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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shriver (US Pub 20170131254, see IDS) in view of Stueve (US Pub 20200364843).
Re claim 16, Shriver discloses a method comprising:
accessing images of a population of sensor plants of a crop type sown in an agricultural field (Fig 1 el s110; Fig 2 el S110; Par 12, 19-20, 26, 55 – image element comprising a set of images over a time unit), the feed of images recorded by a sensor during a first time period (Fig 1 el s110; Fig 2 el S110; Par 12, 19-20, 26, 55), the population of sensor plants configured to signal presence of a set of conditions (Par 12-13, 26, 28-29, 55) and comprising a first set of sensor plants arranged in a first region of the agricultural field (Par 12-13, 26, 28-29, 55);
interpreting a first set of conditions at plants (Fig 1 s120/s140; Fig 2 s130-s160 and s150; Par 12-14, 28-29, 31-34) in the first region based on features extracted from a first subset of images (Fig 1 s120/s140; Fig 2 s130-s160 and s150; Par 12-14, 28-29, 31-34 – Fig 3/4), in the images, depicting sensor plants in the first region (Fig 1 s120/s140; Fig 2 s130-s160 and s150; Par 12-14, 28-29, 31-34);
accessing a set of target conditions defined for plants in the first region of the agricultural field (Par 15, 22, 35, 43-45 – historic images/baselines);
predicting a first health score for plants in the first region (Fig 1 s130/s140, Fig 2 s120-s140, s150; Par 13, 31-36, 43-45 – determine presence of anomaly vs non-anomaly designation) based on a first difference between the first set of conditions and the set of target conditions (Fig 1 s130/s140, Fig 2 s120-s140, s150; Fig 3; Par 13, 31-36, 43-45 – determine presence of anomaly and difference over threshold in conditions);
based on the first health score (Fig 2 s150; Par 57-58, 61-63), selecting a first treatment pathway (Fig 1 s150/s160/s176; Fig 2 s150/s176/s177; Par 57-58, 61-63), in a set of treatment pathways (Fig 1 s150/s160/s176; Fig 2 s150/s176/s177; Par 57-58, 61-63), for plants in the first region (Fig 1 s150/s160/s176; Fig 2 s150/s176/s177; Par 57-58, 61-63), the first treatment pathway configured to drive conditions of plants in the agricultural field toward the set of target conditions (Fig 1 s150/s160/s176; Fig 2 s150/s176/s177; Par 57-58, 61-63);
generating a prompt to implement the first treatment pathway during a second time period succeeding the first time period (Fig 1 s170/s177; Fig 2 s177; Par 13, 62-65, 73 – Fig 2 ‘initiate treatment’ coming after s177 and the user confirmation); and
transmitting the prompt to a user affiliated with the agricultural field (Fig 1 s170/s177; Fig 2 s177; Par 13, 62-65, 73 – user confirmation to initiate treatment); however, Shriver fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein accessing images recorded by a sensor comprises accessing a feed of images recorded by an aerial sensor.
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Stueve. Stueve discloses wherein accessing images recorded by a sensor comprises accessing a feed of images (Fig 2 el 205; Fig 3 el 301; par 33, 64, 82, 85, 98-99) recorded by an aerial sensor (Fig 2 el 205; Fig 3 el 301; par 33, 64, 82, 85, 98-99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Shriver in order to incorporate the aerial image considerations of Stueve based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance as Shriver discloses the capacity for the consideration of satellite imagery, it would be obvious to incorporate the aerial imagery designs of Stueve to allow for the capacity for the use to control the frequency and area of photographic observation of a given area through the use of an element such as a UAV compared to the reliance on the orbiting nature of the satellite, while further allowing for more dynamic control of imaging quality and type to best address issues or concerns in the imaged region, improving the designs adaptability, timeliness and cost effectiveness to determine treatment options for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claim 1, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the consideration of a plurality of stressors within the image feed subsets and the associated derivation of a pressure map used in the application of a crop yield prediction model as specifically claimed. Re claim 20, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the determination and interpretation of the pressure data timeseries in the use of the crop yield predication model. Re claim 17, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the computational consideration of a second area through a second subset of images to result in a second prompted corrective measure to be applied at the same time as the first corrective measure. Re claim 19, the prior art fails to disclose the consideration of a plurality of stressors within the image feed subsets and the associated derivation of a pressure map used in the application of a crop yield prediction model as specifically claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art was considered relevant to the scope of the claims but fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims.
Arnov (US Patents 11737443, 11602141, 10986827)
These patents were specifically reviewed for double patenting concerns but were not found to show all the limitations of the current claims as previously patented/claimed.
Hayashi (US Pub 20120298847)
Hayashi is designed to determine and address difference-based plant conditions via NDVI determination, but focusses more on a real time reflection determination, and lacks the design implementation and aerial image consideration of the current application for a precise plant by plant evaluation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights