DETAILED ACTION
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 .
It is noted for the record that Deljkovic (US 20230079259 A1) is a grace period disclosure by common Applicant CROPSY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED which is applicable under 35 USC 102(b)(2) due to an earlier effective filing date and some overlapping disclosure as compared with the instant application. Deljkovic, however, is disqualified because it shares identical inventorship with the instant application such that the (b)(2)(A) exception necessarily applies. It is also likely that the (b)(2)(C) common ownership exception also applies but this fact was not confirmed at the time of examination because it was unnecessary to do so given the (b)(2)(A) exception. Applicant’s comments on this subject are invited to further clarify the record.
Further in regards to the Deljkovic patent application which is nearly reached grant status at the time of this action, see the obvious double patenting rejections at the end of this action.
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: an on-board computation unit(s) in claim 23 that employ the nonce term “unit” without reciting any structure and not otherwise indicating structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3, 6, 8, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nuske {Nuske, Stephen, et al. "Automated visual yield estimation in vineyards." Journal of Field Robotics 31.5 (2014): 837-860}.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Nuske discloses a method comprising:
activating an illumination source to produce illuminating light
{see sections 3.1.2; Figs. 1, 6 (copied below), disclosing controlled flash lighting upon the grapes; Section 5 discussing Prosilica GE 400 camera or Nikon D300s and two Einstein 640 flashlights or AlienBees ARB800 ring flash},
polarising the illuminating light in a first polarisation axis {section 5.3.1; 5.3.2, fig. 9(c) discussing cross polarized light detection which includes using two polarizer filters, one on the light source and one on the camera set at 90 degrees to eliminate glare by blocking specular reflections from glossy surfaces such as grapes};
illuminating at least part of a thin canopy plant crop with the polarised illuminating light to produce reflected light {see above cites. See also Fig. 6 illustrating illumination of a grape vine which is a thin canopy plant as per claim 2 and the specification};
polarising the reflected light in a second polarisation axis transverse to the first polarisation axis to produce cross-polarised reflected light {see above cites discussing cross-polarized light detection};
capturing an image of at least part of the thin canopy plant crop using the cross-polarised reflected light {Section 3, Fig. 2 Berry Detection includes capturing an image of the grape vine using a sideways facing camera mounted on a utility vehicle, Section 5 specifies, e.g., Prosilica GE 400 camera used in device}; and
analysing the captured image to determine a condition of the thin canopy plant crop {Fig, 2, yield estimation process, sections 3.1-4 including image-based measurements for yield predictions while noting that yield is a “condition” as per claim 6 and the specification}.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Nuske discloses wherein the thin canopy plant crop is a vineyard or orchard crop {see above including application to grape vine crops}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 2, Nuske discloses wherein the illumination source and/or the image capture is generally directed upward to the underside of the thin canopy plant crop {see above cites for claim 1. Figs. 1, 6 copied below graphically illustrating light and camera directed upward to the underside of the grape vines
PNG
media_image1.png
898
1214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Nuske discloses wherein the condition of the thin canopy plant crop is selected from the group consisting of:
yield; pests or disease; growth stage or maturity of the plant or its fruits; nutritional deficiencies, for example, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, boron, zinc; locating and counting plant suckers; locating missing, dying, or dead plants; locating and counting healthy and limp or damaged shoots; canopy density and leaf-area index; untreated pruning cuts; over or under watered plants, and any combination thereof
{see Fig, 2, yield estimation process, sections 3.1-4 including image-based measurements for yield predictions which anticipates the Markush group recited above.
In the interests of compact prosecution, with respect to the other conditions in this Markush group see the cited NPL in the 892 form including Fahey {Fahey T, Pham H, Gardi A, Sabatini R, Stefanelli D, Goodwin I, Lamb DW. Active and Passive Electro-Optical Sensors for Health Assessment in Food Crops. Sensors (Basel). 2020 Dec 29;21(1):171. doi: 10.3390/s21010171. PMID: 33383831; PMCID: PMC7795220} and Ding {Ding Y, Jiang Y, Yu H, Yang C, Wu X, Sun G, Fu X, Dou X. Measurement Method for Height-Independent Vegetation Indices Based on an Active Light Source. Sensors (Basel). 2020 Mar 25;20(7):1830. doi: 10.3390/s20071830. PMID: 32218359; PMCID: PMC7180979}.
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Nuske discloses wherein yield is determined either directly, or indirectly,
where directly comprises imaging and counting fruits, berries, bunches, or buds, blossoms, inflorescences which will later turn into fruits, or imaging and counting fruits unsuitable for harvest due to pest, disease, or other damage {see above cites for claim 1 which includes imaging and counting grapes (fruits)};
where indirectly comprises estimating yield from counting shoots, identifying the growth stage of the plant or fruits over time to forecast how much of the crop will reach maturity, depth imaging and estimating berry and/or bunch volume/weight, and using pest and disease information to forecast how much of the crop may be affected.
Claim 12
In regards to claim 12, Nuske discloses wherein analysing the captured image comprises performing surface analysis of the imaged part of the thin canopy plant crop {see above cites for claim 1 while noting that because the images represent the surfaces of imaged grapes, the image analysis techniques that, for example, count grapes are performing “surface analysis of the imaged part of the thin canopy plant crop” as broadly recited}.
Claim 13
In regards to claim 13, Nuske discloses wherein the surface analysis comprises segmenting the image based on visual symptoms of the condition detected on the surface of the thin canopy plant crop, or features of the thin canopy plant crop {see section 3.2 Berry Detection which identifies individual grapes by segmenting the image based on features of the crop. See also section 5.4 Evaluating Visible Berries which details cluster models for segmenting berry clusters}.
Claim 14
In regards to claim 14, Nuske discloses wherein the first polarisation axis is at approximately 900 to the second polarisation axis {see above cites for claim 1 for cross-polarized illumination and detection in which “cross” means that the first polarisation axis is 900 to the second polarisation axis. It is noted that the term “approximately” is considered definite because it refers to unintentional or otherwise slightly uncalibrated alignment with respect to the preferred 90 degree cross polarization that most effectively blocks specular reflections}.
Claim 15
In regards to claim 15, Nuske discloses wherein the illumination source is pulsed or strobed {see cites for claim 1 in which the light source is a flash (aka pulsed or strobed illumination source}.
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.
Claims 9, 11, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuske in combination with Underwood (WO 2021/051150) and/or Official Notice.
Claims 9 and 11
Nuske discloses (claim 9) wherein the cross-polarised reflected light has a greater intensity than polarised ambient light that has reflected from the plant and been captured along with the image and (claim 11) wherein the intensity of the cross-polarised reflected light is more than 10 times greater than the intensity of the reflected ambient light
{Note that “ambient light” is a very broadly recited term that includes ambient light during nighttime or inside a building. See Figs 1 and 6 illustrating these broadly recited conditions in which a very bright flash (e.g. two high intensity Einstein 640 flashlights) are used to illuminate the grape vines in a cross-polarized configuration where the ambient light condition is very dark (nighttime). Official Notice is taken that indoor nighttime ambient illumination may be less than 10 lumens while outdoor night time ambient illumination may be near zero to about 1 lumen/m2 for a full moon.
One may calculate the lumen output from the Einstein 640 based on the 640 Watt-second (W-sec) output. Let’s assume a typical 100 to 200 lumens/Watt (Lm/W) luminous efficacy (official notice). Using the lower value of 100 Lm/W results in (640 W-sec)(100Lm/W) = 6,400 Lm-sec. With the minimum flash duration at full power of 1/2000 sec, we have (6,400 L-s/0.0005sec) = 1.28M lumens at full power and minimum flash duration for one Einstein 640 flash unit. Since Nuske employs two of them, the total output value for both is 2.56M lumens.
Given a typical polarizer loss of 50%, which is suffered twice due to the cross-polarization from light and lens, the total cross polarized light reaching the camera sensor from these extremely bright flash units is about 2.56M lumens*(0.5 polarization loss in light)*(0.5 polarization loss in camera) = 640,000 lumens.
Compare this value with nighttime conditions {e.g. 10 lumens * (0.5 polarization loss in camera’s polarizer) = 5 lumens ambient light received by the camera.
Considering that plants typically reflect about 10% of visible light, the final values are approximately 64,000 lumens versus 0.5 lumens. As such, the Nuske’s very bright flash illumination easily satisfies the broadly recited claim language given well known and officially noticed values and straightforward math.
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection such that (claim 9) wherein the cross-polarised reflected light has a greater intensity than polarised ambient light that has reflected from the plant and been captured along with the image and (claim 11) wherein the intensity of the cross-polarised reflected light is more than 10 times greater than the intensity of the reflected ambient light in view of Official Notice regarding well-known physical values including typical ambient illumination levels, polarization loss, reflection loss, and identified hardware light output values because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Underwood is an analogous reference from the same field of machine vision for agriculture and also solves the same problem as the instant invention which is dealing with poor S/N ratio when imaging crops during the daytime such that downstream machine vision tasks suffer from poor quality imagery. See in particular page 10 in which “the use of very powerful illumination/lighting system (e.g. short pulse high energy strobes) … has been found to overpower the illumination provided by sunlight to allow for consistent scanning of a crop at any time of day or night as well as operation in sunny or cloudy conditions with repeatable results” (emphasis added).
Moreover, Underwood’s use of high-powered artificial lighting also provides other advantages including the ability to use very short camera exposure times thus giving rise to clear sharp images despite motion of the vehicle-mounted equipment travelling across uneven field terrain to image the orchard crops as further discussed on pg. 10.
In more detail, Underwood teaches a vehicle-mounted imager (cameras) with two strobe light units 14, 15 having an “extremely high level of brightness with a combined output of 1.2 x 10-4 joules/cm2 at two feet, pg. 5. Moreover, the flash duration is 50 to 100 microseconds.
As such and particularly in reference to pg. 10 disclsoure, Underwood clearly teaches (claim 9) wherein the cross-polarised reflected light has a greater intensity than polarised ambient light that has reflected from the plant and been captured along with the image even during daylight conditions.
While it is difficult to calculate the intensity of the output of Underwood’s “extremely bright” artificial lights, it is fair to conclude that it is sufficiently bright that it teaches or at least suggests (claim 11) wherein the intensity of the cross-polarised reflected light is more than 10 times greater than the intensity of the reflected ambient light.
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection such that (claim 9) wherein the cross-polarised reflected light has a greater intensity than polarised ambient light that has reflected from the plant and been captured along with the image and (claim 11) wherein the intensity of the cross-polarised reflected light is more than 10 times greater than the intensity of the reflected ambient light in view of Underwood and/or Official Notice regarding well-known physical values including typical ambient illumination levels, polarization loss, reflection loss, and identified hardware light output values because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Further in regards to claim 11, Underwood demonstrates that light intensity/brightness is a result effective variable that achieves the recognized and disclosed result of improving agricultural imagery by “overpower[ing] the illumination provided by sunlight to allow for consistent scanning of a crop at any time of day”, pg. 10. In other words, light intensity is a result effective variable that achieves a recognized result (improving outdoor plant imagery) wholly consistent with In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2144.05II(B).
It 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 to have modified modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection such that wherein the intensity of the cross-polarised reflected light is more than 10 times greater than the intensity of the reflected ambient light because light intensity has been taught by Undersood as a result effective variable consistent with In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2144.05II(B) to overcome ambient light conditions when imaging plants outdoors.
Independent Claim 16
In regards to claim 16, Nuske discloses an image capture system comprising:
an illumination source configured to produce illuminating light to illuminate a thin canopy plant crop; a first polariser arranged to polarise the illuminating light from the active illumination source; a second polariser arranged to cross-polarised light reflected from the thin canopy plant crop, the second polariser having a polarisation axis transverse to the polarisation axis of the first polariser; and an image capture device configured to capture light cross-polarised by the second polarizer
{see mapping for claim 1};
wherein the active illumination source is configured to produce illuminating light of sufficient intensity that the light cross-polarised by the second polariser is of greater intensity than ambient light reflected from the thin canopy plant crop and polarised by the second polarizer {see mapping of claims 9 and 11 above).
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection such that wherein the active illumination source is configured to produce illuminating light of sufficient intensity that the light cross-polarised by the second polariser is of greater intensity than ambient light reflected from the thin canopy plant crop and polarised by the second polarizer in view of Underwood and/or Official Notice
regarding well-known physical values including typical ambient illumination levels, polarization loss, reflection loss, and identified hardware light output values because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 17
In regards to claim 17, Nuske discloses wherein the image capture system is integrated with a controller and the integrated components have a single mounting system to a vehicle
{Nuske’s image capture system (see above mapping of claims 1 and 16) employs a digital camera such as the Prosilica GE 400 camera which includes a microprocessor to process the digital images. As such and as shown in Figs. 1 and 6 the image capturing system including the lights, camera (with internal processor) and polarizers are integrated onto a boom-like structure that has a single mounting system for the illustrated vehicle}
Claim 20
In regards to claim 20, Nuske discloses wherein the active illumination source has a total output intensity of at least 1,100,000 lumens.
{One may calculate the lumen output from the Einstein 640 based on the 640 Watt-second (W-sec) output. Let’s assume a typical 100 to 200 lumens/Watt (Lm/W) luminous efficacy (official notice). Using the lower value of 100 Lm/W results in (640 W-sec)(100Lm/W) = 6,400 Lm-sec. With the minimum flash duration at full power of 1/2000 sec, we have (6,400 L-s/0.0005sec) = 1.28M lumens at full power and minimum flash duration for one Einstein 640 flash unit. Since Nuske employs two of them, the total output value for both is 2.56M lumens}.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuske and Noguchi (US 20170118925 A1).
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Nuske discloses a stereo camera (section 3.3) but for odometry and vehicle navigation not for plant imaging.
Noguchi is an analogous reference from the same field of machine vision for agriculture including a plant information obtainment unit 410 which is a field vehicle for illuminating and imaging plants including wherein the capturing an image comprises capturing stereo images {stereo camera 430, Fig. 3 copied below, [0088], [0091]
PNG
media_image2.png
546
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
}
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection such that wherein the capturing an image comprises capturing stereo images as taught by Noguchi because stereo imagery advantageously generates three-dimensional images thus increasing the accuracy and capabilities of Nuske’s crop monitoring device and method such as being able to estimate plant size in three dimensions thus increasing accuracy of harvest predictions while Noguchi’s stereo camera would also benefit from cross-polarized imagery to reduce specular reflections and increase S/N ratio which is particularly useful and advantageous for downstream machine vision tasks such as crop monitoring, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Nuske discloses wherein the condition of the thin canopy plant crop comprises yield {see above cites},
Noguchi also teaches that yield is determined from the stereo imaging to estimating berry and/or bunch volume/weight {see Fig. 26 including NDVI, predicted harvest date and crop yield [0078], [0091], [0129], [0184], [0189]-[0194] determining plant size/volume}.
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection such that wherein the capturing an image comprises capturing stereo images as taught by Noguchi and wherein yield is determined from the stereo imaging to estimating berry and/or bunch volume/weight as also taught by Noguchi because stereo imagery advantageously generates three-dimensional images thus increasing the accuracy and capabilities of Nuske’s crop monitoring device and method such as being able to estimate plant size in three dimensions thus increasing accuracy of harvest predictions while Noguchi’s stereo camera would also benefit from cross-polarized imagery to reduce specular reflections and increase S/N ratio which is particularly useful and advantageous for downstream machine vision tasks such as crop monitoring, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Nuske is not relied upon to disclose but Noguchi teaches wherein the condition of the thin canopy plant crop is also determined using input from one or more of:
temperature sensors, relative humidity sensors, soil moisture sensors, barometric pressure sensors, wind sensors, UV sensors, light sensors, depth sensors and/or rain sensors {see Fig. 24, [0095] teaching a sensor suite including infrared, CO2, water, windspeed, nutrition, temperature and humidity sensors gathering data that may be used by the server 704 to determine condition of the plants such as predicting harvest time}.
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection such that wherein the capturing an image comprises capturing stereo images as taught by Noguchi and wherein the condition of the thin canopy plant crop is also determined using input from one or more of temperature sensors, relative humidity sensors, soil moisture sensors, barometric pressure sensors, wind sensors, UV sensors, light sensors, depth sensors and/or rain sensors as also taught by Noguchi because a more robust sensor suite increases the accuracy and range of plant condition monitoring functions and harvest predictions, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuske in combination with Underwood (WO 2021/051150) and/or Official Notice as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Noguchi.
Claim 18
In regards to claim 18, Nuske discloses wherein the image capture device is configured to capture a
Noguchi teaches capturing stereo images as detailed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection such that wherein the capturing an image comprises capturing stereo images as taught by Noguchi because stereo imagery advantageously generates three-dimensional images thus increasing the accuracy and capabilities of Nuske’s crop monitoring device and method such as being able to estimate plant size in three dimensions thus increasing accuracy of harvest predictions while Noguchi’s stereo camera would also benefit from cross-polarized imagery to reduce specular reflections and increase S/N ratio which is particularly useful and advantageous for downstream machine vision tasks such as crop monitoring, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuske, Nuske ‘894 US 2018/0129894 A1), Nuske ‘925 (US 2017/0118925 A1), and Official Notice.
Claim 23
In regards to claim 23, Nuske discloses a vehicle mounted image capture system, comprising:
a high intensity illumination source configured to strobe foliage or fruit of a target thin canopy plant {see claim 1 mapping};
an image capture device configured to capture images of the illuminated foliage and/or fruit {see claim 1 mapping};
a single mounting system for the housing to the vehicle {Figs. 1 and 6 illustrate a mounting system for mounting at least the light and cameras to the vehicle but does note appear to mount a housing the vehicle}.
Nuske ‘894 teaches an
a housing integrating the illumination source, the image capture device and the computation unit {See Fig. 8 showing housings appropriate for housing the illumination sources 801, image capture devices 802 and computation unit. Official notice is also taken that processors (computation unit) are commonly used to execute the methods of Figs. 1, 2 and are routinely located within a common housing integrating components such as those disclosed by Nuske and Nuske ‘894.
Nuske ‘925 teaches an
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection vehicle mounted apparatus having high-intensity illumination sources, image capture device and computation unit to process images of the illuminated foliage and fruit such that the system includes a housing integrating the illumination source, the image capture device and the computation unit, and wherein the computation unit is on-board and operates in real-time as taught by Nuske ‘925, Nuske ‘894 and Official notice because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuske in combination with Underwood (WO 2021/051150) and/or Official Notice as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bettenhausen (WO 2008043383 A1) and Haron {N. M. A. N. Haron, et al, Fadzilah, "White LED illumination for improving outdoor image analysis for palm oil fruit ripeness detection," 2012 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), Depok, West Java, Indonesia, 2012, pp. 95-99}.
Claim 21
In regards to claim 21, Nuske discloses wherein the active illumination source comprises
Haron is an analogous reference from the same field of illuminating and imaging plants. Haron also teaches wherein the active illumination source comprises one or more light-emitting diodes and the image capture system is configured to strobe the light-emitting diodes {see section II White LED for The Improvement of Image Analysis which also teaches the advantages of using LEDs in this role}. Haron further teaches applying super bright LEDs to improve outdoor image analysis against outdoor conditions in Section V. Lastly, Haron suggests using “higher power sources” for LED arrays in Section V.
Bettenhausen is an analogous reference because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, namely high-intensity lighting for imaging objects with increased S/N ratio. See abstract, pgs. 2-3.
Bettenhausen also teaches wherein the active illumination source comprises one or more light-emitting diodes and the image capture system is configured to strobe the light-emitting diodes with an intermittent voltage above a rated LED voltage
{see pgs. 2-4 in which a very short pulse width (e.g. about 0.5 microseconds to 2 microsecond) is used to strobe the LED in an overdriven manner with an intermittent voltage above rated LED voltage to produce super bright light. Moreover, LEDs are cited as having a reduced cost and simplified control scheme}.
It 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 to have modified Nuske’s very bright flash illumination and cross-polarized detection vehicle mounted apparatus having high-intensity illumination sources and image capture device such that wherein the active illumination source comprises one or more light-emitting diodes and the image capture system is configured to strobe the light-emitting diodes as taught by Haron and to strobe the LEDs with an intermittent voltage above a rated LED voltage as taught by Bettenhausen because Bettenhausen motivates using overdriven LEDs for high intensity light applications due to the simplified control scheme, because Haron motivates using higher power sources for super bright LEDS for agricultural imagery, because LEDs are more energy efficient that Xenon tubes of Nuske, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-9, 11-18, 20, 21, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims of copending Application No. 17/800,817 (also corresponds to Delkovic above) in view of the prior art references as indicated in the summary chart. The prior art mappings for each of the secondary prior art references indicated below as well as the corresponding obviousness rationales are hereby incorporated by reference. Indeed, each of these prior art references and obviousness rationales have been extensively discussed above in relation to the corresponding prior art rejections.
The remaining and persistent difference between the instant claims and the reference claims is the field of use (thin canopy plant crop as opposed to tall plant crop) and the omission of strobed/pulsed illumination in the instant claims thus broadening them with respect to the reference claims. Nuske also teaches the instant claims’ thin canopy crop field of use as per rejection of claim 1 and it 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 to have modified the reference claims’ field of use of tall plant crops to illuminating and imaging thin canopy plant crops as taught by Nuske particularly because the claims do not recite details of such a modified field of use such as, for example, specially adapted lights, cameras, and/or supporting frames for thin canopy plants as opposed to tall plant crops, because there is a reasonable expectation of success given such a general field of use and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant claim
Reference claim
Difference & Prior art
1
1
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
2
1
Tall plant crop -> vineyard or orchard
Nuske
3
1
Light or camera generally directed upward
Nuske
4
Stereo camera
Noguchi
5
49
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
6
49
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
7
1
Sensor suite including humidity or temperature
8
50
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
9
43
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
11
45
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
12
1
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
13
1
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
Segment, Nuske
14
10
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
15
1
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
16
51
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
17
51
Integrated, single mount to vehicle
Nuske
18
51
Stereo images
Noguchi
20
53
Different field of use:
Tall plant crop -> thin canopy crop
Nuske
1.1M lumens: Nuske, Underwood and Official Notice
21
51
Led with intermittent voltage above rated voltage
Bettenhausen and Haron
23
51
Housing, single mount
Nuske ‘894, Nuske ‘925
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In the interests of compact prosecution, with respect to the other conditions in the Markush group of claim 6 see the cited NPL in the 892 form including Fahey {Fahey T, Pham H, Gardi A, Sabatini R, Stefanelli D, Goodwin I, Lamb DW. Active and Passive Electro-Optical Sensors for Health Assessment in Food Crops. Sensors (Basel). 2020 Dec 29;21(1):171. doi: 10.3390/s21010171. PMID: 33383831; PMCID: PMC7795220} and Ding {Ding Y, Jiang Y, Yu H, Yang C, Wu X, Sun G, Fu X, Dou X. Measurement Method for Height-Independent Vegetation Indices Based on an Active Light Source. Sensors (Basel). 2020 Mar 25;20(7):1830. doi: 10.3390/s20071830. PMID: 32218359; PMCID: PMC7180979}.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights