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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mathematical calculation, mental process, and data gathering without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculation with no additional limitations because the steps of “comparing as-planted data to post-emergence data… determining any plants that are more than a threshold distance from a centerline of a planter row; and generating a distance between adjacent plants” involve data used in a calculation. Further given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite merely a mental process because it is creating a point map without further details. Further, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite merely data gathering step used in calculation because it is acquiring as-planted data, identifying planter rows and collecting images. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed limitations are merely calculations to arrive at an answer. The processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, could potentially be applied using a pen and paper as a mental process. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed limitations do not integrate the mathematical procedure into a practical application.
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 28), if so, ask "what else is there in the claims?" to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.
The first step I Prong One of Step One (Step 2A) to determine patent eligibility requires the determination of whether the claims at issue are directed to an enumerated patent ineligible concept.
Prong (1) requires the determination of (a) the specific limitations in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea and (b) determining whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated.
The enumerated patent ineligible concepts comprising:
(a) Mathematical Concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic
principles / practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules/ instructions) and
(c) Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 20 recites steps for generating a distance between adjacent plants. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data gathering step, i.e. acquiring as-planted data identifying planter rows and collecting images, do not add a meaningful limitation to the system, method or computer readable medium as it is insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity and is nothing more than generally linking the product to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, this judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 20 only recites limitations directed at mathematical calculation and data gathering. It is not integrated into any practical application.
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, 9, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redden et al (US20180121725, hereinafter “Redden”)
Claim 1. Redden teaches A method for evaluating post-emergence crop stands, (Abstract “determine a value corresponding to whether or not a plant is present or absent in a particular location and is referred to as a plant presence value.”) comprising: collecting images of an area of interest; ([0002] “collecting the field data, such as images of plants or crops growing in the field.”) geo-referencing the collected images; ([0004] “The plant presence values are aggregated using the position data associated with each instance of field data”) processing the collected images to isolate individual plants within the collected images; ([0023] “field data 102 is any type of data capable of being used to identify or differentiate individual plants in a seed line captured, collected, or otherwise obtained by sensor 210. For example, field data 102 can be thermal image data, color image data,”) and determining at least one plant characteristic for each individual plant within the collected images. ([0031] “leaf surface area,”)
Claim 4. Redden teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising performing a triangulation routine. ([0019] “using triangulation”)
Claim 9. Redden teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising counting each plant within the collected images to determine a stand count. ([0070] “allows in depth visual analysis, such as stand count,”)
Claim 11. Redden teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising merging collected images with geo-referenced as- planted data. ([0002] “field data can be mapped to the grower's planting records in order to provide the grower with information for the correct genotype and its respective location in the field.”)
Claim 13. Redden teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying volunteer plants and weeds. ([0037] “process field data 102 so as to separately identify weed presence for tabulation of the correct “desired” plant presence value and/or the weed plant presence value.”)
Claim 15. Redden teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: collecting imagery of the area of interest at a second point in time; ([0019] “comparison to other images to account for changes in time (e.g. synchronically).”) and overlaying the collected imagery from the second point in time with the collected imagery. ([0019] “Each image can be analyzed independently (diachronically) and/or in comparison to other images to account for changes in time (e.g. synchronically).”)
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 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.
Claims 2, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redden et al (US20180121725, hereinafter “Redden”) and in view of Koch et al ( US20200060056, hereinafter “Koch”)
Claim 2. Redden teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one plant characteristic is selected from surface area, ([0031] “leaf surface area,”) and color. ([0031] “green pixels in the field data,”)
Redden does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one plant characteristic is selected from leaf length, orientation,
Koch teaches wherein the at least one plant characteristic is selected from leaf length,([0027] “leaves having a threshold length)”) orientation, ([0046] “orientation of leaves”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redden to have determine plant characteristics such as leaf length and orientation as taught by Koch to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to (Koch [0002] “ have increased the potential economic benefits of planting fields at the optimal population”)
Claim 10. Redden and Koch teach The method of claim 2,
Redden does not explicitly teach further comprising comparing leaf length and surface area.
Koch teaches further comprising comparing leaf length and surface area. [0047] “amount of shading (e.g., percentage of surface area) of the plant… shading index may be determined by determining whether there is overlap between leaves of the plant of interest and of any adjacent plants having greater heights than the plant of interest (e.g., based on the leaf length”)
Claim 12. Redden teaches The method of claim 1,
Redden does not explicitly teach further comprising merging collected images with geo-referenced harvest data.
Koch teaches further comprising merging collected images with geo-referenced ([0051] “the relative position of plants or plant features (e.g., stalks, leaves) in the images captured in the process 300 (e.g., three-dimensional or two-dimensional images) may be analyzed”) harvest data. [0028] “yield data from prior seasons”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redden to have merging images with georeferenced harvest data as taught by Koch to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to (Koch [0002] “ have increased the potential economic benefits of planting fields at the optimal population”)
Claims 3, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redden et al (US20180121725, hereinafter “Redden”) and in view of Wu et al ( US20190150357, hereinafter “Wu”)
Claim 3. Redden teaches The method of claim 1,
Redden does not explicitly teach wherein processing the collected images comprises adjusting color levels within the collected images to isolate a plant color of interest.
Wu teaches wherein processing the collected images comprises adjusting color levels within the collected images to isolate a plant color of interest. ([0107] “to enhance green (e.g. to detect weeds or crops), yellow (e.g. to detect residue) or other colors (e.g. to detect solid fertilizer, dyed spray), lens filters or software filters (e.g. Matlab or Java libraries color enhancement functions, manipulating the pixels and luminosity) are used to sharpen the contrast between the desired color and other colors, and then select the desired color itself.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redden to have adjusting color levels to isolate a plant color of interest as taught by Wu to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because (Wu [0004] “monitoring, control, correlation analysis is performed to determine best practices to improve crop yield, preserve the land, save water, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals in each crop field area.”)
Claim 14. Redden teaches The method of claim 1,
Redden does not explicitly teach further comprising identifying late emerged plants.
Wu teaches further comprising identifying late emerged plants. ([0121] “there are methods to detect other forms of … leaf retardation or unexpected shape or stunted height.”)
Claim 20. Redden teaches A method for comparing as-planted data to post-emergence data, (Abstract “determine a value corresponding to whether or not a plant is present or absent in a particular location and is referred to as a plant presence value.”) comprising: acquiring as-planted data from a field computing device; ([0002] “field data can be mapped to the grower's planting records in order to provide the grower with information for the correct genotype and its respective location in the field.”) identifying planter rows for each implement pass; ([0015] “identifying … a seed line, which may also be referred to as a row.”) assigning plants to a planter row and implement pass; ([0046]“plant presence values from seed line 302a, seed line 302b, seed line 302c, seed line 302d, and seed line 302e on that row,”) and generating a distance between adjacent plants. ([0045] “identifying gaps from plant presence values 104 …gaps between them typically have the same length,”)
Redden does not explicitly teach creating a point map of individual plant location from collected images; determining any plants that are more than a threshold distance from a centerline of a planter row;
Wu teaches creating a point map ([0052] “Images from adjacent or near adjacent image sensor units 50 are stitched together to map the terrain or crop row 12”) of individual plant location from collected images; (Fig. 5 shows the map of the terrain which shows plant location [0102] “plants 10.”) determining any plants that are more than a threshold distance from a centerline of a planter row; ([0100]“Once the crop row 12 is identified, anything that is not on a crop row is classified as a “weed” and is sprayed. The average width of a crop row can be entered by the operator before driving through the field, and anything that is not within, say, one or two standard deviations from a center/midpoint of the width would be sprayed.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redden to have creating a point map and determining if the plants are more than a distance from the centerline of the plant row as taught by Wu to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because (Wu [0004] “monitoring, control, correlation analysis is performed to determine best practices to improve crop yield, preserve the land, save water, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals in each crop field area.”)
Claims 5-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redden et al (US20180121725, hereinafter “Redden”) and in view of Li et al (NPL “An Overlapping-Free Leaf Segmentation Method for Plant Point Clouds”, hereinafter “Li”)
Claim 5. Redden teaches The method of claim 4,
Redden does not explicitly teach further comprising defining a pixel threshold wherein a triangle with a side with a pixel range below the pixel threshold is considered part of a plant and a triangle with a side with pixel range above the pixel threshold is considered background.
Li teaches further comprising defining a pixel threshold wherein a triangle with a side (fig. 17 “ triangulation result for a segmented individual leaf”) with a pixel range below the pixel threshold is considered part of a plant and a triangle with a side with pixel range above the pixel threshold is considered background. (Fig. 17 “threshold the image of (e) into a binary image (f) that only contains the leaf foreground pixels”)
PNG
media_image1.png
657
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redden to have triangulation to segment the leaf as foreground separate from the background as taught by Li to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Li Abstract “to provide immediate monitoring for plant growth status to guarantee the output.”)
Claim 6. Redden teaches The method of claim 4,
Redden does not explicitly teach further comprising defining a threshold distance within a triangle with a side with a distance below the threshold distance is considered part of a plant and a triangle with a side with a distance above the threshold distance is considered background.
Li teaches further comprising defining a threshold distance within a triangle with a side with a distance below the threshold distance is considered part of a plant and a triangle with a side with a distance above the threshold distance is considered background. (Fig. 17 “The ground truth of leaf length and width can also be fixed by finding the bounding box of the leaf contour”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redden to have a distance below a threshold to be considered the plant and outside that distance is background as taught by Li to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Li Abstract “to provide immediate monitoring for plant growth status to guarantee the output.”)
Claim 7. Redden and Li teach The method of claim 5,
Redden does not explicitly teach further comprising removing background from the collected images.
Li teaches further comprising removing background from the collected images. (Fig. 17 “finally threshold the image of (e) into a binary image (f) that only contains the leaf foreground pixels”)
Claim 16. Redden teaches A method for evaluating post emergence crops, (Abstract “determine a value corresponding to whether or not a plant is present or absent in a particular location and is referred to as a plant presence value.”) comprising: capturing images of an area of interest at a first point in time; ([0002] “collecting the field data, such as images of plants or crops growing in the field.”) geo-referencing the images with as-planted data; ([0004] “The plant presence values are aggregated using the position data associated with each instance of field data”) processing the images to isolate individual plants within the images; ([0023] “field data 102 is any type of data capable of being used to identify or differentiate individual plants in a seed line captured, collected, or otherwise obtained by sensor 210. For example, field data 102 can be thermal image data, color image data,”) generating at least one crop characteristic for each individual plant; ([0031] “leaf surface area,”) identifying a location for each individual plant; ([0004] “The plant presence values are aggregated using the position data associated with each instance of field data”) and comparing the locations with as-planted data of expected plant locations. ([0002] “field data can be mapped to the grower's planting records in order to provide the grower with information for the correct genotype and its respective location in the field.”)
Redden does not explicitly teach modeling the surface of the individual plants;
Li teaches modeling the surface of the individual plants; (fig. 17 “ triangulation result for a segmented individual leaf”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redden to have modeling the surface of plants as taught by Li to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Li Abstract “to provide immediate monitoring for plant growth status to guarantee the output.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redden et al (US20180121725, hereinafter “Redden”) and in view of Sirault et al (US20140294247, hereinafter “Sirault”)
Claim 8. Redden teaches The method of claim 4, further comprising:
Redden does not explicitly teach identifying a central point of each triangle comprised of plant pixels; connecting each of the central points; and identifying a junction of two or more central points to locate a stem of the plant.
Sirault teaches identifying a central point ([0091] “the plant centre c may instead be used”) of each triangle ([0088] “triangulation of adjacent neighbouring points”) comprised of plant pixels; connecting each of the central points; ([0089] “union of the set of vertices lying within the radius”) and identifying a junction of two or more central points to locate a stem of the plant. ([0101] “Once a sharply defined stem is obtained by the above shape fitting procedure, it can be segmented into further relevant parts.” And ([0049] “ FIG. 10(a) shows tubes used to segment a stem (1010) and one petiole (1020);”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redden to have identifying a central point of each triangle, connecting the center point, identifying a junction of points to locate a stem as taught by Sirault to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Sirault [0154] “This allows meaningful inferences to be made regarding plant responses to changes in environmental conditions or responses to specific stresses”)
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redden et al (US20180121725, hereinafter “Redden”) and in view of Li et al (NPL “An Overlapping-Free Leaf Segmentation Method for Plant Point Clouds”, hereinafter “Li”)and in view of Wu et al ( US20190150357, hereinafter “Wu”)
Claim 17. Redden and Li teach The method of claim 16,
Redden and Li do not explicitly teach further comprising generating a point map of each plant location.
Wu teaches further comprising generating a point map ([0052] “Images from adjacent or near adjacent image sensor units 50 are stitched together to map the terrain or crop row 12”) of each plant location. (Fig. 5 shows the map of the terrain which shows plant location [0102] “plants 10.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
382
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Redden and Li to have generating a point map of each plant location as taught by Wu to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because (Wu [0004] “monitoring, control, correlation analysis is performed to determine best practices to improve crop yield, preserve the land, save water, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals in each crop field area.”)
Claim 18. Redden, Li and Wu teach The method of claim 17,
Redden teaches further comprising categorizing a plant growth stage for each individual plant and mapping ([0042] “plant presence heat map 500 represent different plant presence values. Plant presence values 502 may correspond to individual plants,”) the plant growth stage on the point map. ([0044] “The plant presence value threshold can be a value set empirically by a user which may vary based on plant/crop type, phenotype/genotype, stage of growth,”)
Redden and Li do not explicitly teach point map
Wu teaches plant growth stage ([0125] “processing the captured images and searching for changes… and additional crop growth”) on the point map ([0159] “image sensor are for monitoring and taking images to create (prescription) maps.”)
Claim 19. Redden, Li and Wu teach The method of claim 18,
Redden and Li do not explicitly teach further comprising identifying plants more than a threshold distance off a centerline for each crop row.
Wu teaches further comprising identifying plants more than a threshold distance off a centerline for each crop row. ([0100]“Once the crop row 12 is identified, anything that is not on a crop row is classified as a “weed” and is sprayed. The average width of a crop row can be entered by the operator before driving through the field, and anything that is not within, say, one or two standard deviations from a center/midpoint of the width would be sprayed.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Baynes et al US20190258859 teaches capturing images of crops and creating a vegetation map to identify emerged plants for crop management decisions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS IQBAL MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698