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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-5 have been examined in this application. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 10/8/2025.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2021/0192211 by Sibley in view of US Patent Application Number 2024/0202922 by Deljkovic.
Regarding claim 1, Sibley discloses a vehicle for spraying an agrochemical to an object to be controlled, the vehicle comprising:
a photographing device configured to photograph the object around the vehicle (paragraph 51 discloses “Examples of image capture devices include cameras”);
a control device configured to make a determination as to whether or not the agrochemical needs to sprayed to the object, based on an image of the object acquired when the object was photographed (Figure 6 shows the logic steps for identifying whether an agricultural object needs to be treated); and
a spraying device configured to spray the agrochemical to the object when it is determined that the agrochemical needs to be sprayed to the object (paragraph 63 discloses liquid-based projectiles propelled from emitter 152c); and
wherein the photographing device is configured to photograph the object from a lower end of the object to an upper end of the object in a vertical direction of the object (Figure 16 shows camera 1641d configured to photograph target object 1699 from a lower end of the object to an upper end in a vertical direction), and
wherein the control device is configured to determine that the agrochemical needs to be sprayed to the object.
Sibley does not disclose the control device is configured to calculate a color hue difference between a color hue of the object in a normal state and a color hue of the object in the image, and determine that the agrochemical needs to be sprayed to the object in response to the color hue difference being not smaller than a determination value. However, this limitation is taught by Deljkovic. Paragraph 76 discloses “The CMOS sensor 304 is a colour sensor”, paragraph 77 discloses “Using a colour sensor instead of a monochromatic sensor may help to detect and measure a wider range of different pests, diseases, and plant features”, and paragraph 133-136 discloses feeding the detection controller feeding an appropriate amount of treatment chemical(s) into the main reservoir line. Sibley suggests capturing physical data such as color (see paragraph 77) as well as using perception engine 466 to classify the disease (paragraph 102, 166) and applying a treatment to a disease (paragraph 170). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sibley using the teachings from Deljkovic in order to use color sensors that can help detect a wider range of pests, diseases, and plant features.
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Sibley discloses wherein, when the spraying device sprays the agrochemical to the object, the vehicle is configured to run at a running speed that is not higher than a second maximum speed value, wherein the second maximum speed value is a highest value of an appropriate-agrochemical-spray enabling range which is a range of the running speed of the vehicle and which enables the spraying device to appropriately spray the agrochemical to the object. Paragraph 65 discloses “a dosage or amount of treatment may be applied at variable amounts by, for example, slowing a speed of vehicle and extending an interval during which agricultural projectile 152b is propelled or emitted”.
Deljkovic further teaches a first maximum value, wherein the first maximum speed value is a highest value of a clear-image enabling range which is a range of a running speed of the vehicle and which enables the photographing device to acquire the image clearly to make the determination based on the image. Deljkovic discloses a plant management system that uses image capture to analyze plants for treatment, and paragraph 78 discloses “The global shutter prevents any distortions, for example, motion blur, in the images while the vehicle is moving, In a vineyard, for example, tractors will typically go 8 to 12 km/h, and ATVs will go up to 30 km/h”.
Sibley and Deljkovic do not explicitly disclose the vehicle being configured to run at a running speed that is not higher than a lower one of a first maximum speed value and a second maximum value. However, since Sibley suggests a desire to control the speed of the vehicle to be able to apply a desired dosage of treatment and Deljkovic suggests a desire to control the speed of the vehicle to prevent motion blur in the images while the vehicle is moving, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill to choose the lower of the two speeds in in order to both capture clear images and apply the desired dosage of treatment to the plant.
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Sibley discloses wherein the control device is configured to correct the image based on a difference between a reference situation in which the object was photographed to acquire a reference image and an actual situation in which the object was photographed to take the image that is to be used for the determination as to whether or not the agrochemical needs to be sprayed to the object, and wherein the control device is configured to make the determination based on the image corrected based on the difference. Paragraph 89 discloses “sensed image data from one or more cameras may be compared to data representing a predicted image of the agricultural object. The predicted image may be derived at a precision agricultural management platform to predict a change in an image or physical appearance (or any other characteristic) based on predicted growth of an agricultural object”.
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Sibley discloses wherein the control device is configured to make the determination as to whether or not the agrochemical needs to sprayed to the object, by applying data of the image used for the determination, to a predefined learning model which is established by a supervised learning through a machine learning and which indicates a relationship between the data of the image and necessity of spray of the agrochemical to the object. The abstract discloses “computer vision and automation to autonomously identify and deliver for application a treatment to an object among other objects, data science and data analysis, including machine learning, deep learning, and other disciplines of computer-based artificial intelligence to facilitate identification and treatment of objects”.
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 4)¸ Sibley as modified by Deljkovic further teaches wherein the learning model further indicates a relationship among the data of the image, a type of pests that have occurred in the object, and a degree of progress of damage caused by the pests, and wherein the control device is configured to determine the type of the pests and the degree of the progress of the damage, by applying the data of the image used for the determination as to whether or not the agrochemical needs to sprayed to the object, to the learning model, and to determine a type and a required amount of the agrochemical based on the type of the pests and the degree of the progress of the damage. Paragraph 161 discloses collecting information including if the plant is suffering from pests or diseases and identifying damage or blemishes on the fruits to create a digital twin of the crop, and using machine learning processes and techniques to analyze the digital twin crop, identify trends, and make recommendations or predictions to growers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that an agrochemical is always sprayed to an object in Sibley, paragraph 170 discloses different treatments for rodents, diseases, pests, leaf treatments, and fruit treatments. The fact that each treatment is only applied when the corresponding problems have been detected means that the system made a determination not to apply the treatment when the problems have not been detected.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended claim limitations are moot in view of the current grounds of rejection.
Regarding the argument that the office did not rely on Deljkovic for the recited second maximum speed value, the applicant is correct, Sibley was cited to disclose the second maximum speed value. Furthermore, it is unclear how Deljkovic not reciting the second maximum speed value means that no combination of Sibley and Deljkovic would teach or suggest the last clause. The rejection explained why it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings from Sibley and Deljkovic to arrive at this limitation.
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 MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642