and/or the weed size value.
However, FU in an analogous art teaches dynamically adjusting an application rate of the treatment product based on the weed density and/or the weed size value ([0234]: “control system 130 may modify a treatment schedule for an identified plant as part of a treatment action. Here, the treatment schedule may include any farming action that was intended to be performed on an identified object (e.g., a spray treatment, a planting time, etc.). To illustrate, referring to the treatment map 1500 of FIG. 15A, the control system 130 identifies crop 1502a, 1502b, and 1502c, and weed 1504 using method 1400. That is, the control system 130 identifies the crops and weeds using feature values of identified plants”; [0236]: “modifying the treatment schedule can include modifying a scheduled flow
rate (e.g., application rate in units per area) of a chemical in the scheduled treatment to a new flow rate. For example, increasing the flow rate (e.g., amount per time) of the chemical to apply more chemical, or to change the application speed (e.g., speed of application), in the same amount of time as the originally scheduled treatment action”).
FU is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of agriculture/crop management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of FU to the teachings of the PETERS-APPLEGATE combination such that FU’s application rate adjustment subroutine would be implemented in APPLEGATE’s processing unit for the purpose of applying more treatment product to larger weeds without altering the groundspeed of a mobile sprayer. APPLEGATE teaches in paragraph 0063 that weeds of different sizes require different amounts of herbicide. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to try that in order to apply more product, that this could typically be done two ways: decreasing the ground speed of mobile sprayer while maintaining a constant application rate, or maintaining the ground speed of the mobile sprayer while increasing the application rate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tempel (US20220167546A1) teaches varying an application rate based on weed species, weed density, and weed growth stage.
Boudreau (US20210235641A1) teaches adjusting application thresholds based on a crop’s detected stress level.
Wildt (US20220245805A1) teaches deriving an application rate from weed density and weed growth stage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights