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 .
This action is responsive to the communications filed 9/21/2023. As per the claims filed 9/21/2023:
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 16 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In summary, claim 16 recites a “program readable by a computer device”. The program product fails to claim any structure or hardware. Accordingly, the recited program is software per se and is not a “process”, a “machine”, a “manufacture”, or a “composition of matter” as defined in 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 13-14 failed to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsu Ogawa (WO2019/082519A1; Published: 05/02/2019)(hereinafter: Ogawa).
Note: Ogawa was cited in the IDS filed 9/21/2023. Note WO2019/082519 is published in Japanese. The Examiner is relying on the publication date of WO2019/082519 but mapping to US2021/0201025 as a translation, which is the US publication of WO2019/082519.
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Ogawa discloses an information processing device comprising:
an event determining section configured to determine occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event on a basis of a measurement result of a microscopic measuring unit configured to perform measurement of a microscopic measurement area as an area of a first size in a measurement target [[0507] the information processing apparatus 1 performs conditional judgment from a filtering result image or the like based on a single high-resolution image HR. For example, the information processing apparatus 1 performs conditional judgment such as to whether or not a vegetation index representative value extracted from the filtering result image is within a predetermined range to determine whether or not a corresponding sample section is in an abnormal state], High resolution image corresponds to microscopic measurement area. and
a control section configured to perform control, in a case where the event determining section determines that the event has occurred, such that a second measuring unit configured to perform measurement of a second measurement area as an area of a larger size than the first size in the measurement target performs measurement targeted at the second measurement area having relation to the microscopic measurement area in which the event is determined to have occurred [[0508] If an abnormal point is detected as a result of the conditional judgment, the information processing apparatus 1 adds, to the flight range, a range around the position of the center point of a sample section where the high-resolution image HR has been captured, [0510] Meanwhile, abnormalities have been detected in filtering result images based on high-resolution images HR #11C and HR #15C. Thus, areas around sample sections #11C and #15C are set as the flight ranges 700 and 701, respectively, in the processing of step S603. [0516] FIG. 34A shows the result of sampling measurement in the first flight. Assume a case where, as a result of conditional judgment, an abnormality has been detected in sample section #11C. [0517] A flight range to be set in a second flight plan extends from the sample section where the abnormality has been found to the edges of adjacent sample sections. For example, as shown in FIG. 34B, a flight range 702 is set as a range extending from sample section #11C, where an abnormality has been found, to the edges of sample sections #7C, #6C, #5C, #12C, #13C, #14C, #15C, and #10C adjacent to sample section #11C. [0518] Then, a second flight plan is created such that high-resolution images HR are captured in the flight range 702.]. Thus a second larger area is selected to be captured.
Ogawa discloses a second set of high resolution images (microscopic area) to be generated based on the occurrence of an abnormality. However, Ogawa failed to specifically disclose a macroscopic measuring unit configured to perform measurement of a macroscopic measurement area as an area of a larger size than the first size in the measurement target.
Ogawa, in a different embodiment discloses [[0043] presentation image for an imaging range of a sampling image is combined with a low-resolution image obtained by the imaging of a wider range including the imaging range of the sampling image. Therefore, the presentation image and the low-resolution image are combined by use of the correspondence information representing correspondence relationships such as information on an imaging position, information on imaging time, and the like. [0110] Furthermore, the imaging device 250 can capture a high-resolution sampling image (hereinafter also referred to as “high-resolution image”) HR and a low-resolution image LR.[0111] The high-resolution image HR is, for example, a captured image of range A-HR indicated by a broken line. The low-resolution image LR is a captured image of range A-LR indicated by a broken line. [0112] The high-resolution image HR is an image obtained by the imaging of a part of a section imaged as the low-resolution image LR.[0113] It is possible to capture the high-resolution image HR and the low-resolution image LR as described above by, for example, mounting a plurality of cameras for high-resolution imaging and low-resolution imaging as the imaging device 250 on the flight vehicle 200.] Low-resolution image represents a macroscopic measurement area. The image capturing apparatus is able to capture both microscopic and macroscopic images.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ogawa’s measuring unit to perform measurement of a macroscopic measurement area as an area of a larger size than the first size in the measurement target by capturing both microscopic and macroscopic images when the event has occurred. The motivation for doing so would have been to present to the user a higher detail evaluation image, enabling the user to better visualize abnormal field areas(0117).
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Ogawa discloses wherein the microscopic measuring unit has a higher measurement execution frequency than the macroscopic measuring unit. Owaga, [[0110] Furthermore, the imaging device 250 can capture a high-resolution sampling image (hereinafter also referred to as “high-resolution image”) HR and a low-resolution image LR. [0128] , the data input unit 21 acquires an image data file of an image obtained by the imaging device 250 as a multi spectrum camera. For example, the image data file contains, as high-resolution images HR obtained by the imaging of a single range, measurement images in two or more wavelengths. [0180] In the present embodiment, high-resolution images HR are obtained by the imaging of such discrete sample sections so as to enable the large farm field 300 to be efficiently imaged and to also enable fine analysis and evaluation result calculation of sample sections #1C, #2C, . . . corresponding to sections #1, #2, . . . , respectively, by use of the high-resolution images HR.]
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Ogawa discloses wherein the microscopic measuring unit has a higher spatial resolution of measurement than the macroscopic measuring unit. Owaga, [0110] Furthermore, the imaging device 250 can capture a high-resolution sampling image (hereinafter also referred to as “high-resolution image”) HR and a low-resolution image LR]. See figure 4, LR represent larger, lower resolution images while HR images represent a more detailed (higher resolution) area.
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Ogawa discloses wherein the control section performs scheduling for measurement by the macroscopic measuring unit in a case where the event determining section determines that the event has occurred. Ogawa, [[0513] a flight path and imaging timing are set such that high-resolution images HR can be captured, covering all the set flight ranges 700, 701 and the like. Then, information on the re-flight plan is transmitted to the flight vehicle 200. In response thereto, the flight vehicle 200 conducts a second flight.]. Scheduling consists of a new flight path and imaging timing.
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Ogawa discloses wherein the measurement target includes a field in which a plant is cultivated [[0173] however, capturing images is continued to also capture low-resolution image LR #5 and subsequent images during a flight on path DR of FIG. 1. As a result, there are obtained a required number of low-resolution images LR that cover the entire farm field 300. Then, a process of stitching the low-resolution images LR is performed. Thus, an image of the entire farm field 300 can be generated.]and the control section refers to a field map indicating a variety distribution of the cultivated plant in the field, and determines a scheduled measurement area for the macroscopic measuring unit on a basis of information regarding a cultivated variety in the microscopic measurement area in which the event is determined to have occurred. Ogawa, [ [0513] a flight path and imaging timing are set such that high-resolution images HR can be captured, covering all the set flight ranges 700, 701 and the like. Then, information on the re-flight plan is transmitted to the flight vehicle 200. In response thereto, the flight vehicle 200 conducts a second flight.]. Scheduling consists of a new flight path and imaging timing. [0179] images collected on entire farm which implicitly includes variety of cultivated plants
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Ogawa discloses wherein the control section performs scheduling for measurement by the microscopic measuring unit. Ogawa, [[0513] a flight path and imaging timing are set such that high-resolution images HR can be captured, covering all the set flight ranges 700, 701 and the like. Then, information on the re-flight plan is transmitted to the flight vehicle 200. In response thereto, the flight vehicle 200 conducts a second flight.]. Scheduling consists of a new flight path and imaging timing.
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, which depends on claim 11, Ogawa discloses wherein the measurement target includes a field in which a plant is cultivated and the control section performs the scheduling for the measurement by the microscopic measuring unit. Ogawa [it is sufficient if a re-flight plan is created after determination of a range in which high-resolution images HR have not been obtained at a predetermined coverage ratio in the measurement target in the farm field 300 such that the range is set as a flight range in the re-flight plan.] on a basis of a field map indicating a variety distribution of the cultivated plant in the field [[0107] Here, the imaging device 250 is a multi spectrum camera that captures images in a plurality of wavelength bands. For example, it is possible to use a camera that captures a near-infrared (NIR) image and a red (R) image from which Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) can be calculated. NDVI is an index indicating the distribution state and activity of vegetation].
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, which depends on claim 11, Ogawa discloses wherein the measurement target includes a field in which a plant is cultivated, and the control unit performs the scheduling for the measurement by the microscopic measuring unit on a basis of cultivation schedule information for the plant in the field. Ogawa, [[0513] a flight path and imaging timing are set such that high-resolution images HR can be captured, covering all the set flight ranges 700, 701 and the like. Then, information on the re-flight plan is transmitted to the flight vehicle 200. In response thereto, the flight vehicle 200 conducts a second flight.]. Scheduling consists of a new flight path and imaging timing. [0179] images collected on entire farm which implicitly includes variety of cultivated plants
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, which depends on claim 11, Ogawa discloses wherein the microscopic measuring unit is in a form of a flight vehicle, and the control section performs the scheduling for the measurement by the microscopic measuring unit on a basis of specification information related to a flight of the microscopic measuring unit. Ogawa, [[0513] a flight path and imaging timing are set such that high-resolution images HR can be captured, covering all the set flight ranges 700, 701 and the like. Then, information on the re-flight plan is transmitted to the flight vehicle 200. In response thereto, the flight vehicle 200 conducts a second flight.]. Scheduling consists of a new flight path and imaging timing.
Claim 15:
As per independent claim 15, it recites an information processing method for an information processing device to perform the steps performed by the processing device of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 16:
As per independent claim 16, it recites a program readable by a computer device, the program causing the computer device to perform the steps performed by the processing device of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Eiichiro Fujiwara et al (Research on evaluation methods for plant water stress using hyperspectral imager measurements, Published 2005)(hereinafter: Fujiwara).
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Ogawa discloses wherein the measurement target includes a field in which a plant is cultivated, and the event determining section. Owaga, [[0104] For example, as shown in FIG. 1, there is assumed a case where remote sensing is performed on the vegetation of a farm field 300 as a measurement target by use of an imaging device 250 mounted on a flight vehicle 200. [0507] performs conditional judgment such as to whether or not a vegetation index representative value extracted from the filtering result image is within a predetermined range to determine whether or not a corresponding sample section is in an abnormal state (for example, in a state of poor growth, or the like).]
Owaga discloses determining occurrence of an abnormal event but failed to specifically disclose determines occurrence or nonoccurrence of an abnormal state related to an amount of water content of the plant as the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the event.
Fujiwara in the same field of using imaging to detect environmental abnormalities in plants discloses this limitation in that [[page 2] Figure 2 shows the results of extracting only the plant area using spectral information from an image of plants (a), and the average spectrum of pixels classified as plants (c). As shown in Figure 2, by utilizing the advantages of hyperspectral measurement, it is not only possible to extract the pure spectrum of a plant community with a complex structure, but also to separate components that have been difficult to separate until now, such as soil and shadow.
[page 3] Therefore, one pixel of hyperspectral data measured by an aircraft is in a state called a mixel, where the spectra of multiple ground components are mixed. Therefore, in this study, linear mixel decomposition was performed on each pixel of hyperspectral data measured by an aircraft using the pure spectral information of fresh, dry, and soil measured on the ground. By performing mixel decomposition, it is possible to estimate the proportion of each component within a pixel even in the case of data with coarse spatial resolution. Fresh is the pure spectrum of a community that is not under water stress, dry is the spectrum of a dead community, and soil is the spectrum of the soil. Furthermore, in order to evaluate the degree of water stress in relation to the plant abundance rate, We proposed the Hyperspectral Water Stress Index (HWSI) as a model for estimating plant water stress. Equation 1 shows the HWSI model].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ogawa’s abnormality detection determine occurrence or nonoccurrence of an abnormal state related to an amount of water content of the plant as the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the event as disclosed by Fujiwara. The motivation for doing so would have been to early detect widespread water loss (water stress) in order to improve growth management and yield prediction.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Joseph Fang (US PG Pub No.2019/0017984; Published: 01/17/2019)(hereinafter: Fang).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 5, Ogawa discloses determines a scheduled measurement area for the macroscopic measuring unit on a basis of information regarding a property of the microscopic measurement area in which the event is determined to have occurred. Ogawa, [ [0513] a flight path and imaging timing are set such that high-resolution images HR can be captured, covering all the set flight ranges 700, 701 and the like. Then, information on the re-flight plan is transmitted to the flight vehicle 200. In response thereto, the flight vehicle 200 conducts a second flight.]. Scheduling consists of a new flight path and imaging timing.
Ogawa discloses the scheduling based on abnormalities in the field but failed to specifically disclose wherein the measurement target includes a field in which a plant is cultivated, and the control section refers to a soil map indicating a distribution of soil properties in the field.
Fang, in the same field of multispectral field imaging discloses this limitation in that [[0024] method comprises the steps of obtaining a multispectral image of an entire field, such as a farm field, acquiring soil property data for a plurality of soil samples by moving a mobile soil sensor system over a predetermined portion of the entire field, wherein the predetermined portion is smaller than the entire field, constructing a grid of the soil property data, correlating the grid and its soil property data to a corresponding area of the multispectral image, and using the correlated grid and soil property data to extrapolate a soil property to a remainder of the field, the remainder of the field being a portion not covered by the predetermined area, based on the multispectral image of the remainder of the field.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ogawa’s imaging collection to collect data regarding a soil map indicating a distribution of soil properties in the field as disclosed by Fang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve soil analysis by enabling real time examination, as well as improving affordability and efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, alone or in any reasonable combination discloses the claim limitations of claims 8-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118