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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 3, “the first” should be changed to --a first--
In claim 11, line 5, “the second” should be changed to --a second--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20180121032A, hereinafter referred to as “KR’032” in view of the article entitled “An Automated, Clip-Type, Small Internet of Things Camera-Based Tomato Flower and Fruit Monitoring and Harvest Prediction System” to Lee et al, hereinafter referred to as “Lee.” The examiner notes that the supplied English translation of KR’032 is relied upon for the claim mapping set forth, infra.
With regard to claim 1, KR’032 sets forth a receptacle analysis and tracking-based time series crop growth analysis method performed by a computer, the method comprising: acquiring a crop image representing an image of a crop taken by a camera [0012]; recognizing, from the crop image, predetermined unit objects included in the crop (“predetermined unit objects” are equivalent to the growth targets mention by KR’032 in [0013] which include flower buds, a flowering flower, and fruit); clustering the predetermined unit objects (buds, flowers, fruit) to form a plurality of clusters (see [0016] and “generate each cluster”); reconstructing the plurality of clusters on the basis of a receptacle unit (see [0017] and the judging, i.e. “reconstructing,” whether the classification suitability of the growth target (buds, flowers, fruit) belongs to each of the clusters, see also [0068] and [0069] where judging the classification is judged (“reconstructed”) in the cluster as suitable [0068] or not suitable [0069]).
However, KR’032 fails to disclose the claimed “generating linkage information between the predetermined unit objects and clusters or between the plurality of clusters in each image having different temporal information.”
In the same field of endeavor (growth analysis of crops), Lee discloses under section “2.3 Tracking” and in Figs 10 and 11 the temporal (time) linking of the sequence of images taken over time of the specific tracking of identified buds, flowers, and fruit from one day to the next.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the crop growth analysis of KR’032 with the ability to temporally track growth of specific buds, flowers, and fruit between a series of images taken over days as taught by Lee as doing so would enable accurate tracking and growth analysis to be performed over time as the crop becomes more and more complex as it grows (see Lee, page 2 of 18, lines 11-15).
With regard to claim 2, KR’032 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the recognizing comprises: recognizing the predetermined objects included in the crop from the crop image; and recognizing the predetermined objects as unit objects identified by growth stages (see [0051]).
With regard to claim 3, KR’032 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the clustering comprises: calculating information about a distance between a first unit object and a second unit object among the predetermined unit objects (see [0016] and the calculated distances); and constructing the first and second unit objects into a cluster in response to the distance information being within a predetermined threshold distance (see also [0017] and the “preset reference range”).
With regard to claim 4, KR’032 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reconstructing comprises: reconstructing the plurality of clusters on the basis of the receptacle unit in response to the number of unit objects included in the cluster being greater than or equal to the minimum number of unit objects (see [0064], [0066] and [0073]-[0076]).
With regard to claim 5, KR’032 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reconstructing comprises: detecting a stem for any one unit object in the cluster; detecting a first junction of points where the detected stem extends; and reconstructing the consecutive unit objects at the first junction on the basis of a single receptacle unit (see [0069] and [0070]).
With regard to claim 6, KR’032 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein reconstructing the consecutive unit objects comprises: reconstructing the consecutive unit objects at the first junction on the basis of the single receptacle unit in response to the number of unit objects satisfying at least the minimum number of unit objects to constitute the receptacle unit. Consider that the growth analysis taught by KR’032 detects stems, unit objects (i.e. buds, flowers, fruit) and places the unit objects in to clusters based divided regions of the stem (see [0062], it would have been obvious to consider a minimum number of unit objects being present when binning unit objects into clusters. It is also well known that unit objects forming a cluster share similar growing stages at nearly the same point in time and so accurate clustering would increase the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to predict yield output.
With regard to claim 7, KR’032 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein detecting the stem comprises: detecting the stem for the unit object by detecting a straight or curved stem in an upward direction relative to a boundary of the unit object by tracking an energy-maximized path relative to the boundary of the unit object (see [0061] and [0062] and note that as broadly claimed, the “energy-maximized path” is taken as any stem growing in an upward direction over time).
With regard to claim 8, KR’032 and Lee in combination teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: separately storing information of the recognized unit object and information of the reconstructed cluster wherein the information of the unit object includes a unit object index, a class, a location on the crop image, and a crop image acquisition time (see Lee section 2.3 “Tracking” and assigned “tracking ID”), and wherein the information of the cluster includes a cluster index, a list of unit objects in the cluster, information of a location of a cluster center point on the crop image (see KR’032 at [0068] and “center point of the specific cluster” and generation of Table 1), information of a cluster size on the crop image (see KR’032 at [000062]-[0068], and a crop image acquisition time (see Lee at Fig 11).
With regard to independent claim 13, similar reasoning as set for independent claim 1 is adopted. Furthermore, KR’032 teaches the recited memory and processor (“executed on various computer means and recorded on a computer readable medium”) at [0082].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is noted by the examiner that claim 9 is very similar in scope to claim 11 (and claim 10 is very similar in scope to claim 12). Considering the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 9-12, care should be taken if drafting the claims into independent claims so as to not create duplicate claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art represents the general state of the art surrounding the use of image analysis techniques for analyzing growth of crops and predicting yields.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672