DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This Final action is in reply to the application 18528161 amendment filed on 05/12/2026.
Claims 1, 12 – 17 are amended
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to arguments
Response to 102
The examiner does not find the applicants amendment to the independent claims persuasive. Based on the amended claims, independent claim 1 is now taught by DPREVIEW. A rotatable circular frame, based upon broadest reasonable interpretation is interpreted such that the frame is circular and is a rotatable frame. The examiner states that DPREVIEW now disclose the amended limitations with respect to the prior art as listed.
The examiner states that based upon a new grounds of rejection, claim 12 – 14 the amended limitations are now taught by DPREVIEW. DPREVIEW discloses of the circular camera frame.
The examiner states that based upon a new grounds of rejection, claim 15 – 17 and 19 – 20 the amended limitations are now taught by DPREVIEW. DPREVIEW discloses of the circular frame.
The examiner states that based upon a new grounds of rejection, claim 18 the amended limitations are now taught by DPREVIEW. DPREVIEW discloses of the circular frame.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US PG Pubs 20190150357 – Wu et al. hereinafter as WU in view of “ Battle of the titans” author: Mark BANAS Journal: DP Review hereinafter as DPREVIEW
Regarding Claim 1
WU discloses:
A system for monitoring plant or soil characteristics in a crop field, the system comprising:
(a) a prime mover comprising a base( an autonomous or manually controlled machine, fig. 23, platform ~ base fig.24 and para. 0147);
(b) a camera frame operably coupled to the base,( fig. 24 where in the housing 1930 is the camera frame. image sensor mounted to platform ~base. Para. 0141 - the circuit boards 1914, 1916 and the sensors 1910 and 1912 are all enclosed in a housing 1930. The example housing 1930 is half dome
in shape and made of a transparent material) the camera frame comprising:
a central frame; ( fig. 24 , para. 0147 - where in the central frame is ~ bottom plate)
(ii) a rotatable frame rotatably attached to the central frame; ( para. 0147 – pivot and to rotate an image sensing unit as well as rotating about the Y axis)
(iii) at least one camera attached to the rotatable frame. ( image sensor on platform 2510 ~ rotatable frame)
WU discloses of a system for monitoring plat and solid characteristics with a prime mover with a rotatable frame. WU doesn’t explicitly disclose of the frame wherein the frame is circular. DPREVIEW discloses of a circular frame for use as a camera/imaging mount, DPREVIEW further discloses:
circular frame( page 19 - Novoflex where in the shape of the mount is circular in shape.)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the rotatable frame mount to be a circular frame mount, the configuration of the claimed element is a matter of design choice for which the function of the element remains the same, wherein DPREVIEW further supports the shape of the rotatable mount being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection IV, C).
Regarding Claim 2
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 1:
WU discloses:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one camera is rotatable in relation to the prime mover. ( para. 0070 – where in the camera is on a drone / robot)
Regarding Claim 3
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 2:
WU discloses:
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the camera frame is rotatable ( para. 0049 – modular unit mounted to a rotatable fixture) in relation to the prime mover. ( para. 0049 - The modular attachment fixtures 1952 may also be bolted or strapped to smaller vehicles (autonomous scout or aerial drone).
Regarding Claim 4
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 1:
WU discloses:
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the camera frame further comprises a rotation actuator. ( para. 0147 - motorized servo plate 2514)
Regarding Claim 5
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 1:
WU discloses of a camera frame with an arm (fig. 25 – 2512)- but doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the camera frame is a disk, DPREVIEW discloses wherein the camera frame is a disk:
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the camera frame is a disk.( DPREVIEW - page 19 - Novoflex where in the shape of the mount is shape of a disk. And has rotation about the Y axis)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the camera frame such that the camera frame as is disk as taught by DPREVIEW. the configuration of the claimed element is a matter of design choice for which the function of the element remains the same, wherein DPREVIEW further supports the frame to a disk being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection IV, C).
Regarding Claim 6
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 1:
WU discloses:
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one camera is angularly movable. ( where in the sensor can pivot / tilt 2500 para. 0147)
Regarding Claim 7
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 6:
WU discloses:
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the camera frame comprises an angular adjustment actuator configured to angularly move the at least one camera. ( para. 0145 – where in the image sensor can be tilted at an angle with tolerance)
Regarding Claim 8
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 6:
WU discloses:
8. The system of claim 1, further comprising a height adjustment mechanism coupled to the base and the camera frame. (para. 0158 - For example, the attachment fixtures may be designed to be extendable so that they can telescope out to the side of the vehicle or boom)
Regarding Claim 9
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 8:
WU discloses:
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the height adjustment mechanism further comprises an actuator and a height sensor, wherein the height sensor is configured to track a position of the camera frame, and wherein the actuator is configured to change a height of the camera frame.
Regarding Claim 10
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 1:
WU discloses:
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the prime mover comprises a structure selected from a group consisting of a drone, at least four wheels, and at least one track.(drone or robot, vehicle or small wagon truck that straddle plants)
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US PG Pubs 20190150357 – Wu et al. hereinafter as WU in view of “ Battle of the titans” author: Mark BANAS Journal: DP Review hereinafter as DPREVIEW in view of US PG Pubs 20190150357 – Wu et al. hereinafter as WU US PG Pubs 20220318693 – Zur et al. hereinafter as ZUR
Regarding Claim 11
WU / DPREVIEW discloses claim 1:
WU discloses:
WU discloses of a monitoring crop system that can pivot about the Y axis. However ZUR also discloses of crop monitoring that discloses:
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one camera is configured to rotate up to about 360 degrees about an axis. (para. 0064 - The sensor assembly 20 is preferably mounted onto a raised stabilized platform assembly 30, which preferably provides 360 degree rotation about a vertical axis.)
WU / DPREVIEW and ZUR are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to have modified WU to incorporate the teachings of ZUR and be about to configure the rotation mechanism to rotate up to 360 degrees about an axis. One would have made this combination to improve the accuracy and monitoring capabilities of the monitoring crop system.
Claim(s) 12 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US PG Pub 20200215865 – Sirault et al. here in after as SIRAULT in view of US PG Pubs 20190150357 – Wu et al. hereinafter as WU in view of “ Battle of the titans” author: Mark BANAS Journal: DP Review hereinafter as DPREVIEW
Regarding Claim 12
SIRAULT discloses:
12. A system for monitoring plant or soil characteristics in a crop field, the system comprising: (a) a prime mover comprising at least four wheels and a horizontal bar;(fig. 2 – Horizontal bar 48, 4 wheels - 13) (b) a height adjustment mechanism coupled to the horizontal bar; ( para .0076 – where in the height of the sensor 47 can be adjusted) and (c) a non-rotatable camera frame operably coupled to the height adjustment mechanism, the non-rotatable camera frame comprising at least
SIRAULT discloses a camera attached to the frame for monitoring plants, WU discloses:.
at least two cameras (stereoscopic image sensors in order to provide parallax or depth calculation)
It would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for SIRAULT’s single camera system to utilize WU’s camera sensor which comprises of a stereoscopic sensor. This would allow SIRAULT to improve depth and distance estimates when determining height and distance while monitoring plants and crops. (Para. 0049 - two or more
image sensors 1910 are spaced apart (e.g. over two inches) to provide parallax or depth calculation)
SIRAULT / WU discloses a camera attached to the frame for monitoring plants, SIRAULT doesn’t explicitly disclose of the non-rotatable frame is a circular frame. DPREVIEW discloses of a circular frame, DPREVIEW further discloses:
circular frame ( page 19 - Novoflex where in the shape of the mount is circular in shape.)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the mount to be a circular mount, as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein DPREVIEW further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 13
SIRAULT discloses:
SIRAULT discloses of a non rotatable camera frame, SIRAULT doesn’t explicitly disclose of the non-rotatable frame is a disc. DPREVIEW discloses of camera frame is a disk, DPREVIEW further discloses:
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the non-rotatable camera frame is a disk. ( page 19 - Novoflex where in the shape of the mount is circular in disc shape.)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the mount to be a disc shape, as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein DPREVIEW further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 14
SIRAULT discloses:
14. The system of claim 12, wherein the height adjustment mechanism further comprises an actuator and a height sensor, wherein the height sensor is configured to track a position of the non-rotatable camera frame, and wherein the actuator is configured to change a height of the non-rotatable camera frame. ( para. 0105- wherein the controller can enter a desired height an controller the system can calculate to achieve the desired height and send the control signals to the actuators)
SIRAULT / WU discloses a camera attached to the frame for monitoring plants and discloses a non rotatable camera frame, SIRAULT doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the camera frame is a circular camera frame. DPREVIEW discloses of a circular frame, DPREVIEW further discloses:
circular frame ( page 19 - Novoflex where in the shape of the mount is circular in shape.)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the non rotatable camera frame is a circular frame, as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein DPREVIEW further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Claim(s) 15 – 17, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US PG Pub 20200215865 – Sirault et al. here in after as SIRAULT in view of US PG Pubs 20190150357 – Wu et al. hereinafter as WU in further view of US PG Pubs 20220039339 – Citurs et al . hereinafter as CITURS in view of “ Battle of the titans” author: Mark BANAS Journal: DP Review hereinafter as DPREVIEW
Regarding Claim 15
SIRAULT discloses:
15. A system for monitoring plant or soil characteristics in a crop field, the system comprising:
a prime mover comprising a base; ( vehicle has a hub ~ base, 16) (b) a height adjustment mechanism coupled to the base comprising a height adjustment actuator and a height sensor; ( para. 0092- hub actuator 91) and (c) at least one camera frame operably coupled to the height adjustment mechanism, the at least one camera frame comprising: (i) a central frame; ( Fig. 2 The horizontal frame - 48 is the central frame)
wherein the height sensor is configured to sense a height of the at least one camera frame and the height adjustment actuator is configured to change the height of the at least one camera frame. ( para. 0105- a desired height an controller the system can calculate to achieve the desired height and send the control signals to the actuators)
SIRAULT discloses of a camera frame being the central frame, but doesn’t explicitly disclose a rotatable frame as disclosed in WU:
(ii) a rotatable frame rotatably attached to the central frame; (fig. 24, para. 0147 platform2510 attached directly to attachment fixture( central frame) ) (iii) a rotatable frame actuator configured to rotatably move the rotatable frame relative the central frame; (fig. 24, para. 0147 – tilt pivot and rotate that rotates about the Y axis., actuator is a micro servo motor to pivot platform2510, ) and (v) at least one camera attached to the rotatable frame( sensor connected to the platform 2510),
It would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for SIRAULT’s single camera system to utilize WU’s camera sensor which comprises of a stereoscopic sensor. This would allow SIRAULT to improve depth and distance estimates when determining height and distance while monitoring plants and crops. (Para. 0049 - two or more
image sensors 1910 are spaced apart (e.g. over two inches) to provide parallax or depth calculation)
SIRAULT / WU discloses of monitoring plants and determining a rotational camera frame and height sensor , CITURS disclose of an agricultural implement that can determine rotational speed of and cameras
CITURS discloses:
(iv) a rotation sensor configured to track a rotation speed of the rotatable frame;( para. 0045 – rotational speed sensor)
SIRAULT / WU are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified SIRAULT to incorporate the teachings of CITURS and combine the rotation sensor configure to track a rotation speed of the rotatable frame. One would have made this combination to enhanced the effectiveness and accuracy of determining speed.
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS discloses a camera attached to the frame for monitoring plants and discloses a rotatable camera frame, SIRAULT doesn’t explicitly disclose of the frame wherein the frame is circular. DPREVIEW discloses of a circular frame for use as a camera/imaging mount, DPREVIEW further discloses:
circular frame ( page 19 - Novoflex where in the shape of the mount is circular in shape.)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the rotatable frame mount to be a circular frame mount, the configuration of the claimed element is a matter of design choice for which the function of the element remains the same, wherein DPREVIEW further supports the shape of the rotatable mount being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection IV, C).
Regarding Claim 16
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS / DPREVIEW discloses claim 15:
WU discloses the combination of a rotatable frame as taught in claim 15:
16. The system of claim 15, wherein each camera comprises a downward angular position relative the rotatable frame ranging from about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees. ( para. 0145 - tilt angle)
WU discloses a downward angular position relative the rotatable frame are known to be for controlling the position of a camera sensor for different environments and improved calibration( para. 0089). As a result, the degrees of rotation for the angular position relative of the rotatable frame can be seen as a results effective variable.
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS discloses a camera attached to the frame for monitoring plants and discloses a rotatable camera frame, SIRAULT doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the camera frame is a circular camera frame. DPREVIEW discloses of a circular frame, DPREVIEW further discloses:
circular frame ( page 19 - Novoflex where in the shape of the mount is circular in shape.)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the rotatable camera frame is a circular frame, as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein DPREVIEW further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 17
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS / DPREVIEW discloses claim 15:
WU discloses the combination of a rotatable frame as taught in claim 15:
17. The system of claim 15, wherein the rotatable frame actuator comprises a motor gear rotatably coupled to the rotatable frame. (para. 0147 - wherein the micro servo has gears to rotate the rotatable frame)
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS discloses a camera attached to the frame for monitoring plants and discloses a rotatable camera frame, SIRAULT doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the camera frame is a circular camera frame. DPREVIEW discloses of a circular frame, DPREVIEW further discloses:
circular frame ( page 19 - Novoflex where in the shape of the mount is circular in shape.)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the rotatable camera frame is a circular frame, as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein DPREVIEW further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 19
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS / DPREVIEW discloses claim 15:
CITURS discloses the rotation speed on the rotation sensor as disclosed in claim 15
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one camera frame can rotate from about 0.1 rpm to about 100 rpm. (para. 0045 - rotational speed)
CITURS discloses of determining a rotational speed on the rotation sensor and such are known to be for controlling the speed for different environments and maximizes work efficiency (Paragraphs 0080, 0098). As a result, the rotational speed is relative and can be seen as a results effective variable.
Regarding Claim 20
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS / DPREVIEW discloses claim 15:
SIRAULT discloses of a vehicle that can monitor plants and determine the vehicle speed and further discloses:
20. The system of claim 15, wherein the prime mover comprises a speed wheel configured to track a ground speed of the prime mover, ( para. 0063 – where in the vehicle has the ability to determine the speed and direction of vehicle)
CITURS disclose the rotational speed sensor disclosed above in claim 15
the speed wheel being in communication with the rotation sensor, the rotation sensor being configured to change the rotation speed in response to the ground speed.( para . 0079 – wherein the speed on the wheels is determine through the rotation of the wheels speed sensor)
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US PG Pub 20200215865 – Sirault et al. here in after as SIRAULT in view of US PG Pubs 20190150357 – Wu et al. hereinafter as WU in further view of US PG Pubs 20220039339 – Citurs et al . hereinafter as CITURS in view of “ Battle of the titans” author: Mark BANAS Journal: DP Review hereinafter as DPREVIEW in further view of US PG Pubs 20220318693 – Zur et al. hereinafter as ZUR
Regarding Claim 18
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS / DPREVIEW discloses claim 15:
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS / DPREVIEW discloses of a monitoring crop system that can pivot about the Y axis. However ZUR also discloses of crop monitoring that discloses:
18. The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one camera frame is configured to rotate 360 degrees. (para. 0064 - The sensor assembly 20 is preferably mounted onto a raised stabilized platform assembly 30, which preferably provides 360 degree rotation about a vertical axis.)
SIRAULT / WU / CITURS / DPREVIEW and ZUR are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to have modified WU to incorporate the teachings of ZUR and be about to configure the rotation mechanism to rotate up to 360 degrees about an axis. One would have made this combination to improve the accuracy and monitoring capabilities of the monitoring crop system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights