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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 18-20 have been added in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 6/13/2025.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20311369 U1, referred to further as 369, and further in view of Ellaboudy et al. (US 20210000006 A1), referred to further as Ellaboudy.
As per claim 1, 369 discloses a shoot binder to straighten and tie shoots of plants arranged in a linear row ([0011], mobile vine cultivation machine), the shoot binder comprising: a piece of holding equipment attachable to a work vehicle, which can reach over the row (Fig. 1, machine 1); a straightening system for straightening plant shoots protruding from the row with at least part of the straightening system arranged on both sides of the row ([0045], conveyor screws for straightening the vine shoots); a twine guiding device from which at least one twine element is unwound to restrain the shoots of the plants in a foliage wall on each side of the row ([0060-0062], Fig. 1 and 7, anvil 7); and a connecting device to carry out a connecting operation for connecting the twine elements guided on both sides of the row ([0046], Fig. 1 and 2, stapler 5).
369 does not disclose that the shoot binder comprises a control unit to identify suitable connection positions in the row located in front of the work vehicle in a direction of travel and, at the identified connection positions, operate the connecting device such that an automatic connecting operation of the twine elements is carried out.
However, Ellaboudy discloses an apparatus containing a control unit (Fig. 1, processing apparatus 130) that controls a mounted implement on a vehicle at specific waypoints in the desired path of a vehicle (i.e. in the row located in front of the work vehicle in a direction of travel, [0044]) based on the detected location of plants in the vicinity of the vehicle (i.e. identify suitable connection positions, [0131]), and automatically controls the operation of the implement to perform various operations (i.e. automatically operate the connective device at these identified positions, [0044]).
Ellaboudy is analogous to the art of automatic control of an agricultural vehicle implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of 369 for automatic control for the motivation of saving time and reducing the amount of necessary operator inputs, as stated in Ellaboudy ([0126]).
As per claim 2, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ellaboudy further discloses that the control unit comprises or is connected to at least one recognition device comprising at least one sensor (Fig. 1, sensors 140) for recognizing at least one gap in a section of the foliage wall located in front of the shoot binder ([0131], [0133], as the locations of the plants are detected, the locations between where the plants are not located, i.e. the gaps, are also detected).
As per claim 3, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Ellaboudy further discloses that the recognition device is arranged in front of the connecting device as viewed in the direction of travel ([0169], sensors of perception system are mounted to the front).
As per claim 4, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ellaboudy further discloses that the recognition device configured to recognize an obstacle to the connecting device present in the row ([0105]), and to prevent a connecting operation near the obstacle ([0083], “stop due to obstacles”).
As per claim 5, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Ellaboudy further discloses that the sensor is an image sensor and wherein the recognition device comprises at least one image recognition device for recognizing a gap in the row by means of the image data recorded by the image sensor ([0131], [0133], as the locations of the plants are detected by the image sensors, the locations between where the plants are not located, i.e. the gaps, are also detected).
As per claim 7, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ellaboudy further discloses that the control unit comprises a memory unit ([0050], processing apparatus may include memory) in which suitable connection positions and / or obstacle positions in the row are stored ([0044], “sequence of waypoints in a map of a geographic area”).
As per claim 8, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Ellaboudy further discloses that the control unit comprises an operator interface via which at least one reference mark for determining a first connection position and at least one distance value or several coordinates are stored in the control unit to define further subsequent connection positions ([0044], user interface where user draws a path over a map; specific waypoints stored in the map).
As per claim 9, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Ellaboudy further discloses that the control unit is designed to carry out an ongoing comparison of the location of the shoot binder in the row determined by the position sensor or the displacement sensor with the connection positions and / or obstacle positions stored in the memory unit and, when a connection position is reached, to trigger a connecting operation and to prevent any connecting operation when an obstacle position is reached (Fig. 10, [0058], detect when the vehicle arrives at the corresponding location, and cause the implement to perform the operation based on implement control data).
As per claim 10, 369 discloses a method for straightening and tying shoots of plants arranged in a linear row using a shoot binder ([0011], method that mobile vine cultivation machine performs), which comprises a straightening system for straightening the shoots ([0045], conveyor screws for straightening the vine shoots); and a connecting device for connecting two twine elements and is attached to a work vehicle ([0046], Fig. 1 and 2, stapler 5), the method comprising: driving the work vehicle with the shoot binder along the row ([0011], operator of the machine manually drives the vehicle along the row) while inserting and / or guiding at least one twine element on both sides of the plants arranged in the row ([0060-0062], plate shaped elements 7b and 7c of the anvil 7 guide threads); and connecting the twine elements via fasteners at several connection positions ([0046], stapler 5 connects the elements).
369 does not disclose identifying suitable connection positions in the row located in the direction of travel in front of the work vehicle while the work vehicle is in motion and immediately connecting the twine elements at the identified connection positions; and connecting the twine elements in each case when connection positions are reached, which are predetermined in a sequence of connection positions for the respective row.
Ellaboudy discloses a control unit that controls a mounted implement on a vehicle at specific waypoints in the desired path of a vehicle (i.e. in the row located in front of the work vehicle in a direction of travel, [0044]) based on the detected location of plants in the vicinity of the vehicle (i.e. identify suitable connection positions, [0131]), and automatically controls the operation of the implement to perform various operations (i.e. automatically operate the connective device at these identified positions, [0044]). Ellaboudy additionally discloses automatically operating an implement when predetermined waypoints in a sequence of waypoints are reached (i.e. connecting the twine elements in each case when connection positions are reached, which are predetermined in a sequence of connection positions for the respective row, [0044]).
Ellaboudy is analogous to the art of automatic control of an agricultural vehicle implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of 369 for automatic control for the motivation of saving time and reducing the amount of necessary operator inputs, as stated in Ellaboudy ([0126]).
As per claim 11, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Ellaboudy further discloses that a suitable connection position is identified by a control unit (Fig. 1, processing apparatus 120) comprising or connected to at least one recognition device (Fig. 1, sensors 140), which comprises at least one sensor for recognizing at least one gap in a foliage wall in a section of the row located in front of the shoot binder. ([0131], [0133], as the locations of the plants are detected, the locations between where the plants are not located, i.e. the gaps, are also detected).
As per claim 12, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Ellaboudy further discloses that the sensor is arranged in front of the connecting device as viewed in the direction of travel or its detection range is oriented towards it ([0169], sensors of perception system are mounted to the front).
As per claim 13, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Ellaboudy further discloses that via recognition device, an obstacle to the connecting device present in the row is recognized ([0105]) and the connecting device is locked until after the obstacle has been passed ([0083], “stop due to obstacles”).
As per claim 14, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Ellaboudy further discloses that the sensor is an image sensor and wherein the recognition device comprises at least one image recognition device for recognizing a gap in the row by the image data recorded by the image sensor. ([0131] and [0133], as the locations of the plants are detected by the image sensors, the locations between where the plants are not located, i.e. the gaps, are also detected).
As per claim 16, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Ellaboudy further discloses that the sequence of connection positions in the control unit is automatically calculated before and / or during the travel of the working vehicle along the row ([0044], how a mounted implement is to be used at respective waypoints via a predetermined path data structure), wherein the following is previously stored by an operator in the control unit ([0044], path drawn by a user): at least one reference mark specifying a first connection position in the row; or at least one distance value measured relative to the reference mark for the beginning and length of a recurring sequence of connection positions or several coordinates to specify further subsequent connection positions ([0098], sequence coordinates with the presented map may also associate implement control data with points along the path).
As per claim 17, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Ellaboudy further discloses that a stickel standing in the row is chosen as the reference mark for the beginning of a recurring sequence of similar connection positions ([0044] and [0098], stickle can be manually chosen by the user), wherein the field of view in front of the shoot binder is recorded on an ongoing basis by an electronic camera ([0169], mounted to the front), wherein that the electronic image data are checked for the presence of a linear structure corresponding to a stickel in an image recognition device ([0091], adjust implement control based on current image sensor for the waypoint, with the waypoint being the stickle; [0169], the data relayed about the tractor’s surroundings can be corresponding to a stickle), and wherein, via the control device, when a linear structure is detected, the connection positions are readjusted on the basis of the position of the respective stickel detected in the row ([0091], dynamically adjust the implement control data for the waypoint based on current image sensor data).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Ellaboudy teaches wherein the recognition device comprises a camera system and an image correction unit configured to correct distortions in captured images before analyzing the images for linear structures ([0063] and [0208], where image data is accessed after being subject to signal processing, which includes distortion correction).
Claims 6, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 369, in view of Ellaboudy, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Pellenc (US 20090090093 A1).
Regarding claim 6, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Neither 369 nor Ellaboudy disclose that the sensor is arranged on a first side of the row and wherein on a second side of the row, opposite the sensor, an opaque element is arranged in the detection range of the sensor.
However, Pellenc discloses an artificial vision system containing, on one hand, a transmitter unit (i.e. a sensor that is arranged on a first side), and on the other hand, a receiver unit (i.e. an opaque element arranged in the detection range of the sensor and on the opposite side), and that these two components operate on either side of the vine row ([0067-0068]).
Pellenc is analogous to the art of automatically controlling the operation of an agricultural machine for rows of vines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of 369 with the components of the vision system taught by Pellenc for the motivation of more accurately and efficiently detecting the contours of the crop in which to operate the machine on, as stated in Pellenc ([0076]).
Regarding claim 15, 369, in view of Ellaboudy, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Neither 369 nor Ellaboudy disclose that the sensor is arranged on a first side of the row and wherein on a second side of the row, opposite the sensor, an opaque element is arranged in the detection range of the sensor.
However, Pellenc discloses an artificial vision system containing, on one hand, a transmitter unit (i.e. a sensor that is arranged on a first side), and on the other hand, a receiver unit (i.e. an opaque element arranged in the detection range of the sensor and on the opposite side), and that these two components operate on either side of the vine row ([0067-0068]).
Pellenc is analogous to the art of automatically controlling the operation of an agricultural machine for rows of vines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of 369 with the components of the vision system taught by Pellenc for the motivation of more accurately and efficiently detecting the contours of the crop in which to operate the machine on, as stated in Pellenc ([0076]).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 18. The prior combination does not teach wherein the recognition device is positioned laterally offset from the row such that the camera system faces the row from the side in front of the connecting device.
In the same field of automated implements for agricultural vine operations, Pellenc teaches wherein the recognition device is positioned laterally offset from the row such that the vision system faces the row from the side in front of the cutting device ([0067] and [0072-0073] and Fig. 9, where the artificial vision system 6 is located on the side in front of the cutting device, and is laterally offset from and facing the rows when they pass beside it).
A skilled artisan would have been able to incorporate these teachings by positioning the camera sensor of the previous combination in the manner disclosed by Pellenc, namely in front of the connecting device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of the prior combination with the positioning of the vision system taught by Pellenc for the motivation of more accurately and efficiently detecting the contours of the crop in which to operate the machine on, as stated in Pellenc ([0076]).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. The prior combination does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to determine an inclination of a detected stickel relative to a reference plane and to adjust the connection positions based on the inclination.
In the same field of automated implements for agricultural vine operations, Pellenc teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine an inclination of a detected stickel relative to a reference plane and to adjust the cutting positions based on the inclination ([0076], [0094], and [0099], where the shape, position, and location of the cordon, i.e. a stickel, are detected so as to adjust the positioning of the implement around it).
A skilled artisan would have been able to incorporate this teaching into the prior combination, thereby modifying the connecting positions of the connecting device based on a determination of the stickel location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the process of the prior combination to account for the stickel in its operations based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Pellenc, of allowing the implements to operate while reducing the risk of damaging the stickel ([0076] and [0094]).
Response to Arguments
Attorney’s arguments filed on 9/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The attorney argues that '369 requires a manual operation and that the technology of '369 is fundamentally different from the present invention, which introduces an intelligent control unit capable of automatically identifying binding-specific locations in the foliage wall and actuating the connecting device accordingly. The attorney goes on to argue that the added secondary reference does not cure the deficiencies of the primary reference, because the combination relies on hindsight, and the two technologies address fundamentally different problems.
The examiner disagrees. As the applicant has admitted in the background of the invention, it is well known in the field of endeavor to perform the binding process manually, see [0007]. It is a long felt need in the industry to improve the speed and accuracy of the process, so the act of automation will increase the efficiency of the binding process and help solve the long felt need in the industry. As set forth in MPEP 2144.04 and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court has held that improvements in automation of manual processes do not generally impart patentability. Thus, it is prima facie obvious to combine the prior art as proposed as it results in the automation of a manual binding processes – one of the applicant’s goals as stated in para [0008]. Thus, the attorney’s arguments regarding the fundamental difference of the technology in ‘369 – combining automated technology with a manual process - is not persuasive.
The attorney next argues that the ‘369 teaches pushing the branches into a suitable position to enable clamping, while the instant process leaves the control unit to determine the suitable position for clamping.
The examiner disagrees. The instant claim has a “straightening” step which certainly aligns the shoots, and the step of “identifying” suitable connection positions does not preclude pushing or spacing to enable clamping. The attorney’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The use of the term “identifying” and “suitable” do not have exclusive definitions set forth in the instant specification, and are therefore given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The applicant should amend the claim to be in alignment with the arguments of record for patentable weight to be given to these features.
The attorney next argues that Ellaboudy is concerned with the location of plans relative to a vehicle’s path and does not teach the term “suitable connection position”, while the instant process identifies precise connection points within a foliage wall for the specialized operation of binding twine.
The examiner disagrees. The instant claims do not clearly define the term “suitable connection position”, and neither the overview of the invention found in the cited paras. [0010]-[0011], nor the rest of the instant specification define the term either. Claim 1 broadly introduces the term, and although the instant dependent claims analyze the foliage wall, it is not stated in the instant claims that a connecting operation is done at gaps located in such a foliage wall. Claims 2 and 11 introduce the “foliage wall” as argued by the attorney, but Ellaboudy need only detect the a “gap in a foliage wall” to satisfy the metes and bounds of these claims, which it is capable of doing per the rejection given. Therefore, the attorney’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The applicant should amend the claims to be in alignment with the arguments of record for patentable weight to be given to these features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Mazzarolo (US 20220279699 A1)
Schmitt (US 8752483 B2)
Pellenc (US 20060272201 A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACK ROBERT BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights