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 .
Status of Application
This final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment received by the Office on 02-DEC-2025. Claims 11 and 14-21 have been presented in the application, of which, claim 11 is currently amended, claims 14-21 are original/previously presented. Claims 1-10, 12, 13 are cancelled. Accordingly, pending claims 11 and 14-21 are addressed herein.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02-DEC-2025 has been entered. Claims 11 and 14-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-10, Applicant argues that Gall does not teach the sentinel plant implement action based on a function including the first and second (sentinel) plant characteristics as variables where the first and second plant characteristics are from a first plant genotype and a different second plant genotype. The claim 11 amendment has necessitated a new prior art combination, and therefore the arguments are no longer applicable.
On page 11, Applicant argues that for claim 14, Blank does not teach the claim limitations because the ratio is not two plant characteristics, but is a ratio of a volumetric or mass measure of plants. The examiner disagrees. Based on independent claim 1 and the limitations of claim 14, the “plant characteristic” is not further defined. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a characteristic can be a quantitative measurement. The rejection in further detail can be seen below.
On page 12-13, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach claim 19’s “wherein the first and second sentinel plant characteristics include a leaf area response of a nitrophilic and a non-nitrophilic sentinel plant respectively”. The examiner disagrees. The claim amendment has changed the scope of independent claim 11 to include weeds as the second (sentinel) plant. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are a variety of weeds that are non-nitrophilic that, by happenstance, would appear in a field of crop. An example of these weed varieties are found in the prior art reference Moreau et al.
On page 13-14, Applicant argues that the teachings of Xu have absolutely nothing to do with the core concepts of the disclosure. The examiner disagrees. “Generally known” crop yield interventions are directly related to crop processing. The rejection for claim 21 is upheld.
Applicant also argues on pages 14-15 that Gall does not teach a moisture level response of the first sentinel plant and the second sentinel plant, wherein the first and second sentinel plants have root structures at different depths. The examiner disagrees. Gall teaches analysis of responses to water, and more detail has been added to the rejection to make it clearer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that corn and weeds have different root depths; one would also recognize that root depths vary by individual plant and the first and second plants having root structures of different depths can occur due to mere happenstance.
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.
Claim 1, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gall (US 20170223947 A1) in view Aronov (US 20200396976 A1) and in further view of Blank et al. (US 20210243950 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Gall teaches: A method of controlling an implement operating on a surface, the method comprising: sensing a first sentinel plant characteristic of a first sentinel plant (Paragraph [47], "system 10 traverses the field collecting the image data, e.g., the location of each color and NIR image data collected, and then communicating the data to the data processing system 38"); sensing a second sentinel plant characteristic of a second sentinel plant (Paragraph [30], "2) acquire various types of image data of each plant, or selected groups of plants (e.g., two-dimensional (2D) image data, three-dimensional (3D) image data and line-scan image data)") wherein the first and second sentinel plant characteristics are from a first plant genotype and a different second plant genotype, respectively (element 8C; Paragraph [79]; another interpretation is Paragraph [64], “For example, in various embodiments, the system 10 can be utilized to provide information regarding such things as…weed pressures”); generating with the at least one sensor first and second sentinel plant characteristic signals indicative of the first and second sentinel plant characteristics; receiving the first and second sentinel plant characteristic signals with a control system (Paragraph [64], “As described above, the system 10 can utilize data acquired/captured/collected from the imaging devices 18 and other components of the analytics suite 16, e.g., the LIDAR 19, the ion selective electrodes 24, the optical and/or electrical conductivity sensors 24, the DNA detection sensors 24, to not only identify and count the plants 46 in a field 82, but to analyze the plants 46 in real-time as the system 10 moves through the field 82”); automatically determining an implement action based on a function including the first and second sentinel plant characteristics as variables (Paragraph [30], "6) determine, in real-time, a desired course of action based on the analysis"); and automatically controlling the implement to execute the implement action (Paragraph [30], "7) carryout the determined course of action"; Paragraph [40], "Furthermore, the system 10 and/or analytics suite 16 can incorporate any other analytical and scientific device, subsystem, apparatus, mechanism or tool disposed on or mounted/connected to the mobile platform 14 for carrying out any desired course of action determined by such data analysis")
While Gall teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
a sentinel plant
wherein the function is configured such that the implement action is at least in part based on each of the first and second sentinel plant characteristics of the first plant genotype and the different second plant genotype, respectively
at least in part based on each of the first and second sentinel plant characteristics of the first plant genotype and the different second plant genotype, respectively
However, Aronov teaches: a sentinel plant (Figure 4, 5, 6; Paragraph [11], "sentinel plants in an agricultural field").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply technique taught by Aronov to the prior art automated crop analysis and treatment system taught by Gall. That is, it would have been obvious to modify the automated crop analysis and treatment system of Gall with the incorporation of the plants being sentinel plants, by applying the technique taught by Aronov. Application of the technique to the prior art automated crop analysis and treatment system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an automated crop analysis and treatment system that determines an implement action based on a characteristic of a sentinel plant.
While Gall in view of Aronov teaches the limitations as stated above, they do not expressly disclose:
wherein the function is configured such that the implement action is at least in part based on each of the first and second sentinel plant characteristics of the first plant genotype and the different second plant genotype, respectively
at least in part based on each of the first and second sentinel plant characteristics of the first plant genotype and the different second plant genotype, respectively
However, Blank et al. teaches: wherein the function is configured such that the implement action is at least in part based on each of the first and second sentinel plant characteristics of the first plant (element “crop”) genotype (Paragraph [63-65], “For instance, the crop characteristics obtained at block 330 can indicate that the crop and/or weeds should be at a particular emergence stage. In one example, this can represent crop/weed dry up characteristics prior to harvest. This can be utilized to differentiate crops and weeds, and is represented by block 332… Of course, other crop characteristics can be obtained as well. This is represented by block 336. At block 338, the images collected at block 332 are classified to obtain a georeferenced weed map. For example, the classification can utilize a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). In one example, a crop mask is applied on the NDVI to obtain better crop development monitoring.”) and the different second plant (element “weed”; at least Paragraph [65], “In another example, weed/crop identifying characteristics can include reflectance spectra (block 342), leaf shape information (block 344), population texture (block 346), plant height (block 348), etc. Of course, the images can be classified in other ways as well”) genotype, respectively (Paragraph [110]; Figure 8B; element 826) … at least in part based on each of the first and second sentinel plant characteristics of the first plant genotype and the different second plant genotype, respectively (Figure 8B; element 828)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the treatment system based on analysis of sentinel plants of Gall and Aronov, to include the crop and weed comparison and analysis, as taught by Blank et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a crop treatment system based on crop analysis, involving analyzing crops and weeds.
Regarding claim 14, while Gall in view of Aronov and in further view of Blank et al. teaches the limitation set forth above according to claim 11, including a method for a work vehicle being controlled based on sentinel plant data (rejected base claim 11). Gall and Aronov do not expressly teach:
wherein the function is a ratio wherein a numerator is derived from the first sentinel plant characteristic and a denominator is derived from the second sentinel plant characteristic
However, Blank et al. teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein the function is a ratio wherein a numerator is derived from the first sentinel plant characteristic and a denominator is derived from the second sentinel plant characteristic (Paragraph [87], “In one example, logic 652 includes crop/weed ratio determination logic 652 configured to detect the ration of weed seeds to crop material being harvested”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the treatment system based on analysis of sentinel plants of Gall, Aronov, and Blank et al. to include the crop/weed ratio, as taught by Blank et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a crop treatment system based on crop analysis, including calculating a crop/weed ratio.
Regarding claim 15, while Gall in view of and in further view of Blank et al. a teaches the limitation set forth above according to claim 11, (rejected base claim 11), Gall further teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein the first sentinel plant characteristic comprises an image of the first sentinel plant (Figure 5, 6; element 110; Paragraph [76]), the image including information representative of at least one of a stressor or a magnitude of the stressor of the first sentinel plant or of a response of the plant to the stressor (Paragraph [58-59, 76], "execution of the plant analytics software can determine such plant information as vegetative index, Leaf Area Index (LAI), Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI), stand count, and/or any other indicator of plant health or plant performance").
Regarding claim 16, while Gall in view of Aronov and in further view of Blank et al. teaches the limitation set forth above according to claim 15, (rejected base claim 15), Gall further teaches: wherein the first sentinel plant characteristic comprises at least one of varying intensities of electromagnetic response generated by the first sentinel plant or a plant growth rate that correspond to the magnitude of the stressor (Paragraph [58-59], "NDVI values”; interpreting this as the sentinel plant characteristic not comprising a plant growth rate, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim per “or” includes the sentinel plant characteristic comprising only needing at least one of varying intensities…).
Regarding claim 17, while Gall in view of Aronov and in further view of Blank et al. teaches the limitation set forth above according to claim 11 (rejected base claim 11), Gall further teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein the first sentinel plant characteristic comprises a chemical marker generated by the first sentinel plant (Paragraph [36])
Regarding claim 20, while Gall in view of Aronov and in further view of Blank et al. teaches the limitation set forth above according to claim 11 (rejected base claim 11), Gall further teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein the first and second sentinel plant characteristics include a moisture level response of the first sentinel plant and the second sentinel plant (Paragraph [59], “For example, in various implementations, low NDVI values, i.e., low ratio values, indicate responses for soil, water”), wherein the first (elements CORN) and second sentinel plants have root structures of different depths (Paragraph [64], “For example, in various embodiments, the system 10 can be utilized to provide information regarding such things as…weed pressures”; a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that corn and weeds have different root depths; one would also recognize that root depths vary by individual plant and the first and second plants having root structures of different depths can occur due to mere happenstance).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gall (US 20170223947 A1) in view Aronov (US 20200396976 A1) and in further view of Blank et al. (US 20210243950 A1) and in further view of Rickard (TW 202119907 A).
Regarding claim 18, while Gall in view of Aronov and in further view of Blank et al. teaches the limitation set forth above according to claim 11, (rejected base claim 11), including an implement carrying out an action based on sensed sentinel plant characteristics.
While Gall teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein the implement includes an actuator and the implement action comprises apply a substance under rate control of the actuator
However, Rickard teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein the implement includes an actuator and the implement action comprises apply a substance under rate control of the actuator (Paragraph [28])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the technique taught by Rickard to the prior art automated crop analysis and treatment system taught by Gall in view of Aronov and in further view of Blank et al. That is, it would have been obvious to modify the automated crop analysis and treatment system of Gall with the incorporation of the controllable delivery volume by application nozzle utilizing a pneumatic or hydraulically actuated valve by applying the technique taught by Rickard. Application of the technique to the prior art automated crop analysis and treatment system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an automated crop analysis and treatment system with an implement and the implement action comprises spraying a substance through controllable delivery volume by application nozzle utilizing a pneumatic or hydraulically actuated valve.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gall (US 20170223947 A1) in view Aronov (US 20200396976 A1) and in further view of Blank et al. (US 20210243950 A1) and in further view of Moreau, Milard, Munier-Jolain (“A plant nitrophily index based on plant leaf area response to soil nitrogen availability”, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33:8090815, July 2014 (Year: 2014).
Regarding claim 19, while Gall in view of Aronov teaches the limitation set forth above according to claim 11 including the method for controlling a work vehicle based on sentinel plant data (rejected base claim 11), Gall further teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein the first and second sentinel plant characteristics include a leaf area response (element LAI) of a nitrophilic plant (element CORN)
Gall and Aronov do not expressly teach:
and a non-nitrophilic sentinel plant, respectively
However, Moreau et al. teaches: a non-nitrophilic sentinel plant, respectively (Table 1; Page 812, “Weed species are ranked according to their Ellenberg N score (from the more oligotrophic to the more nitrophilic species; see Table 1)” A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are a variety of weeds that are non-nitrophilic that, by happenstance, would appear in a field of crop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the treatment system based on sentinel plants of Gall, Aronov and Blank et al., to include the inclusion of non-nitrophillic weeds, as taught by Moreau et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a crop treatment system based on crop analysis of sentinel plants, including nitrophilic and non-nitrophilic weeds.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gall (US 20170223947 A1) in view Aronov (US 20200396976 A1) and in further view of Blank et al. (US 20210243950 A1) and in further view of Xu et al. (US 20240046187 A1)
Regarding claim 21, while Gall in view of Aronov and in further view of Blank et al. and in further view of Moreau et al. teaches the limitation set forth above according to claim 19 including the method for controlling a crop treatment system based on crop analysis of sentinel plants, including nitrophilic and non-nitrophilic plants (rejected base claim 19), Gall, Aronov, Blank et al. and Moreau do not expressly teach:
wherein the implement action includes application of nitrogen to the surface
However, Xu et al. teaches: wherein the implement action includes application of nitrogen to the surface (Paragraph [42], “The subset of features may also include interventions generally known to affect crop yield, such as the application of nitrogen to a field portion.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the treatment system based on sentinel plants of Gall, Aronov, Blank et al. and Moreau to include the generally known application of nitrogen, as taught by Xu et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a crop treatment system based on crop analysis of sentinel plants, including nitrophilic crops and non-nitrophilic weeds, wherein the treatment includes application of nitrogen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSE TRAMANH TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. 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.
/A.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656