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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states that “the electronic image data are checked”. The word “data” in this context is a noncount noun, equivalent to the word “information”, and should be used with the singular auxiliary verb “is” as opposed to the plural auxiliary verb “are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the electronic image data" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is necessary to provide sufficient antecedent basis for this electronic image data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schmitt et al. (US 2011005634 A1) in view of Pellenc (US 2006272201 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitt teaches a shoot binder to straighten and tie shoots of plants arranged in a linear row, the shoot binder comprising:
a piece of holding equipment attachable to a work vehicle, which can reach over the row ([0023]: tying machine comprises “gantry having the shape of a reversed U able to straddle a row of vegetation”);
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 ([0024] and Fig. 1: the lifting means and uses endless belts to facilitate the penetration of vegetation between them);
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 ([0025]: tying means uncoils tying-up wires “so as to maintain the vegetation in vertical position”); and
a connecting device to carry out a connecting operation for connecting the twine elements guided on both sides of the row ([0026]: binding means ties the tying-up wires).
Schmitt further teaches that the connecting device is operated such that an automatic connecting operation of the twine elements is carried out ([0023] and [0025]: automatic tying operation is performed at predefined intervals set by the operator). This requires an operator to manually control or manually set when the connecting occurs. Although it does suggest that the control is performed by “the control means of the various actuators belonging to the current practice for a person skilled in the art” ([0032]), it does not explicitly teach that this means is a control unit to identify suitable connection positions in the row located in front of the work vehicle in a direction of travel, wherein the suitable connection positions are determined based on detection of at least one gap in the foliage wall of the row and/or detection of at least one obstacle, nor that the connecting operation is carried out at these identified connection positions.
In the field of automatic control of agricultural implements performing operations on fruit-bearing rows of crops, including vine rows, Pellenc teaches:
a control unit to identify suitable operation positions in the row located in front of the work vehicle in a direction of travel ([0097-0100] suitable operation positions are determined and the implement is controlled based on these positions),
wherein the suitable operation positions are determined based on detection of at least one gap in the foliage wall of the row and/or detection of at least one obstacle ([0110-0119] and Figs. 7A-8C: the artificial vision system uses beams to detect gaps as a vineshoot Sa and a lack of a gap as a stake Pi; [0100]: control of the instruments is performed to the detected vineshoots and away from the stakes).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Schmitt with the use of the control means and artificial vision system taught by Pellenc so as to operate the shoot binder implement of Schmitt to perform connecting operations at these connecting positions. It would have been obvious to do so at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Pellenc, of ensuring that the vine implements do not operate around stakes so as to avoid damaging them as manually controlled operations would otherwise require "that the drivers of these machines be vigilant at all times" ([0015-0016]). This would not only automate the control of the shoot binder implement of Schmitt without requiring an operator to manually control or input intervals for operation, but would ensure that this shoot binder implement does not operate at unsafe locations, such as around stakes, which would risk damage to the rows or to the machine itself.
Regarding claim 2, Pellenc teaches:
wherein the control unit comprises or is connected to at least one recognition device comprising at least one sensor for recognizing at least one gap in a section of the foliage wall located in front of the shoot binder ([0110-0113] and Figs. 7A-7C: the vineshoots are detected by the artificial vision system in the manner disclosed, where a detection by one beam, followed by a gap in the foliage wall, followed by a detection by another beam is how vine shoots that are operated on are identified).
Regarding claim 3, Pellenc teaches:
wherein the recognition device is arranged in front of the automatic implement as viewed in the direction of travel ([0096] and Figs 2-3: the artificial vision system is “installed in front of” in view of the direction of travel).
This implement is the connecting device per the combination in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 4, Pellenc teaches:
wherein the recognition device is provided and designed to recognize an obstacle to the connecting device present in the row and to prevent an operation near the obstacle ([0097-0100]: operation of the implement is stopped near stakes).
This operation is a connecting operation per the combination in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 6, Pellenc teaches:
wherein 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 (see Figs. 2-3, where the emitter and receiver element are on opposite sides of the row).
Regarding claim 20, Pellenc teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to determine an inclination of the at least one obstacle relative to a reference plane ([0045-0046]: the artificial vision system detects the stakes “regardless of…their geometry (L-shaped, T-shaped, round, angled)”, emphasis added).
The prior combination does not explicitly teach that control unit further adjusts the connection positions based on the inclination. However, given that Pellenc detects the angles and inclinations of the stake, and teaches that the operating positions of the implement are determined so that it operates “as near as possible to the stakes of the fruit-bearing hedgerows without touching them” ([0100]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to adjust the connection positions of the prior combination based on the inclination of the stake based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the shoot binder implement operates closely to the stakes “without touching them in order to not damage any of them” (Pellenc, [0100]).
Claims 5, 7-9, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Pellenc as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Ellaboudy et al. (US 20210000006 A1).
Regarding claim 5, although the prior combination teaches the recognizing of a gap in the row, it does not teach wherein 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.
In the field of the detection of crops in a row for autonomous agricultural implement control, Ellaboudy teaches:
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], and [0208-0209]: as the locations of the plants and their corresponding bounding boxes are detected by the image sensors, the locations between where the plants are not located, i.e. the gaps between their bounding boxes, are also detected; [0210]: “For example, plants may include…vines (e.g., grape vines)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with the use of such an image sensor and recognition device based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of increasing the accuracy of the detection of the vine shoots, ensuring optimal implement positions are maintained. Pellenc merely relies upon beam emitters and receivers, which can be prone to false readings if intermittent, undesired objects cross the path of the beam.
Regarding claim 7, the prior combination does not teach the claim.
In the field of autonomous agricultural implement control, Ellaboudy teaches:
wherein the control unit comprises a memory unit ([0050]: processing apparatus may include memory) in which suitable operation positions and/or obstacle positions in the row are stored ([0044] and [0058-0059]: waypoints where the implement is operated are stored as “sequence of waypoints in a map of a geographic area”, and this map is stored in a map data structure; [0087]: the stored map includes obstacles such as building and fences).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the control of the previous combination with the use of stored maps including operation positions and obstacles based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of allowing the operator to ensure that the shoot binder implement operates at specific locations in the crop row, and avoids operating or crossing into obstacles. This ensures that the desired connection operations are still performed in case where inaccurate readings from the sensor system may otherwise compromise the operations.
Regarding claim 8, Ellaboudy teaches:
wherein the control unit comprises an operator interface via which at least one reference mark for determining a first operation position and at least one distance value or several coordinates are stored in the control unit to define operation positions ([0044]: user interface where the user identifies coordinates as waypoints where the implement is operated; [0079-0080]: the inputted waypoints and stored path data structure include a starting location, i.e. first operation position). Note that the initial path data structure, which includes waypoints ([0058-0059]), is generated from an initial operator control or drawing of the implement ([0044]). When the implement is a shoot binder implement per the previous combination, these stored positions would be connection positions, and functionally must include the first connection position as indicated by the operator in order to properly function along the crop row.
Regarding claim 9, Ellaboudy teaches:
wherein the shoot binder has or is connected to at least one position sensor or a displacement sensor connected to the control unit ([0052]), and
wherein 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 (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).
While Ellaboudy does not explicitly disclose that any connecting operation is prevented when an obstacle position is reached, given that Pellenc of the previous combination teaches that operation of the implement is ceased around obstacle positions, i.e. stake positions ([0100]), and given that Ellaboudy teaches that the implement control for waypoints on a path is based on prior implement control data ([0044]), it would have been obvious that the path structure and included waypoints prevent any connecting operation when an obstacle position is reached so as to avoid any damage to the machine, crops, or the obstacles (Pellenc, [0100]).
Regarding claim 18, the prior combination does not teach the claim.
In the field of the detection of crops in a row for autonomous agricultural implement control, 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]: image data is accessed after being subject to signal processing, which includes distortion correction; [0107]: obstacle detection identifies linear structures like fences).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with the use of such an image sensor and recognition device based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of increasing the accuracy of the detection of the vine shoots, ensuring optimal implement positions are maintained. Pellenc merely relies upon beam emitters and receivers, which can be prone to false readings if intermittent, undesired objects cross the path of the beam.
Regarding claim 19, Pellenc teaches:
wherein the recognition device is positioned laterally offset from the row such that the artificial vision system faces the row from the side in front of the connecting device (Figs. 2 and 3). Note that the artificial vision system per the previous combination comprises a camera system.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schmitt et al. (US 2011005634 A1) in view of Pellenc (US 2006272201 A1) and Ellaboudy et al. (US 20210000006 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Schmitt teaches a method for straightening and tying shoots of plants arranged in a linear row using a shoot binder, which comprises a straightening system for straightening the shoots ([0023-0025]),
and a connecting device for connecting two twine elements and is attached to a work vehicle, ([0026]: binding means ties the tying-up wires) the method comprising:
driving the work vehicle with the shoot binder along the row while inserting and / or guiding at least one twine element on both sides of the plants arranged in the row; ([0024] and Fig. 1: the lifting means and uses endless belts to facilitate the penetration of vegetation between them; [0025]: tying means uncoils tying-up wires “so as to maintain the vegetation in vertical position”); and
connecting the twine elements via fasteners at several connection positions ([0026]: binding means ties the tying-up wires)
Schmitt further teaches that the connecting device is operated such that an automatic connecting operation of the twine elements is carried out ([0023] and [0025]: automatic tying operation is performed at predefined intervals set by the operator). This requires an operator to manually control or manually set when the connecting occurs. Although it does suggest that the control is performed by “the control means of the various actuators belonging to the current practice for a person skilled in the art” ([0032]), it does not explicitly teach 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, wherein the suitable connection positions are determined based on detection of at least one gap in the foliage wall of the row and/or detection of at least one obstacle, nor that the connecting operation is carried out at these identified connection positions.
In the field of automatic control of agricultural implements performing operations on fruit-bearing rows of crops, including vine rows, Pellenc teaches:
identifying suitable operation positions in the row located in the direction of travel in front of the work vehicle while the work vehicle is in motion ([0097-0100] suitable operation positions are determined and the implement is controlled based on these positions),
wherein the suitable operation positions are determined based on detection of at least one gap in the foliage wall of the row and/or detection of at least one obstacle ([0110-0119] and Figs. 7A-8C: the artificial vision system uses beams to detect gaps as a vineshoot Sa and a lack of a gap as a stake Pi; [0100]: control of the instruments is performed to the detected vineshoots and away from the stakes).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Schmitt with the use of the control means and artificial vision system taught by Pellenc so as to operate the shoot binder implement of Schmitt to perform connecting operations at these connecting positions. It would have been obvious to do so at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Pellenc, of ensuring that the vine implements do not operate around stakes so as to avoid damaging them as manually controlled operations would otherwise require "that the drivers of these machines be vigilant at all times" ([0015-0016]). This would not only automate the control of the shoot binder implement of Schmitt without requiring an operator to manually control or input intervals for operation, but would ensure that this shoot binder implement does not operate at unsafe locations, such as around stakes, which would risk damage to the rows or to the machine itself.
The prior combination does not teach that these connection positions are predetermined in a sequence of connection positions for the respective row.
In the field of autonomous agricultural implement control, Ellaboudy teaches:
operation positions are predetermined in a sequence of connection positions for the respective row ([0044] and [0058-0059]: waypoints, where the implement is operated with specific control, are stored as a “sequence of waypoints in a map of a geographic area”, and this map is stored in a map data structure
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the control of the previous combination with the use of stored maps including operation positions and obstacles based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of allowing the operator to ensure that the shoot binder implement operates at specific locations in the crop row, and avoids operating or crossing into obstacles. This ensures that the desired connection operations are still performed in case where inaccurate readings from the sensor system may otherwise compromise the operations.
Regarding claim 11, Pellenc teaches:
wherein a suitable connection position is identified by a control unit comprising or connected to at least one recognition device, 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 ([0110-0113] and Figs. 7A-7C: the vineshoots are detected by the artificial vision system in the manner disclosed, where a detection by one beam, followed by a gap in the foliage wall, followed by a detection by another beam is how vine shoots that are operated on are identified).
Regarding claim 12, Pellenc teaches:
wherein the sensor is arranged in front of the connecting device as viewed in the direction of travel ([0096] and Figs 2-3: the artificial vision system is “installed in front of” in view of the direction of travel).
This implement is the connecting device per the combination in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 13, Pellenc teaches:
wherein via recognition device, an obstacle to the connecting device present in the row is recognized and the connecting device is locked until after the obstacle has been passed ([0097-0100]: operation of the implement is stopped near stakes, i.e. obstacles).
This operation is a connecting operation per the combination in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 14, Ellaboudy teaches:
wherein 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], [0133], and [0208-0209]: as the locations of the plants and their corresponding bounding boxes are detected by the image sensors, the locations between where the plants are not located, i.e. the gaps between their bounding boxes, are also detected; [0210]: “For example, plants may include…vines (e.g., grape vines)”).
Regarding claim 15, Pellenc teaches:
wherein 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 (see Figs. 2-3, where the emitter and receiver element are on opposite sides of the row).
Regarding claim 16, Ellaboudy teaches:
wherein the sequence of operation positions in the control unit is automatically calculated before and / or during the travel of the working vehicle along the row ([0044] and [0058]: the map data structure, including waypoints where implement operation occurs, are input by the operator prior to the machine’s use and/or learned from prior implement data when previously and manually controlled by the operator), wherein the following is previously stored by an operator in the control unit:
at least one reference mark specifying a first connection position in the row ([0044]: user interface where the user identifies coordinates as waypoints where the implement is operated; [0079-0080]: the inputted waypoints and stored path data structure include a starting location, i.e. first operation position). Note that the initial path data structure, which includes waypoints ([0058-0059]), is generated from an initial operator control or drawing of the implement ([0044]). When the implement is a shoot binder implement per the previous combination, these stored positions would be connection positions, and functionally must include the first connection position as indicated by the operator in order to properly function along the crop row.
Regarding claim 17, Pellenc teaches:
wherein the field of view in front of the shoot binder is recorded on an ongoing basis by the artificial vision system (see Figs. 2 and 3),
wherein the artificial vision system data is checked for the presence of a linear structure corresponding to a stickel ([0114-0119]: stickels are being interpreted as stakes, which are recognized by Pellenc).
Pellenc further teaches wherein, via the control device, a linear structure is detected ([0100] and [0114-0119]). While Pellenc doesn’t explicitly readjust the connection positions based on the detected position of the stickel, it does detect the various angles and inclinations of the stake, i.e. stickel ([0045-0056]), and teaches that the operating positions of the implement are determined so that it operates “as near as possible to the stakes of the fruit-bearing hedgerows without touching [the stakes]” ([0100]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to readjust the connection positions of the prior combination based on the position of the stickel based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the shoot binder implement operates closely to the stakes “without touching them in order to not damage any of them” (Pellenc, [0100]).
Pellenc does not teach that this artificial vision system includes an electric camera, nor that the electronic image data produced by this camera is checked by an image recognition device.
Ellaboudy teaches the use of a front-mounted electric camera ([0169]: mounted to the front) that uses an image recognition device to check whether the electronic image data produced by the camera includes obstacles, such as linear structures ([0107] and [0208]: images are analyzed so as to determine obstacles, including fences, which are recognized as equivalent to the claimed linear stickels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to use a camera and image recognition device based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of increasing the accuracy of the detection of the stakes, ensuring optimal implement positions are maintained. This gives an advantage over Pellenc, which merely relies upon beam emitters and receivers that can be prone to false readings if intermittent, undesired objects cross the path of the beam.
The prior combination does not explicitly teach that a stickel standing in the row is chosen as the reference mark for the beginning of a recurring sequence of similar connection positions. However, Schmidt teaches that the shoot tying implement is “tying vegetation, in particular vine, raspberry or similar branches” ([0002]). As is well understood and further stated by Pellenc, these vineyards are “trained and/or staked plantations” ([0005] and [0008]), in which vines are supported and grow in rows that end on either edge with a stake. Therefore, as Ellaboudy discloses that the starting waypoint for implement operation is either manually drawn by an operator beforehand, or is learned from operator’s previously manual control of the implement ([0044]: user interface where the user identifies coordinates as waypoints where the implement is operated; [0079-0080]: the inputted waypoints and stored path data structure include a starting location, i.e. first operation position), it would have been obvious that a stickel standing in the row is chosen as the reference mark for the beginning of a recurring sequence of similar connection positions. Given how rows in a vineyard start and end with a stickel, any other object being chosen would result in the shoot tying implement performing too much connecting operations at positions that are unnecessary to operate at, or at too few locations because the beginning of the row was missed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/23/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Mazzarolo (US 20220279699 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-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
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights