DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination, and Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 05/21/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 Amendment
With regards to the 112(b)-rejection made to claim 15 in the previous office action. The claim was amended to overcome the 112(b) rejection by removing the language that rendered the claim indefinite. Therefore, the amendments made to claim 15 overcome the 112(b) rejections made in the previous office action.
With regards to the 101 rejection made to claim 1-20 in the previous office action. Claim 1 was amended to overcome the 101 rejection. The amended claim recites limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the rejection to claim 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
With regards to the 102 rejection made to claims 1-9, 11, 13-20 in the previous office action. Claim 1 was amended to overcome the 102 rejection. The examiner has reviewed the amended claim and has concluded that the prior art CHAN et al. (US 2017/0336507 A1) does not explicitly teach all the limitations found in amended claim 1. Therefore, the 102 rejection made to claims 1-9, 11, 13-20 has been withdrawn. However, a newfound basis of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of CHAN as evidenced by Palla et al. (US 20230309437 A1; hereafter Palla).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, with respect to the rejections of claims 5, 7, 8, and 14 under U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. However, the examiner disagrees that one of ordinary skill in the art A person of skill in the art would understand that this description which ties the "about" language to "soil elements" or "ground penetrating radar" sensors provides the requisite guidance for determining degree of specificity that should be accorded to the term "about". As a person of ordinary skill in the art, the use of the word “about” does not give a clear indication of the bounds of the range in the claimed invention. Without clear cutoff points in the area and frequencies referenced by the applicant, the area and frequency that would fall within the claim can vary greatly to differing individuals. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection to claims 5, 7, 8, and 14 is not withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
The additional claim limitations of “a first computer having a machine learning trained model based on georeferenced data relating to soil compaction, wherein the georeferenced data relating to soil compaction includes at least one of soil probe results, penetrometer readings, core samples, volumetric moisture content, ground penetrating radar scans, and electromagnetic induction scans” and “at least one electromagnetic induction sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to soil compaction” applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond merely applying the generic computer and merely utilizing a pre-solution activity of gathering data, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application as supported by [0005] of the specification below:
[0005] The spatially-variable characteristic data may be obtained by in situ measurements, remote sensing, or sensing during field operations. In-situ measurements typically involve taking a soil probe and analyzing the soil in a laboratory to determine nutrient data or soil condition data such as soil type or soil classification. Taking in-situ measurements, however, is labor intensive and, due to high sampling costs, provides only a limited number of data samples. Remote sensing may include taking aerial photographs or generating spectral images or maps from airborne or spaceborne multispectral sensors. Data from remote sensing, however, can be difficult to correlate with a precise location in a field or with a specific quantifiable characteristic of the field. Both in-situ measurements and remote sensing may require a user to conduct an airborne or ground-based survey of the field apart from normal field operations.
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.
Claims 5, 7, 8, and 14 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.
The term “about” in claims 5, 7, 8, and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Using claim 5 for illustration, the use of “about” in this claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what would constitute as “about one square foot” and/or “about ten acres”. For example it is unclear whether half a square foot or 12 acres qualifies to fall within this range. Claims 7, 8 and 14 all utilize the term “about” in a similar fashion and thus are also rejected for using a relative term.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of CHAN as evidenced by Palla.
CHAN was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, CHAN discloses a system comprising:
a vehicle that is configured to travel over a soil area ([0024] Referring to FIG. 2, a soil characteristic mapping and planting system 200 is shown according to an exemplary embodiment. System 200 includes a ground-driven vehicle 201 and a planting device 202.”);
a location device that is configured to provide geographic location data corresponding to the vehicle ([0024]; “Vehicle 201 includes GPS receiver 203 and a ground or soil sensor, shown as ground penetrating radar unit 204.”);
at least one sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to soil compaction ([Fig. 2A] & [0024]; “Radar unit 204 utilizes ground penetrating radar to determine intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of soil 206. Exemplary intrinsic soil characteristics may include a composition of the soil material, a water property of the soil (e.g., how much water is contained in the soil and how deep the water is located), a presence of humus in the soil material, a density of the soil material, a soil material porosity, and any other intrinsic characteristics soil 206 may have.”); and
a secondary computer that is communicatively coupled to the at least one electromagnetic induction sensor and to the location device ([Fig. 2B]; Processing Circuit 221 coupled to GPS receiver 203 and Radar Unit 204), that is configured to receive the geographic location data and the data relating to soil compaction of the soil, and is operable coupled to the first computer to determine soil designated for tillage ([0024]; “Further, system 200 is configured to generate a map of soil 206 by pairing location data from GPS receiver 203 with soil characteristic data from radar unit 204.”
[0037]; “The user can then reference the created map for assistance during future soil processing operations (e.g., planting, harvesting, tilling, object extraction, etc.).”).
Although CHAN discloses a computer to generate data ([0059]; “The embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented using existing computer processors, or by a special purpose computer processor for an appropriate system, incorporated for this or another purpose, or by a hardwired system. “) and a sensor to determine soil compaction, CHAN does not disclose a computer capable of machine learning as well as the use of an electromagnetic induction sensor.
However, Palla is the same field of endeavor does teach a first computer having a machine learning trained model based on georeferenced data relating to soil compaction, wherein the georeferenced data relating to soil compaction includes at least one of soil probe results, penetrometer readings, core samples, volumetric moisture content, ground penetrating radar scans, and electromagnetic induction scans ([0213]; “In some examples, at block 640, agricultural system 300 can also detect learning trigger criteria to perform machine learning on one or more of based on the one or more functional predictive soil property map(s) 460, the one or more functional predictive soil property control zone map(s) 461, the one or more predictive soil property model 450 (e.g., one or more of 1450, 2450, 3450, and 4450), the zones generated by control zone generator 313, one or more control algorithms implemented by the controllers in the control system 314, and other triggered learning.”)
at least one electromagnetic induction sensor ([0051]; “Observation sensor system 240 may include one or more of an imaging system (e.g., stereo or mono camera), optical sensors, radar (e.g., ground penetrating radar), lidar, ultrasonic sensors, infrared sensors, electromagnetic induction sensors, as well as a variety of other sensors.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CHAN with Palla. This modification would have been obvious because both CHAN and Palla cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (surface scanning using ground penetrating radar) and it would have been beneficial to utilize machine learning for data gathering as well as electromagnetic induction sensors for gathering soil compaction data.
Regarding claim 2, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the at least one electromagnetic induction sensor is automated. ([0037]; “Controller 410 is configured to automatically determine the identity of objects beneath the surface of soil 406.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for objects beneath the surface to be automatically detected, the sensor used to scan beneath the surface is automated.)
Regarding claim 3, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the data relating to soil compaction comprises soil moisture. ([0025]; “The utilization of high-frequency radio waves enables radar unit 204 to scan soil 206 at a high resolution such that it can detect soil characteristics (e.g., soil composition, soil density), the presence of soil water 209, the depth of the soil water 209, the amount of soil water 209, the presence and type of minerals present in soil 206, the presence and amount of humus in soil 206, and other soil characteristics (i.e., intrinsic characteristics).”)
Regarding claim 4, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the soil area comprises a plurality of soil area elements, wherein each soil area element corresponds to a specific geographic location and a corresponding location associated soil compaction data value. ([0029]; “The map includes a collection of data points coupled to location information, that when processed, may be reproduced into a visual representation of the map (e.g., for viewing by an operator through a display) or a set of data and location points for use by a system controller (e.g., to determine proper seed placement).”)
Regarding claim 5, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, CHAN discloses each soil area element includes an area that is in a range from about one square foot to about ten acres. ([Fig.1]; It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the range would be within the parameters listed because soil characteristics would vary within this range and farmers would need that information when tilling/planting/etc. Typically plants are typically planted within the range of one square food to 10 acres and know the varying soil characteristics within this range in highly beneficial.)
PNG
media_image1.png
460
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses further comprising at least one ground penetrating radar (GPR) sensor. ([Fig. 2A] & [0024]; “Vehicle 201 includes GPS receiver 203 and a ground or soil sensor, shown as ground penetrating radar unit 204.”)
Regarding claim 7, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the GPR is configured to operate in a frequency range of about 10MHz to about 5 GHz. ([0025]; “For example, the radio waves may have frequencies between 300 MHz and 3000 MHz or in excess of 3000 MHz.”)
Regarding claim 8, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the GPR is configured to operate in a frequency range of about 100MHz to about 800 MHz. ([0025]; “For example, the radio waves may have frequencies between 300 MHz and 3000 MHz or in excess of 3000 MHz.”)
Regarding claim 9, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the GPR is configured to operate in a plurality of frequency ranges. ([0038]; “If a high resolution is desired, the radar unit of the system utilizes high-frequency radio waves during the mapping process (e.g., in excess of 1000 MHz). In other situations, it may be desirable to have a low resolution map created (e.g., a map indicating the presence and location of large objects beneath the surface of the soil, but not other soil characteristics such as soil composition). For example, a low resolution map may be desirable if the map will only be needed to identify large objects located under the soil's surface. If a low resolution is desired, the radar unit of the system utilizes low-frequency radio waves during the mapping process (e.g., less than 1000 MHz).”)
Regarding claim 11, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the GPR comprises a non ground-coupled antenna. ([0025]; “In one embodiment, radar unit 204 is a non-insertion soil-penetrating radar unit.”)
Regarding claim 13, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the at least one ground penetrating radar sensor is automated. ([0037]; “Controller 410 is configured to automatically determine the identity of objects beneath the surface of soil 406.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for objects beneath the surface to be automatically detected, the sensor used to scan beneath the surface is automated.)
Regarding claim 14, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the at least one sensor is configured to move in a range from at the surface of the soil area to about six feet above the surface of the soil area. ([0053]; “Referring to FIG. 7, an air-based soil characteristic detection system 700 is shown in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. System 700 includes airplane 701 having radar unit 702 and GPS receiver 703.”)
Regarding claim 15, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses a sensor support that is configured to physically support the at least one sensor ([0035]; “Mapping unit 402 includes GPS receiver 403 and a soil sensor, shown as ground penetrating radar unit 404 coupled to the housing of mapping unit 402.”),
wherein the sensor support comprises a self-propelled vehicle that is separate from the vehicle or towed vehicle that is coupled to the vehicle. ([0035]; “System 400 includes vehicle 401 (shown as a pickup truck) and mapping unit 402. Mapping unit 402 is an attachment to vehicle 401 (e.g., configured to fit into a bed of a pickup truck, towed by another vehicle, etc.).”)
Regarding claim 16, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the location associated soil compaction data comprises elevation data corresponding to the soil compaction. ([0025]; “Radar unit 204 provides feedback signals that include data pertaining to detected soil characteristics to controller 220 (as shown in FIG. 2B), where the data is processed into a three-dimensional map of soil 206.”)
Regarding claim 17, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the vehicle comprises a self-driving vehicle ([0047]; “In some instances, the planting vehicle may be at least partially autonomous and capable of navigating a predefined planting pattern based on location feedback from the on-board GPS sensor and computerized control of the vehicle's throttle and steering mechanisms.”) and is configured to traverse the soil area in a path that is defined by a coverage plan that is based on the geographic location data ([0047]; “The planting pattern is created through processing of the provided planting parameters and provided map data. The controller of the system determines where seeds should be placed according to the planting parameters (e.g., in rows, in areas having high nutrient counts, within percolation distance from a water supply, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 18, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the vehicle comprises an airborne vehicle and is configured to fly over the soil area based on self-generated lift. ([0053]; “Referring to FIG. 7, an air-based soil characteristic detection system 700 is shown in accordance with an exemplary embodiment.”)
Regarding claim 19, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, CHAN discloses the airborne vehicle is configured to fly over the soil area in a pattern that is defined by a coverage plan that is based on the geographic location data. ([0038]; “Referring to FIG. 4C, a method 420 of operating a stand-alone soil mapping system (e.g., system 400) is shown…In some configurations, the vehicle is at least partially autonomous and is capable of navigating a predefined mapping pattern based on location feedback from the on-board GPS sensor and computerized control of the vehicle's throttle and steering mechanisms.”
[0053]; “System 700 functions in a similar manner to system 200 and system 400.”
Note: Since CHAN discloses that the system 700 functions in a similar manner as system 400, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the airborne system 700 would be capable of operating in an autonomous manner.)
Regarding claim 20, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the determination of soil designed for tillage includes a compaction threshold. ([0037]; “The three-dimensional map includes location specific information pertaining to the composition of soil 406 (e.g., chemical composition, moisture amount, density, humus presence, etc.), the presence of objects (e.g., buried rocks, pipes, etc.), and other information pertaining to soil 406 up to a specified depth beneath the surface of soil 406.”
[0037]; “The user can then reference the created map for assistance during future soil processing operations (e.g., planting, harvesting, tilling, object extraction, etc.).”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the three-dimensional map taught by CHAN would depict soil compaction that is suitable for tilling as the main crux of the invention is for the purposes of agriculture. One such purpose is tilling of suitable soil.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of CHAN as evidenced by Palla and further evidenced by TROXLER (WO 2014/153263 A1).
Regarding claim 10, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally TROXLER discloses the GPR is configured to simultaneously operate in the plurality of frequency ranges. ([0009]; “The first frequency reflection measures the permittivity in a sample volume corresponding to at least a portion of both the surface and more substantially below, the second frequency reflection responds to the permittivity in a sample volume corresponding at least a portion of the shallow or surface layer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CHAN with Palla and TROXLER. This modification would have been obvious because both CHAN, Palla and TROXLER cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (surface scanning using ground penetrating radar) and it would have been beneficial to utilize low and high frequencies simultaneously. It is known in the art that higher frequencies provide improved resolution of data while lower frequencies are capable of penetrating the ground further. Therefore, gathering data from multiple frequencies simultaneously leads to better overall data.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of CHAN as evidenced by Palla and further evidenced by Rojhani et al. (A Compact TEM Horn Antenna for Ground Penetrating Radar; hereafter Rojhani).
Regarding claim 12, CHAN in combination with Palla teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally Rojhani discloses the non ground-coupled antenna comprises a horn antenna and/or an array antenna. (pg. 1, [0004]; “In this work, a compact TEM horn antenna for GPR applications has been designed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CHAN with Palla and Rojhani. This modification would have been obvious because both CHAN, Palla and Rojhani cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (surface scanning using ground penetrating radar) and it would have been beneficial to utilize horn antennas as horn antennas provide wide bandwidth, high gain, and good efficiency.
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 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 BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights