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 .
This office action is in response to amendments filed May 26, 2026.
Claims 61, 63-65, 70, 73, 75-76, and 79-82 have been amended.
Claims 62 and 77 have been canceled.
Claims 61, 63-76, and 78-84 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 26, 2026. These drawings are accepted for examination purposes.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: a treatment unit for treating in claim 61.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification states the treatment unit is implemented as hardware (e.g., spraying system) [0068].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 61, 65-76, 79-81, and 83-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US20150310721A1) in further view of Cutter (US20170258005A1) and Hoffmann et al. (US20220240433A1).
Regarding claim 61, Johnson teaches a plant-instance level treatment system comprising:
a vehicle having a data collection unit for collecting data on a portion of a field (The present invention enables a user to identify problems with a crop's health ... as soon as possible such that corrective action can be taken and the distress rectified … UAVs are the preferred method by which to gather data, however other sources, such as manned aircrafts, satellites, and remote sensors may also be used)([0048]);
an interface, configured to receive prior to treatment, a first parameter to be considered for treatment … a first … score threshold for said first parameter, a second parameter to be considered for treatment … a second … score threshold for said second parameter … (The received information may include one or more of following attributes of the crop ... an indication of pest damage, an indication of unwanted vegetation infestation, an indication of disease infestation, an indication of disease damage ... soil characteristics, geographic characteristics, geologic characteristics, and climate characteristics ... The received data may be evaluated and then scored ... When the score exceeds a predetermined threshold an alert may be generated ... predetermined threshold is user configurable ... parameters for determining a crop's status may be user configurable)([0026], [0027], [0028], and [0099]; a user defines parameters to monitor and associated thresholds prior to treatment);
a processor in communication with the data collection unit (all of the computer-based systems which are discussed herein, will be generally characterized by one or more processors ... Crop status analyzer and alert generator 110 may be configured to generate a crop status alert by receiving input from ... in-season data gathering sources 140)([0051] and [0054]; a computing system is in communication with data collection units (e.g., UAVs)) and configured to:
detect, from the collected data … and to calculate, during operation of the vehicle (providing an analysis and alert system that can receive real time in-season crop data from UAVs ... process and analyze it to make determinations)([0017]; data is processed in real-time (i.e., during operation of data collection units)), a first … score for said first parameter … and a second … score for said second parameter … (The data received in step 405 may then be compared with the parameters, crop status determinations, and/or benchmarks (step 425) and the comparison may be scored (step 430))([0082]).
Johnson differs from the claim in that Johnson fails to teach detecting individual plants, the score thresholds received are probability score thresholds, and treating a plants using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds for each detected plant. However, detecting individual plants, receiving probability score thresholds, and treating plants using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds for each detected plant is taught by Cutter (FIG. 3 illustrates a method for detecting and remedying current field health issues for a portion of a field ... field-specific information regarding a portion of a field is compiled ... Specific information such as moisture content, crop type, number of plants, GPS location of the field and of each plant, soil chemistry, temperature, plant size, etc., may be compiled … Method 300 then proceeds to determine the likelihood of a field health issue ... The system compares the actual height of the plant against the expected height of the plant. If the actual height deviates from the expected height by a predetermined margin, the system may determine that there is an actual health issue with one or more plants … A confidence score may be associated with the determination ... a determination as to whether each plant in a field has a health issue is made … it is determined whether a field health issue is unlikely. This may occur where the confidence score assigned in operation 304 is below a certain threshold ... The threshold may be set by a user … If it is determined that a field health issue is not somewhat likely, the method proceeds to take action)([0043], [0044], [0045], [0047], and [0050]; individual plant detected to determine health (e.g., comparing individual plants heights), confidence thresholds are received, and treatment of plants is based on confidence scores of parameters and confidence thresholds for each detected plant).
The examiner notes Johnson and Cutter teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system Johnson to include the detecting, the receiving, and treating Cutter such that the systems detects individual plants, receives probability score thresholds, and treats plants based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds for each detected plant. One would be motivated to make such a combination to improve accuracy in treating fields ([0003]; Cutter).
The combination of Johnson-Cutter fails to teach a priority matrix defining scenarios for treatment. However, receiving a priority matrix defining scenarios for treatment and treating plants based on the priority matrix is taught by Hoffmann (the present invention provides a solution by which a user receives a ranked number of application schemes covering all weed and pathogen ... ranking can be done first by ranking with regard to the number of leading or priority weeds and/or pathogens covered with an efficacy above a defined threshold ... the weed and/or pathogen specifier data further comprises information about a treatment priority and that the step of ranking the generated application schemes is further based on the information about the treatment priority ... the priority information can be provided by a user interface ... generating control data configured to be used in an agricultural equipment, wherein the control data is based on the highest ranked application scheme)([0035], [0050], [0060], and [0063]).
The examiner notes Johnson, Cutter, and Hoffmann teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system Johnson-Cutter to include the receiving and treating Hoffmann such that the systems receive a priority matrix defining scenarios for treatment and treats plants based on the priority matrix. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of reliably mixing treatments to treat a spectrum of issues ([0003]; Hoffmann).
Regarding claim 65, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann the system in claim 61, further comprising a sensor in communication with the processor to assist the processor in detecting said at least one plant (Cutter - unmanned aerial vehicle, may be identified as having a camera capable of providing the requested images with additional monitoring)([0052]).
Regarding claim 66, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 65, wherein said sensor comprises a lidar or a chlorophyll detection sensor (Cutter - the mobile-monitoring device 102 may send a scanning signal 104 (such as a LIDAR scanning signal)([0022]; a LIDAR sensor is used in LIDAR scanning).
Regarding claim 67, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 65, wherein said sensor comprises an infrared sensor, or a near-infrared sensor (Cutter - The mobile-monitoring device 102 may be equipped with a variety of sensors, such as … infrared-camera system)([0022]).
Regarding claim 68, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 61, wherein said first and said second parameters comprise plant type and plant stage (Johnson - Exemplary received data may relate to any or all factors affecting a crop's nutrient status, such as ... crop maturity ... crop characteristics)([0077]).
Regarding claim 69, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 61, wherein said first and said second parameters comprise plant location, and plant vitality (Johnson - Exemplary received data may relate to any or all factors affecting a crop's nutrient status, such as … crop's overall health ... geographic location)([0077]).
Regarding claim 70, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 61, wherein said first and said second parameters comprise presence of at least one pest in said portion of the field (Johnson - Exemplary received data may relate to any or all factors affecting a crop's nutrient status, such as … levels of pest)([0077]).
Regarding claim 71, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 61, wherein said vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Johnson - receive real time in-season crop data from UAVs)([0017]).
Regarding claim 72, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 61, wherein said vehicle is one or more of a ground sprayer, an unmanned ground robot, and a manned aerial vehicle (Johnson - UAVs are the preferred method by which to gather data, however other sources, such as manned aircrafts ... may also be used)([0048]).
Regarding claim 73, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 61, wherein said treatment unit comprises sprayers for spraying said at least one plant (Cutter - Treatment may be carried out by ... drone ... by treating an area of the field (such as by, for example, spraying a portion of a field with an herbicide))([0006]).
Regarding claim 74, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 61, wherein said treatment unit is a UAV (Cutter - Treatment may be carried out by delivering a treatment profile to a drone, which drone may carry out the treatment profile by treating an area of the field)([0006]; a drone is a type of UAV).
Regarding claim 75, Johnson teaches a plant-instance level treatment system comprising:
a data collection unit for collecting data on a portion of a field (The present invention enables a user to identify problems with a crop's health ... as soon as possible such that corrective action can be taken and the distress rectified … UAVs are the preferred method by which to gather data, however other sources, such as manned aircrafts, satellites, and remote sensors may also be used)([0048]);
an interface (Turning now to FIG. 1, a block diagram depicting an exemplary system 100 ... a user interface 125)([0049]);
a control unit (To facilitate user interaction, collection of information, and provision of results, the computer systems described herein)([0052]) comprising:
a processor (computer-based systems which are discussed herein, will be generally characterized by one or more processors)([0051]); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the processor (Storage within such devices will usually include a main memory ... storing information and instructions to be executed by the processor(s))([0051]), causes the processor to:
collect data on said portion of the field using said data collection unit; detect, from the collected data … receive via said interface prior to treatment, a first parameter to be considered for treatment … a first … score threshold for said first parameter; calculate a first … score for said first parameter … and, receive, via said interface prior to treatment, one or more secondary parameters to be considered for treatment … one or more secondary … score thresholds for said one or more secondary parameters; calculate one or more secondary … scores for said one or more secondary parameters … (providing an analysis and alert system that can receive real time in-season crop data from UAVs ... process and analyze it to make determinations … The received information may include one or more of following attributes of the crop ... an indication of pest damage, an indication of unwanted vegetation infestation, an indication of disease infestation, an indication of disease damage ... soil characteristics, geographic characteristics, geologic characteristics, and climate characteristics ... The received data may be evaluated and then scored ... When the score exceeds a predetermined threshold an alert may be generated ... predetermined threshold is user configurable ... The data received in step 405 may then be compared with the parameters, crop status determinations, and/or benchmarks (step 425) and the comparison may be scored (step 430) … parameters for determining a crop's status may be user configurable)([0017], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0082], and [0099]; data is processed in real-time (i.e., during operation of data collection units) and a user defines parameters to monitor along with associated thresholds, additionally, scores are calculated based on user defined parameters).
Johnson differs from the claim in that Johnson fails to teach detecting individual plants, the score thresholds received are probability score thresholds, and selectively treating a plants using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds for each detected plant. However, detecting individual plants, receiving probability score thresholds, and selectively treating plants using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds for each detected plant is taught by Cutter (FIG. 3 illustrates a method for detecting and remedying current field health issues for a portion of a field ... field-specific information regarding a portion of a field is compiled ... Specific information such as moisture content, crop type, number of plants, GPS location of the field and of each plant, soil chemistry, temperature, plant size, etc., may be compiled … Method 300 then proceeds to determine the likelihood of a field health issue ... The system compares the actual height of the plant against the expected height of the plant. If the actual height deviates from the expected height by a predetermined margin, the system may determine that there is an actual health issue with one or more plants … A confidence score may be associated with the determination ... a determination as to whether each plant in a field has a health issue is made … it is determined whether a field health issue is unlikely. This may occur where the confidence score assigned in operation 304 is below a certain threshold ... The threshold may be set by a user … If it is determined that a field health issue is not somewhat likely, the method proceeds to take action)([0043], [0044], [0045], [0047], and [0050]; individual plant detected to determine health (e.g., comparing individual plants heights), confidence thresholds are received, and treatment of plants is based on confidence scores of parameters and confidence thresholds for each detected plant).
The examiner notes Johnson and Cutter teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system Johnson to include the detecting, the receiving, and treating Cutter such that the systems detects individual plants, receives probability score thresholds, and selectively treats plants based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds for each detected plant. One would be motivated to make such a combination to improve accuracy in treating fields ([0003]; Cutter).
The combination of Johnson-Cutter fails to teach a priority matrix defining scenarios for treatment. However, receiving a priority matrix defining scenarios for treatment and treating plants based on the priority matrix is taught by Hoffmann (the present invention provides a solution by which a user receives a ranked number of application schemes covering all weed and pathogen ... ranking can be done first by ranking with regard to the number of leading or priority weeds and/or pathogens covered with an efficacy above a defined threshold ... the weed and/or pathogen specifier data further comprises information about a treatment priority and that the step of ranking the generated application schemes is further based on the information about the treatment priority ... the priority information can be provided by a user interface ... generating control data configured to be used in an agricultural equipment, wherein the control data is based on the highest ranked application scheme)([0035], [0050], [0060], and [0063]).
The examiner notes Johnson, Cutter, and Hoffmann teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system Johnson-Cutter to include the receiving and treating Hoffmann such that the systems receives a priority matrix defining scenarios for treatment and treats plants based on the priority matrix. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of reliably mixing treatments to treat a spectrum of issues ([0003]; Hoffmann).
Regarding claim 76, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium further contains instructions that cause the processor to perform: applying a vegetation detection process to said collected data (Johnson - In step 405, data regarding a crop status may be received ... The data may be data produced by ... sensor … Exemplary received data may relate to ... vegetation)([0076] and [0077]; a sensor is a vegetation detection module).
Regarding claim 79, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 76, further comprising a sensor using a lidar or a chlorophyll detection sensor to detect said at least one plant (Cutter - the mobile-monitoring device 102 may send a scanning signal 104 (such as a LIDAR scanning signal)([0022]; a LIDAR sensor is used in LIDAR scanning).
Regarding claim 80, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 79, wherein said sensor comprises an infrared sensor, or near-infrared sensors to detect said at least one plant (Cutter - The mobile-monitoring device 102 may be equipped with a variety of sensors, such as … infrared-camera system)([0022]).
Regarding claim 81, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 75, wherein said selectively treatment comprises treating based on said first probability score, said one or more secondary probability scores, said first probability score threshold, said one or more secondary probability thresholds and said priority matrix using said treatment unit when the first probability score is equal or higher than said first probability score threshold (Cutter - If it is determined that a field health issue is not somewhat likely, the method proceeds to take action. At take action operation, it is verified that the confidence score assigned at operation 304 is higher than a threshold, indicating a specific field health issue)([0050]).
Regarding claim 83, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 75, wherein said data collection unit is embedded in an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Johnson - receive real time in-season crop data from UAVs)([0017]; a UAV has sensors to collect data for transmission).
Regarding claim 84, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 75, wherein said treatment unit is embedded in an UAV (Cutter - Treatment may be carried out by ... drone ... by treating an area of the field (such as by, for example, spraying a portion of a field with an herbicide))([0006]).
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson, Cutter, Hoffmann, and in further view of “Greenness identification based on HSV decision tree” by Yang et al. (publicly accessible August 13, 2015); hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 63, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system as applied above, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann differs from the claim in that Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach fails to teach using HSV color index to detect a plant. However, detecting a plant using a HSV color index is taught by Yang (Greenness identification from crop images captured outdoors is the important step for crop growth monitoring ... an HSV decision tree based method for greenness identification)(abstract). The examiner notes Johnson, Cutter, Hoffmann, and Yang teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann to include the detecting of Yang such that the systems utilizes a HSV color index to detect a plant. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating crop detection by avoiding illumination influence (abstract; Yang).
Claims 64 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson, Cutter, Hoffmann, and in further view of “Crop detection and positioning in the field using discriminant analysis and neural networks based on shape features” by Kiani et al. (publicly accessible 2012); hereinafter referred to as Kiani.
Regarding claim 64, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system as applied above, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann differs from the claim in that Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach fails to teach using excess green method to detect a plant. However, detecting a plant using excess green method is taught by Kiani (Soil Removal from the Image ... The Excess Green Index proposed by Woebbecke et al. (1995) could reasonably omit background soil from the images as defined by Equation (1))(page 757). The examiner notes Johnson, Cutter, Hoffmann, and Kiani teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann to include the detecting of Kiani such that the systems utilizes an excess green method to detect a plant. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating crop detection by removing soil from an image (page 757; Kiani).
Regarding claim 78, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system as applied above, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann differs from the claim in that Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach fails to teach using excess green method to detect a plant. However, detecting a plant using excess green method is taught by Kiani (Soil Removal from the Image ... The Excess Green Index proposed by Woebbecke et al. (1995) could reasonably omit background soil from the images as defined by Equation (1))(page 757). The examiner notes Johnson, Cutter, Hoffmann, and Kiani teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann to include the detecting of Kiani such that the systems utilizes an excess green method to detect a plant. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating crop detection by removing soil from an image (page 757; Kiani).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 82 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 8 of applicant's remarks, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 9 of applicant's remarks, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-15 of applicant's remarks, filed May 26, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 61 and 75, applicant argues the combination of fails to teach “collecting data from a portion of a field”, “detecting at least one plant from the collected data”, “prior to treatment, receiving a first treatment parameter for each of the detected plants, a first probability score threshold, a second treatment parameter for each of the detected plants, a second probability score threshold, and a priority matrix defining treatment decision scenarios”, “during operation, calculating, for each detected plant, a first probability score for the first parameter and a second probability score for the second parameter”, and “selectively treating one or more detected plants based on the calculated probability scores, the probability score thresholds, and the priority matrix”; the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Johnson discloses a vehicle having a data collection unit for collecting data on a portion of a field “The present invention enables a user to identify problems with a crop's health ... as soon as possible such that corrective action can be taken and the distress rectified … UAVs are the preferred method by which to gather data, however other sources, such as manned aircrafts, satellites, and remote sensors may also be used” ([0048]), receiving parameters and thresholds via an interface prior to treatment “The received information may include one or more of following attributes of the crop ... an indication of pest damage, an indication of unwanted vegetation infestation, an indication of disease infestation, an indication of disease damage ... soil characteristics, geographic characteristics, geologic characteristics, and climate characteristics ... The received data may be evaluated and then scored ... When the score exceeds a predetermined threshold an alert may be generated ... predetermined threshold is user configurable ... parameters for determining a crop's status may be user configurable” ([0026], [0027], [0028], and [0099]), detecting and calculating during operation of vehicle (i.e., real-time processing) scores with parameters “providing an analysis and alert system that can receive real time in-season crop data from UAVs ... process and analyze it to make determinations … The data received in step 405 may then be compared with the parameters, crop status determinations, and/or benchmarks (step 425) and the comparison may be scored (step 430)” ([0017] and [0082]).
Cutter discloses detecting individual plants (i.e., to compare parameters such as height), receiving probability score thresholds, and selectively treating plants using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds for each detected plant (i.e., treat plants if detected plant is unhealthy) “FIG. 3 illustrates a method for detecting and remedying current field health issues for a portion of a field ... field-specific information regarding a portion of a field is compiled ... Specific information such as moisture content, crop type, number of plants, GPS location of the field and of each plant, soil chemistry, temperature, plant size, etc., may be compiled … Method 300 then proceeds to determine the likelihood of a field health issue ... The system compares the actual height of the plant against the expected height of the plant. If the actual height deviates from the expected height by a predetermined margin, the system may determine that there is an actual health issue with one or more plants … A confidence score may be associated with the determination ... a determination as to whether each plant in a field has a health issue is made … it is determined whether a field health issue is unlikely. This may occur where the confidence score assigned in operation 304 is below a certain threshold ... The threshold may be set by a user … If it is determined that a field health issue is not somewhat likely, the method proceeds to take action” ([0043], [0044], [0045], [0047], and [0050]).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Johnson and Cutter teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include the detecting, the receiving, and treating Cutter such that individual plants are detected, probability score thresholds are received, and plants are selectively treated based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds for each detected plant. One would be motivated to make such a combination to improve accuracy in treating fields ([0003]; Cutter).
Hoffmann discloses receiving a priority matrix defining scenarios for treatment and treating plants based on the priority matrix “the present invention provides a solution by which a user receives a ranked number of application schemes covering all weed and pathogen ... ranking can be done first by ranking with regard to the number of leading or priority weeds and/or pathogens covered with an efficacy above a defined threshold ... the weed and/or pathogen specifier data further comprises information about a treatment priority and that the step of ranking the generated application schemes is further based on the information about the treatment priority ... the priority information can be provided by a user interface ... generating control data configured to be used in an agricultural equipment, wherein the control data is based on the highest ranked application scheme” ([0035], [0050], [0060], and [0063]).
Again, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Johnson, Cutter, and Hoffmann teach agricultural monitoring. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson-Cutter to include the receiving and treating Hoffmann such that a priority matrix defining scenarios for treatment is received and plants are treated based on the priority matrix. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of reliably mixing treatments to treat a spectrum of issues ([0003]; Hoffmann).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for selectively treating plants.
US20150027040A1
US20200302170A1
US20200410234A1
US20210058603A1
US9420776B2
US10405535B2
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 Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights