DETAILED ACTION
Applicant has amended claim 1 to correct typographical errors (Remarks, Pg. 6). Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 19, 2026 regarding drawing objections (Remarks, Pg. 6-7) have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, previous drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding pending rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered but are respectfully found unpersuasive for the following reasons.
In particular, Applicant contends that “the claims do not require any specific numerical values for the "first range" or "second range" because the ranges are functional limitations that depend on the particular physical characteristic being measured and the crop varieties being distinguished. The specification teaches that the system identifies different crop varieties based on detected physical characteristics falling within different ranges of values, which is a straightforward application of image processing and computer vision techniques well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art” (Remarks, Pg. 7-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims 18 and 20 recite the limitation “a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic” and “the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic” in lines 5-12, respectively.
The claimed “a first range of values” and “a second range of values” limitations recited in lines 5-12 of claims 18 and 20, respectively, recite a “range of values” without reciting numerical bounds, or a clear definition, and the specification does not define the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the scope of each “range of values”. Therefore, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” are indefinite because they could mean any set of values without specifying each of the claimed “range of values”, for example, making the claim scope unclear.
Therefore, based on above rationale, Applicant's arguments regarding pending rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 USC § 112 are respectfully found unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic” and “identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic” in lines 5-12 of the claim.
In order to determine the scope of each “range of values” of the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” recited in claim 18, respectively, examiner found in Par. [0010-73] of the specification of this application “identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… the first range of values of the physical characteristic is predetermined prior to the harvester moving through the field. In such examples, the second range of values of the physical characteristic may not be predetermined prior to the harvester moving through the field and can be determined while the harvester moving through the field”.
However, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” limitations recited in lines 5-12 of claim 18 recite a “range of values” without reciting numerical bounds, or a clear definition, and the specification does not define the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the scope of each “range of values”. Therefore, claim 18 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification does not define the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the scope of each “range of values”, as indicated above.
Claim 19 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 18.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic” and “identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic” in lines 5-12 of the claim.
In order to determine the scope of each “range of values” of the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” recited in claim 20, respectively, examiner found in Par. [0010-73] of the specification of this application “identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… the first range of values of the physical characteristic is predetermined prior to the harvester moving through the field. In such examples, the second range of values of the physical characteristic may not be predetermined prior to the harvester moving through the field and can be determined while the harvester moving through the field”.
However, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” limitations recited in lines 5-12 of claim 20 recite a “range of values” without reciting numerical bounds, or a clear definition, and the specification does not define the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the scope of each “range of values”. Therefore, claim 20 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification does not define the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the scope of each “range of values”, as indicated above.
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.
Claims 17-20 are 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 18 recites the limitation “identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic” and “identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic” in lines 5-12 of the claim. However, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” terms are not defined by the claim.
Par. [0010-73] of the specification of this application indicates “identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… the first range of values of the physical characteristic is predetermined prior to the harvester moving through the field. In such examples, the second range of values of the physical characteristic may not be predetermined prior to the harvester moving through the field and can be determined while the harvester moving through the field”.
However, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” limitations recited in lines 5-12 of claim 18 recite a “range of values” without reciting numerical bounds, or a clear definition, and the specification does not define the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the scope of each “range of values”, as indicated above. Therefore, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” terms recited in lines 5-12 of claim 18 are indefinite because they could mean any set of values without specifying each of the claimed “range of values”, respectively, for example, making the claim scope unclear. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 19 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 18.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic” and “identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic” in lines 5-12 of the claim. However, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” terms are not defined by the claim.
Par. [0010-73] of the specification of this application indicates “identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying a physical characteristic of the crop being within a first range of values of the physical characteristic… identifying the physical characteristic of the crop being within a second range of values of the physical characteristic… the first range of values of the physical characteristic is predetermined prior to the harvester moving through the field. In such examples, the second range of values of the physical characteristic may not be predetermined prior to the harvester moving through the field and can be determined while the harvester moving through the field”.
However, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” limitations recited in lines 5-12 of claim 20 recite a “range of values” without reciting numerical bounds, or a clear definition, and the specification does not define the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the scope of each “range of values”, as indicated above. Therefore, the claimed “first range of values” and “second range of values” terms recited in lines 5-12 of claim 20 are indefinite because they could mean any set of values without specifying each of the claimed “range of values”, respectively, for example, making the claim scope unclear. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 remain allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the following limitations as claimed:
In view of claim 1 in its entirety, the further limitations of “… capturing, by a camera mounted to a harvester, images of a crop while the harvester is moving through a crop field, to track varieties of the crop in the field;
determining, by a computing system communicatively coupled to the camera, characteristics of the crop in the images;
determining, by the computing system, whether the determined characteristics deviate from known characteristics of a first variety of the crop;
when the determined characteristics deviate from the know characteristics beyond a threshold, labeling, by the computing system, a portion of the images containing the deviating characteristics as including a second variety of the crop instead of including the first variety of the crop; and
geotagging, by the computing system, the images of the crop according to corresponding locations of the harvester as the images are capture by the camera” as recited in claim 1. Examiner was not able to find art similar to aforementioned limitations recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-17 rare dependent upon claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8am - 5pm Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights