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 on November 24, 2023.
Claims 1-60 have been canceled.
Claims 61-84 have been added.
Claims 61-84 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 14, 2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: S1701, S1702, S1703, 1705, S1705, S1707, and S1709. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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/are: a calculation unit for calculating in claim 61, a treatment unit for treating in claim 61, and a vegetation detection module for detecting in claim 62.
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 calculation unit is implemented as hardware processing units (e.g., ASIC) [0176], the treatment unit is implemented as hardware (e.g., spraying system) [0068], and the vegetation detection module is implemented as hardware (e.g., sensor) [0010].
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 § 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.
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 75-84 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.
Regarding claim 75, the claim recites “said parameter” in lines 12-13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “said first parameter”.
Regarding claims 76-84, they depend on parent claim 75 and do not address the antecedent basis presented therein. As such, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 81, the claim recites “said first threshold” and “said one or more secondary thresholds” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “said first probability threshold” and “said one or more secondary probability thresholds”.
Regarding claim 82, the claim recites “said first threshold” and “said one or more secondary thresholds” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “said first probability threshold” and “said one or more secondary probability thresholds”.
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 61-62, 65-77, 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 field 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 for receiving a first parameter to be considered for treatment of said portion of said field, a first … score threshold for said first parameter, a second parameter to be considered for treatment of said portion of said field, 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);
a calculation unit for calculating a first … score of said first parameter in said data collected, and a second … score of said second parameter in said data collected … (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 the score thresholds received are probability score thresholds and treating fields using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds. However, receiving probability score thresholds and treating fields using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds 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 ... information such as moisture content ... temperature ... color, etc. ... Method 300 then proceeds to determine the likelihood of a field health issue ... A confidence score may be associated with the determination ... 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], [0047], and [0050]; confidence thresholds are received and treatment of fields is based on confidence scores of parameters and confidence thresholds).
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 receiving and treating Cutter such that the systems receive probability score thresholds and treats fields based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds. 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 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 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 62, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 61, further comprising a vegetation detection module for detecting vegetation in the field (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 65, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann the system in claim 62, wherein said vegetation detection module comprises a sensor for detecting vegetation (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]).
Regarding claim 66, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 65, wherein said sensor comprises a lidar or a chlorophyll detection sensor (although Johnson does not explicitly teach using a lidar sensor, said using is taught by 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). 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-Hoffmann to include the sensor of Cutter such that the systems utilizes a LIDAR sensor. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of improving resolution in detecting vegetation).
Regarding claim 67, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 65, wherein said sensor comprises an infrared sensor, or a near-infrared sensor (although Johnson does not explicitly teach using an infrared sensor, said using is taught by Cutter (The mobile-monitoring device 102 may be equipped with a variety of sensors, such as … infrared-camera system)([0022]). 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-Hoffmann to include the sensor of Cutter such that the systems utilizes an infrared sensor. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of detecting vegetation in low light).
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 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 portion of the field (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 field 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 perform:
collecting data on said portion of the field using said data collection unit; receiving a first parameter to be considered for treatment of said portion of said field and a first … score threshold for said parameter; calculating a first … score of said first parameter related to said portion of the field in said data; and, receiving one or more secondary parameters to be considered for treatment of said portion of said field and one or more secondary … score thresholds for said one or more secondary parameters; calculating one or more secondary … scores for said one or more secondary parameters related to said portion of the field in said data … (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)([0026], [0027], [0028], [0082], and [0099]; a user defines parameters to monitor and associated thresholds, additionally, scores are calculated based on user defined parameters).
Johnson differs from the claim in that Johnson fails to teach the score thresholds received are probability score thresholds and treating fields using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds. However, receiving probability score thresholds and treating fields using a treatment unit based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds 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 ... information such as moisture content ... temperature ... color, etc. ... Method 300 then proceeds to determine the likelihood of a field health issue ... A confidence score may be associated with the determination ... 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], [0047], and [0050]; confidence thresholds are received and treatment of fields is based on confidence scores of parameters and confidence thresholds).
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 receiving and treating Cutter such that the systems receives probability score thresholds and treats fields based on probability scores of parameters and probability score thresholds. 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 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 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 system as defined in claim 75, wherein the system further comprises a vegetation detection module, and wherein 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 77, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 76, wherein said calculating said first probability score in said data collected comprises calculating said first probability score of said first parameter only for detected vegetation using said vegetation detection process (Johnson - The received information may include one or more of following attributes ... unwanted vegetation)([0026]; an unwanted vegetation parameter will only calculate a score for detected unwanted vegetation).
Regarding claim 79, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 76, wherein said detecting vegetation in said field comprises using a sensor comprises using a lidar or a chlorophyll detection sensor to detect said vegetation (although Johnson does not explicitly teach using a lidar sensor, said using is taught by 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). 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-Hoffmann to include the sensor of Cutter such that the systems utilizes a LIDAR sensor. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of improving resolution in detecting vegetation).
Regarding claim 80, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 79, wherein said detecting vegetation in said field using said sensor comprises using an infrared sensor, or near-infrared sensors to detect said vegetation (although Johnson does not explicitly teach using an infrared sensor, said using is taught by Cutter (The mobile-monitoring device 102 may be equipped with a variety of sensors, such as … infrared-camera system)([0022]). 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-Hoffmann to include the sensor of Cutter such that the systems utilizes an infrared sensor. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of detecting vegetation in low light).
Regarding claim 81, Johnson-Cutter-Hoffmann teach the system in claim 75, wherein said treating comprises treating said portion of the field based on said first probability score, said one or more secondary probability scores, said first threshold, said one or more secondary 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 vegetation. However, detecting vegetation 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 vegetation. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating vegetation 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 vegetation. However, detecting vegetation 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 vegetation. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating vegetation detection by removing soil form 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 vegetation. However, detecting vegetation 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 vegetation. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating vegetation detection by removing soil form an image (page 757; Kiani).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 82 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form in independent form overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 treating fields based on monitoring conditions.
US20160316643A1
US20190354081A1
US20200113166A1
US20200217830A1
US20210173369A1
US20210185885A1
US20220111960A1
US20220211026A1
US20220377970A1
US20240078479A1
US10548257B2
WO2022269083A1
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