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 are objected to because the figures are blurry and the handwritten reference numerals are hard to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 6, line 1) “configured display notifications to an operator” should be changed to “configured to display notifications to the operator”.
(claim 14, lines 1-2) “an operator” should be changed to “the operator”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 12-14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morgan et al. (US 2020/0375090).
As concerns claim 1, Morgan shows a system (Fig. 7 & 8) for monitoring a seed trench (38) comprising a vision sensor (750) disposed at a distal end of a seed tube (232).
As concerns claim 2, Morgan shows a video processor (50 [CPU]; paragraph 0018) in communication with the vision sensor; and a display (50, 800; paragraph 0018 & 0046) in communication with the video processor, wherein the display is configured to display images (810) from the vision sensor to an operator (Fig. 12).
As concerns claim 3, Morgan shows wherein the vision sensor faces a closing disk (236), and wherein the vision sensor is disposed at or below ground level during planting operations (Fig. 2, 7 & 8).
As concerns claim 4, Morgan shows wherein the system is configured to detect one or more of collapsed trench sidewalls, seed placement, crop residue within the trench (840; paragraph 0050), clods within the trench, a collapsed trench, “W” trench, trench size, seed depth, closing wheel operations, and soil moisture (830; paragraph 0049).
As concerns claim 5, Morgan shows wherein the system is configured to detect seed bounce by comparing a seed path through images from the vision sensor to a desired seed path (Fig. 13; paragraph 0052).
As concerns claim 6, Morgan shows wherein the display is configured to display notifications to an operator of detected conditions (Fig. 13; paragraph 0052).
As concerns claim 7, Morgan shows at least one control module (50; paragraph 0021 & 0053; monitor 50 is in data communication with actuator 380; a signal can be sent to the actuator 380 to modify the position of rocker 268 and thus the height of gauge wheels 248 to place the seed at the desired depth) in communication with the display and wherein the system is configured to send commands to the at least one control module to adjust one or more of seed meter ejection, in-furrow liquid treatment, supplemental row unit down force, supplemental closing wheel down force, seed firmer deployment and down force, row cleaners, and gauge wheel load (Fig. 3; paragraph 0021 & 0053).
As concerns claim 8, Morgan shows a supplemental lighting source (740) disposed near the vision sensor (Fig. 7 & 8).
As concerns claim 9, Morgan shows a storage medium (50 [memory]; paragraph 0018 & 0040) in communication with the video processor and configured to store images from the vision sensor.
As concerns claim 12, Morgan shows an agricultural monitoring and control system (Fig. 2, 3, 7 & 8) comprising: a vision sensor (750) mounting at a distal end of a seed tube (232) and configured to capture images of an open seed trench (38); a video processor (50 [CPU]; paragraph 0018) in communication with the vision sensor; a control module (50; paragraph 0021 & 0053; monitor 50 is in data communication with actuator 380; a signal can be sent to the actuator 380 to modify the position of rocker 268 and thus the height of gauge wheels 248 to place the seed at the desired depth) in communication with the video processor; a storage medium (50 [memory]; paragraph 0018 & 0040) in communication with the video processor, configured to store images from the vision sensor; and a display (50, 800; paragraph 0018 & 0046) in communication with the vision sensor, configured to display to an operator images (810) from the vision sensor (Fig. 12), wherein the system is configured to detect one or more planting condition including collapsed trench sidewalls, seed placement, crop residue within the trench (840; paragraph 0050), clods within the trench, a collapsed trench, “W” trench, trench size, seed depth, closing wheel operations, soil moisture (830; paragraph 0049), and seed bounce, and wherein the control module is configured to send command to equipment (380) on a row unit (200) to correct detected planting conditions (Fig. 3; paragraph 0021 & 0053).
As concerns claim 13, Morgan shows a supplemental lighting source (740) disposed near the vision sensor (Fig. 7 & 8).
As concerns claim 14, Morgan shows displaying alerts of detected planting conditions to an operator via the display (Fig. 13; paragraph 0052).
As concerns claim 16, Morgan shows a GNSS unit (52) in communication with the video processor, and wherein the system is configured to record geolocations for the images from the vision sensor (Fig. 3; paragraph 0018).
As concerns claim 17, Morgan shows wherein planting conditions are corrected by adjusting one or more of planter row cleaners, supplemental row unit down force, supplemental closing wheel down force, closing wheel configuration, deployment of seed firmers, timing of application of liquid treatment, and seed meter ejection (Fig. 3; paragraph 0021 & 0053).
As concerns claim 20, Morgan shows a planting system (Fig. 2, 3, 7 & 8) comprising: a camera (750) disposed at a distal end of a seed tube (232) at or below ground level (Fig. 7 & 8); a supplemental light (740) disposed on the seed tube, configured to illuminate a field-of-view of the camera (Fig. 7 & 8); a processor (50 [CPU]; paragraph 0018) in communication with the camera configured to processes images from the camera, wherein the processor is configured to conduct image analysis to detect planting conditions including one or more of collapsed trench sidewalls, seed placement, crop residue within the trench (840; paragraph 0050), clods within the trench, a collapsed trench, “W” trench, trench size, seed depth, closing wheel operations, soil moisture (830; paragraph 0049), and seed bounce; a display (50, 800; paragraph 0018 & 0046) in communication with the camera and processor configured to display images (810) from the camera to an operator (Fig. 12) and to display notification of detected planting conditions (Fig. 13; paragraph 0052); a command module (50; paragraph 0021 & 0053; monitor 50 is in data communication with actuator 380; a signal can be sent to the actuator 380 to modify the position of rocker 268 and thus the height of gauge wheels 248 to place the seed at the desired depth) in communication with the processor configured to automatically adjust one or more of planter row cleaners, supplemental row unit down force, supplemental closing wheel down force, closing wheel configuration, deployment of seed firmers, timing of application of liquid treatment, and seed meter ejection in response to detected planting conditions (Fig. 3; paragraph 0021 & 0053); and a storage medium (50 [memory]; paragraph 0018 & 0040) in communication with the processor configured to store images from the camera.
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.
Claims 10, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Strnad et al. (US 2021/0243939).
As concerns claims 10 and 18, Morgan shows one or more additional sensors (350, 351, 352, 360, 370) disposed on the seed tube (Fig. 7 & 8). Morgan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more additional sensors includes a stereo camera and time-of-flight sensor. Strnad teaches one or more additional sensors (750’) including a stereo camera and time-of-flight sensor (paragraph 0066) disposed on a seed tube (232’). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Morgan, as taught by Strnad, to include a time-of-flight camera for the expected benefit of capturing XYZ coordinates for each pixel, which can be used to determine distance. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a time-of-flight camera in the system 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.
As concerns claims 11 and 19, Morgan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the vision sensor is an RGB camera. Strnad teaches wherein a vision sensor (750’) is an RGB camera (paragraph 0066). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Morgan, as taught by Strnad, to include an RGB camera for the expected benefit of capturing color information of the seeds and/or the trench. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using an RGB camera in the system for capturing images of the trench 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Walter (WO 2021/231159).
As concerns claim 15, Morgan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein planting conditions are detected via machine learning vision. Walter teaches wherein planting conditions are detected via machine learning vision (paragraph 0029). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Morgan, as taught by Walter, to include a machine learning program to receive images from the camera for the expected benefit of identifying conditions in the trench which are outside normal parameters. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a machine learning program to receive images from the camera in the system 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kolb et al. (US 10,111,415) shows a system (Fig. 2 & 3) for monitoring a seed trench (138) comprising a vision sensor (252) disposed at a distal end of a seed tube (152).
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-Friday 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