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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The Specification, in various locations, make numerous references to the claims. While not currently improper, most amendments to the claims would cause this paragraph to be subject to an objection under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure The Examiner recommends copying the original claims into the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-14 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, as written, appear in the form of one long preamble without a body to the claim. In a majority of the claims, the word “comprising” or similar transitional phrases (See MPEP 2111.03) are not even recited. Additionally there is no “:”, which may also be used to help delineated the preamble from the body of the claim. Therefore the claims as a whole have no steps and do not define any scope for a claim.
Claims 1-10 recite a method without any active steps. Correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “A method for the automated bonitur of plants, wherein (an image and/or a sample) of (at least one plant or of at least one nutrient medium or of a substrate) is taken automatically by a sensor unit and
(this sample and/or this image) are compared by an evaluation instrument with (known samples and/or recordings) of (plants and/or nutrient media or substrates), which have a contamination. ”, which is written without proper punctuation and can be interpreted multiple different ways. The and/or will be interpreted as shown above. If Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation, please explain how it should be interpreted.
Claim 2 recites “the image can be taken in a particularly efficient way”. It is not clear what Applicant means by taking an image in an efficient way. Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose what are efficient/inefficient ways of taking an image.
Claim 3 recites “wherein an image recognition instrument ….”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. The word “wherein” should be replaced with “further comprising” OR the claim should say, “wherein the sensor unit comprises an image recognition instrument ..”
Claim 3 recites “the gripper arm”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. For purpose of Examination, the Examiner is treating this claim as dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “the individual containers”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. For purpose of Examination, the Examiner is treating this claim as dependent upon claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 1.
Claims 2-10 and 12-14 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected claim and failing to cure the deficiencies of said rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5,7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carroll (PGPub 2020/0302338).
Carroll discloses 1.(Currently Amended) A method for the automated bonitur of plants, wherein an image and/or a sample of at least one plant or of at least one nutrient medium or of a substrate is taken automatically by a sensor unit and this sample and/or this image are compared by an evaluation instrument with known samples and/or recordings of plantsand/or nutrient media or substrates, which have a contamination. (Carroll, Fig. 12 #S31, paragraph 192, “At step S31, the plant health monitoring device 1 obtains an electrical signal from a plant. The device to which the trained model is exported (e.g., the plant health monitoring device 1 and/or the plant control device 100) assesses a characteristic of the plant using the trained machine learning model and the obtained electrical signal, and may generate plant data indicative of an assessment result of the characteristic of the plant. The plant data may be an output of the trained machine learning model, or may be generated based upon the output of the trained machine learning model.”; Additionally see paragraph 171, “In addition, depending upon the particular type of the stressor introduced, the ambient lighting condition, the ambient humidity level, the ambient pollutant level, the ambient CO.sub.2 level, the chemical composition of the growth medium, the presence of pests, and/or the air temperature of the first plant may be monitored using, for example, a light sensor, a humidity sensor, a pollution sensor, a CO.sub.2 sensor, a chemical sensor, a pest detection sensor, and/or a temperature sensor, respectively, to generate the labels used at step S4.”)
Carroll discloses 2. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one plant (Caroll, See Fig. 1, Container #4) the delivery being carried out manually by a person or automatically by a conveyor or a gripper arm, the container or the tray being delivered accurately by the gripper arm to the sensor unit(Carroll, paragraph 95, ” [0095] FIG. 1 further shows that the plant 2 is within a growth environment 50. The growth environment 50 may be a growing chamber, a greenhouse or field.”, which requires delivery by a person manually)
Carroll discloses 3. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1,wherein an image recognition instrument takes an image of a container 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 the gripper arm (addressed the alternative embodiment)
Carroll discloses 4. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the individual containers (addressed the alternative embodiment)
Carroll discloses 5. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the individual containers (addressed the alternative embodiment)
Carroll discloses 7. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein an evaluation of the samples and/or images taken is carried out by an artificial intelligence (AI), the AI or the evaluation instrument being provided with a database having a multiplicity of samples and/or images which can be correlated with a contamination or an infection of the plant or of the nutrient medium or of the substrate. (Carroll, paragraph 144, “deep learning model”; Additionally see fig. 10 which shows how to create the training set ; and paragraph 9-11,” The first plant and the second plant may be the same plant. In particular, the first plant may be used at an earlier time for generating the training dataset to train a machine learning model, and it may be required to assess a characteristic of the same plant at a later time using the trained model. Alternatively, the first plant and the second plant are separate plants (which may be of the same plant variety or different plant varieties).”)
Carroll discloses 8. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a plurality of the aforementioned sensor instruments(Carroll, paragraph 171, “In addition, depending upon the particular type of the stressor introduced, the ambient lighting condition, the ambient humidity level, the ambient pollutant level, the ambient CO.sub.2 level, the chemical composition of the growth medium, the presence of pests, and/or the air temperature of the first plant may be monitored using, for example, a light sensor, a humidity sensor, a pollution sensor, a CO.sub.2 sensor, a chemical sensor, a pest detection sensor, and/or a temperature sensor, respectively, to generate the labels used at step S4.”)
Carroll discloses 9. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein on the basis of the comparison of the samples and/or images taken of the plant medium or of the substrate with the samples and/or images stored in the database, the neural network ascertains whether the plant or the nutrient medium is delivered to further method steps, rejected or subjected to a special treatment. (Carroll, Fig. 12, S31, S32 and S33; see also paragraphs 193-197)
Carroll discloses 10. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the event of a contamination or an infection of the plant (Carroll, Fig. 12, S31, S32 and S33; see also paragraphs 193-197)
Carroll discloses 11. (Currently Amended) A device (See claim 1 rejection)
Carroll discloses 12. (Currently Amended) The device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the sensor unit is at least one (Carroll, paragraph 171, “In addition, depending upon the particular type of the stressor introduced, the ambient lighting condition, the ambient humidity level, the ambient pollutant level, the ambient CO.sub.2 level, the chemical composition of the growth medium, the presence of pests, and/or the air temperature of the first plant may be monitored using, for example, a light sensor, a humidity sensor, a pollution sensor, a CO.sub.2 sensor, a chemical sensor, a pest detection sensor, and/or a temperature sensor, respectively, to generate the labels used at step S4.”)
Carroll discloses 13. (Currently Amended) The device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the evaluation instrument is based on an artificial intelligence having a neural network, the neural network having a database in which a multiplicity of samples and/or images of plants (Carroll, paragraph 144, “deep learning model” “multi-layer feedforward artificial neural network”; Additionally see fig. 10 which shows how to create the training set ; and paragraph 9-11,” The first plant and the second plant may be the same plant. In particular, the first plant may be used at an earlier time for generating the training dataset to train a machine learning model, and it may be required to assess a characteristic of the same plant at a later time using the trained model. Alternatively, the first plant and the second plant are separate plants (which may be of the same plant variety or different plant varieties).”)
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) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Alexander (PGPub 2018/0295783).
Carroll discloses 6. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sample and/or the recording is taken by at least one camera or visible, infrared and/or ultraviolet (Carroll, paragraph 171, “Pest detection sensor”)
But fails to disclose what type of Pest detection sensor they use, in particular a camera.
Alexander discloses a visible light camera used for pest detection (Alexander, paragraph 90, “ In another implementation, the system can implement computer vision techniques to detect pests affecting a plant shown in an image. ”)
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 a camera of Alexander for the pest detection sensor of Carroll.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been a low cost readily available way of detecting pests.
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 Carroll with Alexander to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Carroll discloses 14. (Currently Amended) The device
But does not expressly disclose “wherein the device
Alexander discloses “wherein the device (Alexander , Fig. 1, paragraph 10)
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 mover of Alexander to move plants of Alexander.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to capture data of a plurality of plants..
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 Carroll with Alexander to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Conclusion
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