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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2,4,6,8,11,12, 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11 recites the word “bonitur”, which is a German word meaning professional, qualitative assessment of agricultural objects of observation. All words in the claim should be in English.
Claim 1 preamble, “wherein” should be “comprising”
Claims 2-6,8, 12 and 14 are rejected as dependent on a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2,4,6,8,11,12, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s)
“1. (Currently Amended) A method for the automated bonitur of plants, wherein a plurality of different sensor instruments include at least one camera for taking an image and at least one non-optical sensor instrument for taking a sample, the method comprising:”, which is the preamble and not given patentable weight.
“automatically taking, by the plurality of different sensor instruments, samples and/or images of at least one plant or of at least one nutrient medium or of a substrate;”, which is directed to mere data gathering – insignificant extrasolution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
“evaluating, by an artificial intelligence having a database with stored reference data correlated with contaminations or infections, the taken samples and/or images from the plurality of different sensor instruments to determine whether a contamination or infection is present;” The evaluating step is direct to mental process, for example a person looking at data could look at samples and look in a reference database and determine whether contamination is present. The AI is an additional element recited at a high level of generality which is well know, routine and conventional.
“determining, by the artificial intelligence during the evaluating, whether a further measurement by one of the plurality of different sensor instruments is required to verify a result;” The determining step is directed to a mental process, for example a person could look at a sample and decide a further measurement is required.
“automatically generating a signal to either reject the at least one plant from a further processing chain or to subject the at least one plant to a special treatment based on the evaluating and the determining.”, which is directed to a mental process, for example a person can speak(signal) reject the plant and/or subject the plant to special treatment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 1 above.
Claims 2,4,6,8,12 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claims 3, 5 are NOT rejected under 35 USC 101 as it integrates it into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6,8, 11-12, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 11 recites “non-optical sensor”. While the disclosure (pg. 4) does disclose the species “the sample and/or the recording is taken by at least one camera for visible, infrared and/or ultraviolet light, a pH measuring instrument, an impedance spectroscope, a gas sensor“, it does not disclose the full genus of “non-optical” sensors. Examiner Note: Gas and ph instruments comes in both non-optical and optical versions (for example NDIR for CO2 and colorimetric dyes and Absorbance spectrophotometry for PH) Application/Control Number: 18/564,208 Page 5 Art Unit: 2672
Claim 1 recites “determining, by the artificial intelligence during the evaluating, whether a further measurement by one of the plurality of different sensor instruments is required to verify a result; and” The Examiner is unable to find support for this limitation. Page 4, last paragraph states “in particular with the neural network ascertaining while the sample and/or the image is being taken whether a further sample and/or a further image is to be taken.” In other words the determining step appears to run during the image acquisition step.
Claim 1 recites “automatically generating a signal to either reject the at least one plant from a further processing chain or to subject the at least one plant to a special treatment based on the evaluating and the determining”. While the original disclosure is clear the signal is generated based on the evaluating step, it is not clear where it discloses using the determining step.
Claim 11 is rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claim 1 and 11 recites and “Artificial Intelligence” that accomplishes various steps, but the original disclosure fails to disclose any details of the neural network/AI. See MPEP 2161.01.I (“ original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed”) and 2161.01.III. Additionally there is no disclosure of what criteria is used determine a resulslts.
Claims 2-6,8, 12 and 14 are rejected as dependent on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14 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.
Claim 1 recites “automatically taking, by the plurality of different sensor instruments, samples and/or images of at least one plant or of at least one nutrient medium or of a substrate” and “automatically generating a signal to either reject the at least one plant from a further processing chain or to subject the at least one plant to a special treatment based on the evaluating and the determining”. In the first limitation, if the plant is not selected as one of the alternatives, then “the at least one plant” would lack antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “special treatment”, While the disclosure gives examples of UVC, X-ray,H20,ClO2, nNaOCl, CO2 pressure, the claims are not limited to these. What constitutes “special treatment” vs regular treatment is not clear.
Claim 3 recites “The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the method further includes taking, by an image recognition instrument, an image of a container or of a multiplicity of containers, each of which has a plant and/or a nutrient medium or a substrate, and, with the aid of this image, automatically bringing the gripper arm to a container to grip the container and deliver it to the plurality of different sensor instruments.” It is not clear which container the container refers to.
Claim 11 is rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-6,8, 12 and 14 are rejected as dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,8, 11-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kertz (4,978,505) in view of Wiles (10,692,216) in view of Tipgunlakant (2018/0291417)
Kertz discloses 1. (Currently Amended) A method for the automated bonitur of plants, wherein a plurality of different sensor instruments include at least one camera for taking an image and at least one non-optical sensor instrument for taking a sample (Kertz, Fig. 1 #90, “Fill Check Scanner”, Col. 12 lines 56-Col. 13 line 55,” Fill check scanner 90 generally comprises enclosure 176, light source 178, polarized panel 180 and photo receptor panel 182.”, “Photoreceptor panel 182 comprises a surface containing hundreds of photosensitive cells (not shown). ”;” f fill check scanner 90 is the "Smarteye" photoelectric sensor manufactured by the Tri-Tronics Company, Inc. of Tampa, Fla”)(Kertz, Fig. 1 #140, “One type of growth detection scanner 40 is the vision system, including the 2803-CM VIM module camera adapter and 2802 line scan camera manufactured by Allen Bradley of Milwaukee, Wis.”) (Kertz, Fig. 1 #544, bar code reader), the method comprising:
automatically taking, by the plurality of different sensor instruments, samples and/or images of at least one plant or of at least one nutrient medium or of a substrate;(Kertz, Col. 22 Lines 57-67, “(71) As depicted in FIG. 1, individual lengths of plant-filled cellules are periodically scanned in the culture room 130 by a growth detection scanner 140 which detects the growth of the plant or tissue”)(Kertz, Col.12 lines 56-68, “(31) Referring now to FIG. 11, fill check scanner 90 is used to determine whether the cellules 30 have been injected with the appropriate measure of growth medium 92. ”)
evaluating the taken samples and/or images from the plurality of different sensor instruments to determine whether a contamination or infection is present; (Kertz, Col. 22 last paragraph-23 first paragraph, “Should contamination be detected, an ink jet printer 140a, such as the Excel small character ink jet printer manufactured by Videojet Systems International, Inc. of Elk Grove Village, Ill., marks the cellule containing the contaminated plant material to later avoid removing the contaminated plant material from that cellule at the cutting unit 280. A print registration scanner 140b, such as the Smarteye color mark registration scanner manufactured by Tri-Tronics Company, Inc. of Tampa, Fla., may be located at cutting unit 280 to detect the reject mark so as to not remove the contaminated plant material into tissue containment device 336.”)
automatically generating a signal to either reject the at least one plant from a further processing chain or to subject the at least one plant to a special treatment based on the evaluating and the determining. (Kertz, Col. 22 last paragraph-23 first paragraph, “Should contamination be detected, an ink jet printer 140a, such as the Excel small character ink jet printer manufactured by Videojet Systems International, Inc. of Elk Grove Village, Ill., marks the cellule containing the contaminated plant material to later avoid removing the contaminated plant material from that cellule at the cutting unit 280. A print registration scanner 140b, such as the Smarteye color mark registration scanner manufactured by Tri-Tronics Company, Inc. of Tampa, Fla., may be located at cutting unit 280 to detect the reject mark so as to not remove the contaminated plant material into tissue containment device 336.”)
Kertz detects contamination, but doesn’t disclose how it determines the contamination, in particular does not expressly disclose
“evaluating, by an artificial intelligence having a database with stored reference data correlated with contaminations or infections, the taken samples and/or images from the plurality of different sensor instruments to determine whether a contamination or infection is present;
determining, by the artificial intelligence during the evaluating, whether a further measurement by one of the plurality of different sensor instruments is required to verify a result; and”
Wiles discloses “evaluating, by an artificial intelligence having a database with stored reference data correlated with contaminations or infections, the taken samples and/or images from the plurality of different sensor instruments to determine whether a contamination or infection is present; (Wiles, Col. 5 lines 53-57, “The classification algorithm may be a supervised machine learning algorithm, wherein the combined object features may be compared to object feature information for four or fewer microorganisms stored in the memory.”)
determining, by the artificial intelligence during the evaluating, whether a further measurement by one of the plurality of different sensor instruments is required to verify a result; and” (Wiles,Col. 26 lines29-43, “ Time points for imaging may be preset or defined by an automated process based upon ongoing analysis of previously captured images of the objects. ”, discloses determining additional imaging based on ongoing analysis of previous images)
Examiner Note: Applicant’s Specification paragraph 6 states “The claimed plants may also be plant organ parts or other plant material, tissue, cells or the like. Accordingly, the method described here is not intended to be restricted to use on a plant, but may instead also extend to the use of other organic forms”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to use Wiles machine learning algorithm to determine contamination in Kertz and acquire additional images as shown by Wiles when the previous captured images of Kertz are not sufficient.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been an a AI system would be faster fast to use and having additional images would provide a better quality input, thus leading to a better quality output.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Kertz discloses a plurality of optical sensors, but does not disclose a “non-optical sensors”
Tipgunlakant discloses “non-optical sensors” (Tipgunlakant, Abstract, “Specialized microplate and/or capping arrangements can include gas, chemical, temperature, pH, molecular-imprint, optical, and fluorescence sensors as well as biosensors, immunosensors, bioFETS, etc. Various per-well imaging implementation can be provided. The invention can be used for living cell culture or other applications.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to use the various sensors as shown in Tipgunlakant in addition to the sensors hown by Kertz.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to capture more data thereby providing a more complete answers.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kertz with Wiles and Tipgunlakant to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Kertz in view of Wiles in view of Tipgunlakant discloses 2. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further includes delivering the at least one plant and/or the at least one nutrient medium or the substrate to the plurality of different sensor instruments in at least one container or on a tray, the delivery being carried out manually by a person or automatically by a conveyor or a gripper arm. (Kertz, Fig 1, Tractor Feed Apparatus)
Kertz in view of Wiles in view of Tipgunlakant discloses 3. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the method further includes taking, by an image recognition instrument, an image of a container or of a multiplicity of containers, each of which has a plant and/or a nutrient medium or a substrate, and, with the aid of this image, automatically bringing the gripper arm to a container to grip the container and deliver it to the plurality of different sensor instruments.(The use of a image recognition instrument (such as a person) and a gripper(such as a hand) to grip and move objects is notoriously well known, routine and conventional)
Kertz in view of Wiles in view of Tipgunlakant discloses 4. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further includes transporting individual containers on a conveyor instrument through a first airlock into a room, the bonitur being carried out before entry into the first airlock or in the room. (Kertz, Fig. 1)
Kertz in view of Wiles in view of Tipgunlakant discloses 5. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the method further includes transporting the individual containers into the room in a closed state and then opening manually or by a gripper arm and carrying out the bonitur in the room. (Kertz, Fig. 1)
Kertz in view of Wiles in view of Tipgunlakant discloses 6. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the samples and/or the images are taken by the at least one camera for visible, infrared and/or ultraviolet light. (see claim 1)
Kertz in view of Wiles in view of Tipgunlakant discloses 8. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of different sensor instruments are used simultaneously or successively for carrying out the bonitur. (see claim 1)
Claim 11 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 2.
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 GANDHI THIRUGNANAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights