DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/07/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolb et al. (US 10,111,415).
As concerns claim 1, Kolb shows a system (Fig. 2 & 3) for monitoring a seed trench (138) comprising a vision sensor (252) disposed on a seed tube (152) at a distal end of the seed tube (Fig. 3), wherein the vision sensor is rearward facing (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 2, Kolb shows (a) a video processor (222) in communication with the vision sensor; and (b) a display (user interface) in communication with the video processor, wherein the display is configured to display images from the vision sensor to an operator.
As concerns claim 3, Kolb shows wherein the vision sensor faces a closing disk (142), and wherein the vision sensor is disposed at or below ground level during planting operations (Fig. 2 & 3).
As concerns claim 4, Kolb shows wherein the system is configured to detect one or more of collapsed trench sidewalls, seed placement, crop residue within the trench, clods within the trench, a collapsed trench, "W" trench, trench size, seed depth, closing wheel operations, and soil moisture (Fig. 2 & 3).
As concerns claim 7, Kolb shows at least one control module 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).
Claims 1-9 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 (paragraph 0040; extension 710 may be removably mounted to bracket 415, which is mounted to seed tube 232) on a seed tube (232) at a distal end of the seed tube (Fig. 7 & 8), wherein the vision sensor is rearward facing (Fig. 7 & 8).
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.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strnad et al. (US 2021/0243939).
As concerns claim 10, 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 claim 11, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 16-20 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claim 21 is 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 does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious an agricultural monitoring and control system comprising: (a) a vision sensor mounted on a seed tube at a distal end of the seed tube and configured to capture images of an open seed trench and wherein the vision sensor is rearward facing; (b) a video processor in communication with the vision sensor; (c) a control module in communication with the video processor; (d) a storage medium in communication with the video processor, configured to store images from the vision sensor; and (e) a display in communication with the vision sensor, configured to display to an operator images from the vision sensor, wherein the system is configured to detect via machine learning one or more planting conditions including collapsed trench sidewalls, seed placement, crop residue within the trench, clods within the trench, a collapsed trench, "W" trench, trench size, seed depth, closing wheel operations, soil moisture, and seed bounce, and wherein the control module is configured to send command to equipment on a row unit to correct detected planting conditions.
The prior art of record shows using machine learning to analyze data for agricultural operation monitoring. However, the prior art of record does not appear to show using machine learning to detect one or more planting conditions including collapsed trench sidewalls, seed placement, crop residue within the trench, clods within the trench, a collapsed trench, "W" trench, trench size, seed depth, closing wheel operations, soil moisture, and seed bounce that are observed by a vision sensor mounted on a seed tube at a distal end of the seed tube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Morgan fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein the vision sensor is disposed directly on the seed tube) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Morgan shows wherein a vision sensor (750) is disposed (paragraph 0040; extension 710 may be removably mounted to bracket 415, which is mounted to seed tube 232) on a seed tube (232) at a distal end of the seed tube (Fig. 7 & 8). Thus, the vision sensor (750) is disposed (indirectly) on the seed tube (232). Therefore, Morgan meets the claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights