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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendments filed on 11/17/2025 have been acknowledged accepted and entered. Previously claims 1 – 20 were pending, claims 1, 8, 11, 15 and 19 have been amended, and now claims 1 – 20 are still currently pending. Furthermore, the claim amendments to claim 11 have resolved the contingent limitation issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 15 under Ferrari; Luca et al. (US 10820478 B1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically the arguments made on page 9 paragraphs 1 and 2 specifying that the teachings of Ferrari fail to provide the features of “selecting for use in the virtual representation, and based on the determined crop residue parameter information, a parameter identifier from a plurality of visually distinctive parameter identifier that correspond to different values or range of values for the determined crop residue parameter information” and that Ferrari only teaches of the display and selection of digital reference objects such as grids and rulers, rather than crop residue parameter information, are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schoeny; Christopher et al. (US 20200355667 A1).
Upon further consideration claim 8 is being rejected based on newly uncovered prior art Schoeny; Christopher et al. (US 20200355667 A1). Because this new rejection constitutes a new grounds of rejection that was not necessitated by amendment, this office action is non-final.
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 9 and 12 -18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable over Ferrari; Luca et al. (US 10820478 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Ferrari) in view of Schoeny; Christopher et al. (US 20200355667 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Schoeny).
Regarding independent claim 1 Ferrari teaches:
Displaying one or more first images of at least a crop residue on a display, (See Col 11 Lines 35 - 67, Col 12 Lines 1-3, Col 3 Lines 32-48, Col 10 Lines 62-67, Col 11 Lines 1-34, Col 14 Lines 3-11 wherein the image (image data containing crop residue) is displayed on the image display portion (display) of the user interface)
identifying captured information in at least a portion of the one or more first images; (See Col 3 Lines 32-48, Col 1 Lines 51-67, Col 2 Lines 1-17, wherein the captured information is the field surface conditions, and surface features that are captured in the image data obtained by an imaging device)
identifying one or more representations of the crop residue in the captured information; (See Col 10 Lines 62-67, Col 11 Lines 1-34, Col 3 Lines 32-67, Col 4 Lines 1-3, Col 6 Lines 1-30, wherein corn residue, soybean, and tobacco crop residue are multiple representations of the crop residue obtained in the captured image data information)
determining crop residue parameter information using at least one of the identified one or more representations of the crop residue; (See Col 14 Lines 18-33, Col 3 Lines 32-48, wherein digital reference objects (crop residue information) are determined and are used to characterize the crop residue, therefore necessarily the digital reference objects are based on the representations of the crop residue).
and displaying a virtual representation of the determined crop residue parameter information with the display of the one or more first images. (See Col 14 Lines 18-33, and figures 4a-4d and 5a-5b wherein the digital reference objects (virtual representation of the determined crop residue parameter information) are displayed with the image ‘150’ in figure 4a).
Ferrari does not explicitly disclose selecting, for use in the virtual representation, and based on the determined crop residue parameter information, a parameter identifier from a plurality of visually distinctive parameter identifiers that correspond to different values or range of values for the determined crop residue parameter information.
However, Schoeny teaches of selecting, for use in the virtual representation, and based on the determined crop residue parameter information, a parameter identifier from a plurality of visually distinctive parameter identifiers that correspond to different values or range of values for the determined crop residue parameter information. (See ¶ 43, 44, 50 and 65 wherein visually distinctive parameter identifiers (different numerical values, as stated in the applicant’s specification ¶ 69 where virtual representations may be numerical values) are selected that correspond to different values for the crop residue (such as amount of crop residue) and are displayed in the virtual representation being the displayed crop residue map/visual indicator).
As taught by Schoeny having a virtual representation of the crop residue information with visually distinctive identifiers for the crop residue parameters allows for the crop residue information to be easily accessed and retrieved, including historical data. (See ¶ 65 wherein the crop residue information including historical data can be accessed and retrieved using the virtual representation/map). As both the teachings of Ferrari and Schoeny deal with the technical field of image processing of crop information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ferrari with Schoeny to teach of selecting, for use in the virtual representation, and based on the determined crop residue parameter information, a parameter identifier from a plurality of visually distinctive parameter identifiers that correspond to different values or range of values for the determined crop residue parameter information in order for the crop data including historical data be accessible and retrievable via the virtual representation/map.
Regarding dependent claim 2 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
Displaying the virtual representation comprises overlaying the virtual representation over at least a portion of the one or more first images. (See Ferrari Col 14 Lines 18-33, Col 9 Lines 65-67, Col 10 Lines 1-28, Col 2 Lines 41-47 and figures 4a-4d and 5a-5b, wherein the digital reference objects (virtual representations) are overlayed/superimposed over sections/portions of the image (first image)).
Regarding dependent claim 3 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
The virtual representation is at least partially transparent (See Ferrari Col 11 Lines 35 - 67, Col 12 Lines 1-3, Col 12 Lines 4-41, Col 2 Lines 41-47 , claims 3 and 4, and Fig4a wherein the digital reference object (virtual representation) is superimposed over image data, and as can be seen figure 4a the digital reference objects 152A are superimposed over the surface features 154 in a transparent manner as the surface features are still visible).
Regarding dependent claim 4 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
Overlaying the virtual representation comprises overlaying the virtual representation over only a portion of the one or more first images. (See Ferrari Col 11 Lines 35 - 67, Col 12 Lines 1-3, Col 12 Lines 4-41, Col 2 Lines 41-47 claims 3 and 4, and Fig4a wherein in Fig 4a it can be seen that the digital reference object 152A (virtual representation ) are only overlayed/superimposed over portions of the image and not the entire image).
Regarding dependent claim 5 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
Determining the crop residue parameter information comprises determining a size of one or more collections of the crop residue that has been discharged from an agricultural machine. (See Ferrari Col 9 Lines 65-67, Col 10 Lines 1-28, Col 6 Lines 1-30, Col 9 Lines 38-64, Col 4 Lines 26-34 wherein the size of the crop residue discharged from an agriculture machine is used in the determination of the digital surface feature (crop residue parameter information)).
Regarding dependent claim 6 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
The size is an amount of the crop residue in the collections of the crop residue. (See Ferrari Col 9 Lines 65-67, Col 10 Lines 1-28, Col 3 Lines 49-67, Col 4 Lines 1-3, Col 6 Lines 1-30, Col 9 Lines 38-64, Col 4 Lines 26-34 wherein the size is the size or amount of crop residue coverage in the collection of crop residue).
Regarding dependent claim 7 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
The virtual representation has a shape that corresponds to the shape of at least a portion of the one or more collections of the crop residue. (See Ferrari Col 9 Lines 65-67, Col 10 Lines 1-28, Col 3 Lines 49-67, Col 4 Lines 1-3, Col 10 Lines 62-67, Col 11 Lines 1-34, Col 3 Lines 32-48 wherein the digital surface features (virtual representation) has a shape that corresponds to the shape of the surface features including crop residue).
Regarding independent claim 8 Ferrari teaches:
Displaying one or more first images of at least a crop residue on a display, (See Col 11 Lines 35 - 67, Col 12 Lines 1-3, Col 3 Lines 32-48, Col 10 Lines 62-67, Col 11 Lines 1-34, Col 14 Lines 3-11 wherein the image (image data containing crop residue) is displayed on the image display portion (display) of the user interface)
identifying captured information in at least a portion of the one or more first images; (See Col 3 Lines 32-48, Col 1 Lines 51-67, Col 2 Lines 1-17, wherein the captured information is the field surface conditions, and surface features that are captured in the image data obtained by an imaging device)
identifying one or more representations of the crop residue in the captured information; (See Col 10 Lines 62-67, Col 11 Lines 1-34, Col 3 Lines 32-67, Col 4 Lines 1-3, Col 6 Lines 1-30, wherein corn residue, soybean, and tobacco crop residue are multiple representations of the crop residue obtained in the captured image data information)
determining crop residue parameter information using at least one of the identified one or more representations of the crop residue; (See Col 14 Lines 18-33, Col 3 Lines 32-48, wherein digital reference objects (crop residue information) are determined and are used to characterize the crop residue, therefore necessarily the digital reference objects are based on the representations of the crop residue).
and displaying a virtual representation of the determined crop residue parameter information with the display of the one or more first images. (See Col 14 Lines 18-33, and figures 4a-4d and 5a-5b wherein the digital reference objects (virtual representation of the determined crop residue parameter information) are displayed with the image ‘150’ in figure 4a).
Ferrari does not explicitly disclose determining the crop residue parameter information comprises determining a size of one or more collections of the crop residue that has been discharged from an agricultural machine, and wherein the size is an amount of the crop residue in the one or more collections of the crop residue; selecting, for use in the virtual representation, and based on the determined size, a parameter identifier from a plurality of parameter identifiers, each parameter identifier of the plurality of parameter identifier being both visually distinctive from the other parameter identifier of the plurality of parameter identifier and corresponding to a different value or range of value for the determined size.
However, Schoeny teaches of determining the crop residue parameter information comprises determining a size of one or more collections of the crop residue that has been discharged from an agricultural machine, and wherein the size is an amount of the crop residue in the one or more collections of the crop residue; (See ¶ 32, 50, 65 wherein the amount/size of crop residue in at least a portion of the field, discharged from an agriculture machine, is determined)
selecting, for use in the virtual representation, and based on the determined size, a parameter identifier from a plurality of parameter identifiers, each parameter identifier of the plurality of parameter identifier being both visually distinctive from the other parameter identifier of the plurality of parameter identifier and corresponding to a different value or range of value for the determined size. (See ¶ 43, 44, 50 and 65 wherein visually distinctive parameter identifiers (different numerical values, as stated in the applicant’s specification ¶ 69 where virtual representations may be numerical values) are selected that correspond to different values for the crop residue, wherein these values represent amount/size of crop residue, and are displayed in the virtual representation being the displayed crop residue map/visual indicator).
As taught by Schoeny having a virtual representation of the crop residue information with visually distinctive identifiers for the crop residue parameters allows for the crop residue amount/size information to be easily accessed and retrieved, including historical data. (See ¶ 65 wherein the crop residue information including historical data can be accessed and retrieved using the virtual representation/map). As both the teachings of Ferrari and Schoeny deal with the technical field of image processing of crop information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ferrari with Schoeny to teach of determining the crop residue parameter information comprises determining a size of one or more collections of the crop residue that has been discharged from an agricultural machine, and wherein the size is an amount of the crop residue in the one or more collections of the crop residue and selecting, for use in the virtual representation, and based on the determined crop residue parameter information, a parameter identifier from a plurality of visually distinctive parameter identifiers that correspond to different values or range of values for the determined crop residue parameter information in order for the amount/size of crop residue data including historical data to be accessible and retrievable via the virtual representation/map.
Regarding dependent claim 9 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
Identifying the crop residue as belonging to one of a plurality of categories, each category of the plurality of categories corresponding to a different extent of processing of the crop residue. (See Ferrari Col 10 Lines 62-67, Col 11 Lines 1-34, wherein the crop residue is identified into different categories such as corn, wheat, and sunflower, wherein the different type of category would necessarily mean a different extent of processing of the crop residue.)
Regarding dependent claim 12 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
Capturing the one or more first images by one or more first sensors. (See Ferrari Col 6 Lines 1-30, Col 6 Lines 65-67, Col 7 Lines 1-21, Col 8 Lines 55-67, Col 9 Lines 1-11, Col 7 Lines 41-57, 36, and figure 3, wherein the image data is obtained via sensors ‘104’ in figure 3).
Regarding dependent claim 13 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
The one or more first images are displayed on the display at least in near real-time. (See Ferrari Col 3 Lines 49-67, Col 4 Lines 1-3, Col 1 Lines 51-67, Col 2 Lines 1-2, Col 14 Lines 12-17 wherein the image data that is received is displayed in near real time on a user interface).
Regarding dependent claim 14 Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
Identifying a sensor providing the captured information; and identifying, based on the identification of the sensor, a category of image features to be identified in the captured information. (See Ferrari Col 6 Lines 1-30, Col 6 Lines 31-46, wherein multiple different sensors are mounted on the work vehicle at different positions, and each has a different field of view, which are configured to capture data indicative of multiple surface conditions (categories of image features) based on the positioning of the different mounted sensors).
Regarding independent claim 15, claim 15 is a system claim corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above. Furthermore Ferrari discloses the use of a display, a processor, and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory includes instructions that are executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing. (See Ferrari Col 7 lines 41-67, Col 8 Lines 1-15, wherein a memory ‘112’ in figure 3, is coupled to a processor ‘110’ in figure 3, wherein the memory includes information accessible to the processor (instructions) that is executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing, and wherein a display is used to display information).
Regarding dependent claim 16, claim 16 is a system claim corresponding to claim 2. Please see the discussion of claim 2 above. Furthermore Ferrari discloses the use of a display, a processor, and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory includes instructions that are executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing. (See Ferrari Col 7 lines 41-67, Col 8 Lines 1-15, wherein a memory ‘112’ in figure 3, is coupled to a processor ‘110’ in figure 3, wherein the memory includes information accessible to the processor (instructions) that is executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing, and wherein a display is used to display information).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches:
The system of claim 16 (See Ferrari Col 7 lines 41-67, Col 8 Lines 1-15, wherein a memory ‘112’ in figure 3, is coupled to a processor ‘110’ in figure 3, wherein the memory includes information accessible to the processor (instructions) that is executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing, and wherein a display is used to display information).
the crop residue parameter information is an amount of the crop residue that is discharged from an agricultural machine. (See Col 9 Lines 65-67, Col 10 Lines 1-28, 14, Col 6 Lines 1-30, Col 9 Lines 38-64, Col 4 Lines 26-34 wherein the size of the crop residue discharged from an agriculture machine is used in the determination of the digital surface feature (crop residue parameter information)), and wherein the size is the size or amount of crop residue coverage in the collection of crop residue).
Regarding dependent claim 18, claim 18 is a system claim corresponding to claim 9. Please see the discussion of claim 9 above. Furthermore Ferrari discloses the use of a display, a processor, and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory includes instructions that are executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing. (See Ferrari Col 7 lines 41-67, Col 8 Lines 1-15, wherein a memory ‘112’ in figure 3, is coupled to a processor ‘110’ in figure 3, wherein the memory includes information accessible to the processor (instructions) that is executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing, and wherein a display is used to display information).
Claims 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari; Luca et al. (US 10820478 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Ferrari) in view of Schoeny; Christopher et al. (US 20200355667 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Schoeny) further in view of Posselius; John et al. (US 20180336410 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Posselius).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches of:
The virtual representation comprises a representation of at least one of the first indication and the second indication. (See Ferrari Col 14 Lines 18-33 wherein the digital reference objects (virtual representation) comprise visual references characterizing the surface features such as the indications of whether or not the crop residue satisfies a length threshold (the crop residue length threshold being taught by Posselius)).
Ferrari in view of Schoeny does not explicitly disclose a first indication of a first portion of the plurality of crop residue that satisfies a predetermined threshold for a length of the crop residue, and a second indication of at least a second portion of the plurality of crop residue that does not satisfy the predetermined threshold for the length of the crop residue.
However, Posselius teaches of a first indication of a first portion of the plurality of crop residue that satisfies a predetermined threshold for a length of the crop residue, and a second indication of at least a second portion of the plurality of crop residue that does not satisfy the predetermined threshold for the length of the crop residue. (See ¶ 58 wherein the crop residue size (length) is compared to a predetermined threshold and wherein there is identification/indication of whether the size threshold is satisfied or not).
As taught by Posselius using a length/size threshold to categorize the crop residue allows for the crop residue to be categorized into sections that are capable of intercepting rain drops. (See ¶ 58 wherein the crop residue is categorized via the use of length/size thresholds which are used to determine if sections of the crop residue are capable of intercepting rain drops). As both the teachings of Ferrari in view of Schoeny and Posselius deal with the technical field of image processing of crop residue it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ferrari in view of Schoeny with Posselius to teach of a first indication of a first portion of the plurality of crop residue that satisfies a predetermined threshold for a length of the crop residue, and a second indication of at least a second portion of the plurality of crop residue that does not satisfy the predetermined threshold for the length of the crop residue in order for the categorizations to allow for analysis of whether or not different sections of crop residue are capable of intercepting rain drops and wherein this categorization/characterization of the crop residue can be displayed using the teachings of Ferrari.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Ferrari in view of Schoeny and Posselius teaches of:
Comprising determining the second indication of at least the second portion of the plurality of crop residue that does not satisfy the predetermined threshold for the length of the crop residue, wherein the second indication identifies a first group of the second portion of the crop residue that is below the predetermined threshold for the length of the crop residue and a second group of the second portion of the crop residue that is above the predetermined threshold for the length. (See Posselius ¶ 58 wherein the crop residue length/size is compared to a threshold and wherein further portioning of the crop residue and comparison to a threshold would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it would allow for further categorization of the crop residue).
Regarding dependent claim 20, claim 20 is a system claim corresponding to claim 10. Please see the discussion of claim 10 above. Furthermore Ferrari discloses the use of a display, a processor, and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory includes instructions that are executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing. (See Ferrari Col 7 lines 41-67, Col 8 Lines 1-15, wherein a memory ‘112’ in figure 3, is coupled to a processor ‘110’ in figure 3, wherein the memory includes information accessible to the processor (instructions) that is executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing, and wherein a display is used to display information).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari; Luca et al. (US 10820478 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Ferrari) in view of Schoeny; Christopher et al. (US 20200355667 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Schoeny) further in view of Christiansen; Martin et al. (US 20220369552 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Christiansen).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Ferrari in view of Schoeny teaches of:
The system of claim 15 (See Ferrari Col 7 lines 41-67, Col 8 Lines 1-15, wherein a memory ‘112’ in figure 3, is coupled to a processor ‘110’ in figure 3, wherein the memory includes information accessible to the processor (instructions) that is executed by the processor to carry out the crop residue image processing, and wherein a display is used to display information).
Ferrari in view of Schoeny does not explicitly disclose determine an extent a plurality of the crop residue has been processed by an operation of the agricultural machine.
However, Christiansen teaches of determine an extent a plurality of the crop residue has been processed by an operation of an agricultural machine (See ¶ 14 wherein a process is done of, monitoring (determining an extent) the crop residue being spread (processed) by the agricultural machine).
As taught by Christiansen monitoring or determining an extent of crop residue that has been processed by the agriculture machine allows for analysis of relative distribution being done by the spreader tool on the agriculture machine. (See ¶ 14 wherein the relative distribution of the crop residue being processed by the agriculture machine is done by monitoring or determining the extent of crop residue being processed by the agriculture machine). As both the teachings of Ferrari in view of Schoeny and Christiansen deal with the technical field of image processing of crop residue it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ferrari In view of Schoeny with Christiansen to determine an extent a plurality of the crop residue has been processed by an operation of the agricultural machine in order for analysis of relative distribution to be done.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ/ /John M Villecco/
Examiner, AU 2661 Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661