DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CZPV 2021-198, filed on 04/20/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/19/2023 has been received and considered.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification contains hyperlinks and browser-executable code which is not permitted (see MPEP 608.01).
The specification contains bolded paragraphs which is not permitted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and 15 reads “c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n t h a t a” but should read characterized in that a.
Claim 1 does not have all the comprising method steps.
Claim 1 reads “within an edges” but should read within the edges.
Claim 5 reads “and comprises patterns or markings” but should read “and further comprises patterns or markings”.
Claim 2-7 has improper spacing.
Claims 8-14 reads “Method” at the beginning of each claim but should read The method at the beginning of each claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claim 10 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to only one claims and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-14 recite a method of intra-row weeding of agricultural crops… however the claim does not contain any active method steps or process. For the purposes of this examination the examiner will interpret the claims to be a system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC §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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
Claim 1. A method of intra-row weeding of agricultural crops (1) in an immediate vicinity of their roots by means of a moving weeding machine (3) provided with a camera (8) to scan a weeding area, with software provided with a function of recognition of a cultivated crop among other crops or weeds, further provided with knives (7) positioned in or behind the area scanned by the camera (8) in a direction of weeding machine (3) travel, positioned below ground level and able to come apart from a row axis (o) and loosen the entire row up to the immediate vicinity of the crop (1), characterized in that a field of view (9) of the camera (8) is calibrated, wherein sides of the field of view (9) of the camera (8) have a length corresponding to at least a spacing (d) of the cultivated agricultural crops (1); [(Field of use)]
the weeding machine (3) is set in motion and moves parallel to the row axis (o) ± 10%; [(Mathematical concept)]
the camera (8) takes images of the field of view (9) at intervals; [(data gathering)]
these images are stored in an evaluation software (6); [(pre-solution activity)]
the evaluation software (6) comprises a machine learning model trained to recognize centers (2) of the cultivated agricultural crops (1), analyzes the images of the calibrated field of view (9) of the camera (10) where it detects and localizes the centers (2) of the cultivated agricultural crops (1) using the machine learning model, and records positions of the detected and localized centers (2); [(Particular Technological Environment)]
around the recorded localized centers (2), a defined zone (12) is defined in the immediate vicinity of the crop (1), within an edges of the knives (7) closest to the localized center (2) of the crop (1) move, wherein the knives (7) are positioned horizontally, being attached to an arms and the arms being attached to the weeding machine (3), wherein a distance between an attachment of the knife (7) to the arm and the edge of the knife (7) corresponds to at least r15 - rk - 1 cm, where r15 is a radius of a circular projection (15) from above covering an entire leaf rosette of the cultivated crops (1) and rk is a radius of the root of the cultivated crop (1), the defined zone (12) is defined between a circle of radius (r) centered on the detected center (2) of the crop (1) and a square centered on the detected center (2) of the crop (1), wherein the circle radius (r) is equal to the radius (rK) of the root of the cultivated crop (1) + 1 cm, and the square has a side length of 2r + 4 cm, before the edges of the knives (7) closest to the localized center (2) of the crop (1) enter the defined zones (12), the edges of the knives (7) are situated close to each other and centered on the row axis (o)± 10%, and after the edges of the knives (7) closest to the localized center (2) of the crop (1) have entered the defined zones (12), the evaluation software (6) commands the edges of knives (7) to come temporarily apart within the defined zone (12) and, at the latest, when the edges of the knives (7) leave the defined zones (12), the evaluation software (6) commands the edges of the knives (7) to come back close to each other. [(Mathematical concept)]
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method of intra-row weeding. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mathematical concept
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “Mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of …the weeding machine (3) is set in motion and moves parallel to the row axis (o) ± 10%; …around the recorded localized centers (2), a defined zone (12) is defined in the immediate vicinity of the crop (1), within an edges of the knives (7) closest to the localized center (2) of the crop (1) move, wherein the knives (7) are positioned horizontally, being attached to an arms and the arms being attached to the weeding machine (3), wherein a distance between an attachment of the knife (7) to the arm and the edge of the knife (7) corresponds to at least r15 - rk - 1 cm, where r15 is a radius of a circular projection (15) from above covering an entire leaf rosette of the cultivated crops (1) and rk is a radius of the root of the cultivated crop (1), the defined zone (12) is defined between a circle of radius (r) centered on the detected center (2) of the crop (1) and a square centered on the detected center (2) of the crop (1), wherein the circle radius (r) is equal to the radius (rK) of the root of the cultivated crop (1) + 1 cm, and the square has a side length of 2r + 4 cm, before the edges of the knives (7) closest to the localized center (2) of the crop (1) enter the defined zones (12), the edges of the knives (7) are situated close to each other and centered on the row axis (o)± 10%, and after the edges of the knives (7) closest to the localized center (2) of the crop (1) have entered the defined zones (12), the evaluation software (6) commands the edges of knives (7) to come temporarily apart within the defined zone (12) and, at the latest, when the edges of the knives (7) leave the defined zones (12), the evaluation software (6) commands the edges of the knives (7) to come back close to each other.
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, are mathematical calculations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations but for the recitation of a “the camera (8) takes images of the field of view (9) at intervals; these images are stored in an evaluation software (6);”. That is, other than reciting “the camera (8) takes images of the field of view (9) at intervals; these images are stored in an evaluation software (6);” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from a being a mathematical calculation. For example, but for the a “the camera (8) takes images of the field of view (9) at intervals; these images are stored in an evaluation software (6);” the claim encompasses a person merely collecting data and storing that data. The additional elements in the claim do no take the claim limitations out of the mathematical calculation grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of A method of intra-row weeding of agricultural crops (1) in an immediate vicinity of their roots by means of a moving weeding machine (3) provided with a camera (8) to scan a weeding area, with software provided with a function of recognition of a cultivated crop among other crops or weeds, further provided with knives (7) positioned in or behind the area scanned by the camera (8) in a direction of weeding machine (3) travel, positioned below ground level and able to come apart from a row axis (o) and loosen the entire row up to the immediate vicinity of the crop (1), characterized in that a field of view (9) of the camera (8) is calibrated, wherein sides of the field of view (9) of the camera (8) have a length corresponding to at least a spacing (d) of the cultivated agricultural crops (1); […] the camera (8) takes images of the field of view (9) at intervals; these images are stored in an evaluation software (6); the evaluation software (6) comprises a machine learning model trained to recognize centers (2) of the cultivated agricultural crops (1), analyzes the images of the calibrated field of view (9) of the camera (10) where it detects and localizes the centers (2) of the cultivated agricultural crops (1) using the machine learning model, and records positions of the detected and localized centers (2);.
The method of intra row weeding is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the field of use the method is applied to. The camera taking images and storing them is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of pre solution activity. The said evaluation software that comprises a machine learning model limitations are also recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use without telling you how it is accomplished.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the method of intra row weeding, camera taking images and storing them, and evaluation software that comprises a machine learning model elements were considered to be pre-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the method intra row weeding does not provide any indication that the method of intra row weeding is none other than a weeding method. (Paragraph 007)
The specification Further does not provide any indication that the camera that stores and takes pictures is none other than a camera. (Paragraph 007)
Finally, the specification further does not provide any indication that the evaluation software is none other than software that sis used to control the knife edges of the weeding machine. (Paragraph 0068)
Hence, the specification indicates that these limitations is/are a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
2. Dependent claims 2-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 2-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
3. Dependent claims 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
4. Therefore, dependent claims 2-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
5. Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664