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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 26, 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:
Claim 11, “configured to captured images” should read “configured to capture images”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Invoked despite absence of “means”
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:
“treatment mechanism” in claims 1, 6, 11, 16 and 20
“detection mechanism” in claims 1, 8-11 and 18-20
“verification mechanism” in claims 1 and 20
“verification system” in claim 11
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.
NOTE: It should be noted the respective dependent claims do not alter or eliminate the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation
NOTE: Additionally, in relation to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation as noted above, corresponding 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejected were considered for each interpretation. Upon review of the specification it was determined some terms did not need corresponding 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejections as noted below:
Term
Element
Structure/Algorithm (when computer implemented)
NOTE: paragraphs are from PG Pub
treatment mechanism
Paragraph 0043, “In a first variation, as shown in FIG. 7 , the treatment mechanism 200”
Structure: paragraph 0043, “In a first variation, as shown in FIG. 7 , the treatment mechanism 200 can include a spray mechanism, more preferably a high pressure spray mechanism, wherein the active area includes a spray area. The high pressure spray mechanism preferably functions to spray a high pressure jet or spray to dislodge the plant from the substrate, but can alternatively or additionally function to apply a force (e.g., a cutting force) to an portion of the plant (e.g., plant stem, leaf, branch, root, or any other suitable plant portion) or substrate, or function to treat the plant in any other suitable manner;” paragraph 0045, “In this variation, the treatment mechanism 200 can additionally include a pressure sensor or flow sensor that measures the fluid pressure or flowrate at the nozzle 211, inlet manifold, bypass valve 223, first outlet manifold 224, second outlet manifold 225, or reservoir 221, wherein the treatment parameters (e.g., initial spray time or position) can be subsequently adjusted or determined based on the measured working fluid parameters;” paragraph 0047, “In a second variation, the treatment mechanism 200 can include an electrical discharge mechanism, which functions to apply electric discharge 245 to a plant.”
detection mechanism
Paragraph 0028, “The system 10 preferably identifies the plant based on measurements from the detection mechanism 100”
Structure: paragraph 0035, “The detection mechanism 100 can be an optical sensor (e.g., a spectral imaging system), acoustic sensor, haptic sensor, electromagnetic sensor, or any other suitable sensor.”
verification mechanism
Paragraph 0051, “and/or verification mechanism 500,”
Structure: paragraph 0054, “The verification mechanism 500 can be substantially similar (e.g., be the same type of mechanism as) the detection mechanism 100, or be different from the detection mechanism 100. The verification mechanism 500 can be a multispectral camera, a stereocamera, a CCD camera, a single lens camera, hyperspectral imaging system, LIDAR system (light detection and ranging system), dyanmometer, IR camera, thermal camera, humidity sensor, light sensor, temperature sensor, or any other suitable sensor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(b)
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 11-19 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.
Claim limitation “verification system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding “verification system” in claim 11 applicant appears to describe only as in relation to the function it is configured to perform (paragraph claim 11). However, none of the specification describes a structure for the verification system. Therefore, in this instance “verification system” is interpreted as a 112(f) limitation and the specification fails to disclose a specific structure for the verification system.
Claims 12-19 are further rejected for inheriting the deficiency of the respective base claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
35 USC § 112(a)
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 11-19 are 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.
Regarding claim 11, applicant claims, “a verification system configured to captured images of plants and plant treatments.”
As per MPEP § 2181(IV), “A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description” (emphasis added). Furthermore, as per MPEP 2163.03(VI), “(s)uch a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.” Therefore, since applicant has not defined any particular structure for the “verification system” in claim 11, the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Applicant has not provided any specific definition for the structure that carry out the functions disclosed in claim 11. Additionally, the claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It appears that these components and/or features are essential and critical features of the applicants invention because without them applicant’s invention wouldn’t work correctly. In particular, the structure of the verification system are not described in any detail. Therefore, since applicant has not adequately described a particularly structure for performing each of the functions, a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed.
NOTE: Claims 12-19 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 11.
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(s) 1-4, 7, 11-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,263,210 to Kummel (hereinafter Kummel).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kummel discloses A method (abstract, “The invention relates to a method and system for volume-specific treatment of ground and plants as required.”)comprising:
classifying, by a computer, a plant in a first image by identifying a plant feature for the plant in a first plurality of pixels in the first image (column 10, line 13, “The large trees are measured and estimated With the sensor 3”… “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” the first measurement is read as the first image), the first plurality of pixels representing the plant in an area of a field (column 10, line 13, “The large trees are measured and estimated With the sensor 3”… “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time”), and the first image accessed from a detection mechanism of a farming machine moving through the field (column 4, lines 29-30, “FIG. 1a a schematic illustration of the arrangement of the sensor on the carrier,”);
treating the plant by operating a treatment mechanism to apply a treatment to the plant classified by the computer (column 4, line 46, “The system according to the invention for the volume specific application of spray agents, for treatment and for processing of plants in a limited area cultivation whose individual plants are disposed close together in rows defining travel paths between them is comprised basically of a traveling carrier 1, for example a tractor, which supports a spray unit 2, a blower for generating a two-phase flow, a central laser sensor 3 which rotates during travel of the carrier along the traveling path and a computer for processing all of the data obtained by the sensor;” column 10, line 26, “If the sensor 3 is used to gauge trees lined up in a row based upon the branches extending inwardly into the so-called travel path, the sections of the branches can be scanned to select for the individual growth of the individual trees, for example based upon different plant structures, reliability considerations or from the point of view of appearance and dead branches removed from consideration or old, sharply hanging branches, or younger lateral sprouts treated in a targeted manner;” column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”);
accessing, from the detection mechanism a second image of the area of the field (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” repetitive measurements at different times are read as the second imaging process), the second image comprising a second plurality of pixels representing the plant and the treatment of the plant in the area of the field (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” repetitive measurements at different times are read as the second imaging process), the second image accessed from a verification mechanism of the farming machine moving through the field (column 4, lines 29-30, “FIG. 1a a schematic illustration of the arrangement of the sensor on the carrier,”);
identifying, by the computer and based on the second plurality of pixels, a treatment indicator in the second image, the treatment indicator representing an effectiveness of the treatment (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”); and
adjusting operating parameters of the treatment mechanism based on the treatment indicator (column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”).
Regarding dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel further discloses further comprising:
accessing a reference indicator value indicative of an effective treatment (column 7, line 48, “ it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness;” in order to determine effectiveness (i.e. effective or not, there must be some threshold reference value used)); and
comparing the treatment indicator to a reference indicator to determine if the treatment was effective (column 7, line 48, “ it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness;” in order to determine effectiveness (i.e. effective or not, there must be some threshold reference value used)).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel further discloses wherein identifying the treatment indicator in the second image comprises applying an image processing algorithm to the second image (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” to determine growth from the raw image data, some mechanism of image processing must be used).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel further discloses wherein identifying the treatment indicator comprises identifying fluid application indicators in the second image (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” determining the growth after treatment is read as a fluid application indicator (in that the applied treatment was from a spray/fluid/liquid)).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel further discloses wherein identifying the treatment indicator comprises identifying a color change of a substrate in the field induced by the treatment (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time. If the sensor 3 is used to gauge trees lined up in a row based upon the branches extending inwardly into the so-called travel path, the sections of the branches can be scanned to select for the individual growth of the individual trees, for example based upon different plant structures, reliability considerations or from the point of view of appearance and dead branches removed from consideration or old, sharply hanging branches, or younger lateral sprouts treated in a targeted manner;” dead branches are read as being a different color; column 8, line 49, “Natural green from a plant reflects light from the lower infrared portion of the spectrum significantly better than other objects (green peak in the reflection spectrum). This is dependent upon the type, the nutritive situation of the plants or the degree of ripeness of the fruit and so forth. If the degree of reflection of different lower infrared spectra are compared, it is possible to distinguish between chlorophyll-retaining enlivened plant parts and object retaining less chlorophyll like ripened fruit”).
Regarding independent claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 applies directly. Additionally, Kummel further discloses A farming machine (abstract, “The invention relates to a method and system for volume-specific treatment of ground and plants as required.”) comprising:
a detection mechanism configured to capture images of plants in a field as the farming machine moves through the field (Figure 3, “sensor”);
a treatment mechanism configured to treat plants in the field (column 4, line 51, “a spray unit 2, a blower for generating a two-phase flow”);
a verification system configured to captured images of plants and plant treatments in the field as the farming machine moves through the field (Figure 3, “sensor”);
a control system comprising one or more processors, the control system configured to control operation of the detection mechanism and the treatment mechanism (column 1, line 55, “The invention relates also to a system for carrying out the method with a traveling carrier, especially a vehicle, and/or an agricultural implement coupled thereto,”… “a computer for processing the reflected radiation and controlled by the computer an agricultural implement affixed to the carrier whereby at least one working element of the implement is substantially spaced at a given distance from the sensor;” See also Figure 3); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the control system (column 4, line 54, “ a computer for processing all of the data obtained by the sensor;” for a computer to process data there must be a program operating behind the scenes), cause the control system to:
classify a plant in a first image by identifying a plant feature for the plant in a first plurality of pixels in the first image (column 10, line 13, “The large trees are measured and estimated With the sensor 3”… “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” the first measurement is read as the first image), the first plurality of pixels representing the plant in an area of a field (column 10, line 13, “The large trees are measured and estimated With the sensor 3”… “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time”), the first image accessed from the detection mechanism as the farming machine moves through the field (column 4, lines 29-30, “FIG. 1a a schematic illustration of the arrangement of the sensor on the carrier,”);
treat the plant by operating the treatment mechanism to apply a treatment to the plant (column 4, line 46, “The system according to the invention for the volume specific application of spray agents, for treatment and for processing of plants in a limited area cultivation whose individual plants are disposed close together in rows defining travel paths between them is comprised basically of a traveling carrier 1, for example a tractor, which supports a spray unit 2, a blower for generating a two-phase flow, a central laser sensor 3 which rotates during travel of the carrier along the traveling path and a computer for processing all of the data obtained by the sensor;” column 10, line 26, “If the sensor 3 is used to gauge trees lined up in a row based upon the branches extending inwardly into the so-called travel path, the sections of the branches can be scanned to select for the individual growth of the individual trees, for example based upon different plant structures, reliability considerations or from the point of view of appearance and dead branches removed from consideration or old, sharply hanging branches, or younger lateral sprouts treated in a targeted manner;” column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”);
access a second image of the area of the field, the second image comprising a second plurality of pixels representing the plant and the treatment of the plant in the area of the field (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” repetitive measurements at different times are read as the second imaging process), the second image accessed from the verification system as the farming machine moves through the field (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” repetitive measurements at different times are read as the second imaging process; column 4, lines 29-30, “FIG. 1a a schematic illustration of the arrangement of the sensor on the carrier,”);
identify, based on the second plurality of pixels, a treatment indicator in the second image, the treatment indicator representing an effectiveness of the treatment (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”); and
adjusting operating parameters of the treatment mechanism based on the treatment indicator (column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”).
Regarding dependent claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel further discloses wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors of the control system to:
access a reference indicator value indicative of an effective treatment (column 7, line 48, “ it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness;” in order to determine effectiveness (i.e. effective or not, there must be some threshold reference value used)); and
compare the treatment indicator to a reference indicator to determine if the treatment was effective (column 7, line 48, “ it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness;” in order to determine effectiveness (i.e. effective or not, there must be some threshold reference value used)).
Regarding dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel further discloses wherein identifying the treatment indicator in the second image causes the one or more processors of the control system to apply an image processing algorithm to the second image (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” to determine growth from the raw image data, some mechanism of image processing must be used).
Regarding dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel further discloses wherein identifying the treatment indicator causes the one or more processors of the control system to identify fluid application indicators in the second image (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” determining the growth after treatment is read as a fluid application indicator (in that the applied treatment was from a spray/fluid/liquid)).
Regarding dependent claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel further discloses wherein identifying the treatment indicator causes the one or more processors of the control system to identify a color change of a substrate in the field induced by the treatment (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time. If the sensor 3 is used to gauge trees lined up in a row based upon the branches extending inwardly into the so-called travel path, the sections of the branches can be scanned to select for the individual growth of the individual trees, for example based upon different plant structures, reliability considerations or from the point of view of appearance and dead branches removed from consideration or old, sharply hanging branches, or younger lateral sprouts treated in a targeted manner;” dead branches are read as being a different color; column 8, line 49, “Natural green from a plant reflects light from the lower infrared portion of the spectrum significantly better than other objects (green peak in the reflection spectrum). This is dependent upon the type, the nutritive situation of the plants or the degree of ripeness of the fruit and so forth. If the degree of reflection of different lower infrared spectra are compared, it is possible to distinguish between chlorophyll-retaining enlivened plant parts and object retaining less chlorophyll like ripened fruit”).
Regarding independent claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 applies directly. Additionally, Kummel further discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (column 4, line 54, “ a computer for processing all of the data obtained by the sensor;” for a computer to process data there must be a program operating behind the scenes), cause the one or more processors to:
classifying, by a computer, a plant in a first image by identifying a plant feature for the plant in a first plurality of pixels in the first image (column 10, line 13, “The large trees are measured and estimated With the sensor 3”… “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” the first measurement is read as the first image), the first plurality of pixels representing the plant in an area of a field (column 10, line 13, “The large trees are measured and estimated With the sensor 3”… “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time”), and the first image accessed from a detection mechanism of a farming machine moving through the field (column 4, lines 29-30, “FIG. 1a a schematic illustration of the arrangement of the sensor on the carrier,”);
treating the plant by operating a treatment mechanism to apply a treatment to the plant classified by the computer (column 4, line 46, “The system according to the invention for the volume specific application of spray agents, for treatment and for processing of plants in a limited area cultivation whose individual plants are disposed close together in rows defining travel paths between them is comprised basically of a traveling carrier 1, for example a tractor, which supports a spray unit 2, a blower for generating a two-phase flow, a central laser sensor 3 which rotates during travel of the carrier along the traveling path and a computer for processing all of the data obtained by the sensor;” column 10, line 26, “If the sensor 3 is used to gauge trees lined up in a row based upon the branches extending inwardly into the so-called travel path, the sections of the branches can be scanned to select for the individual growth of the individual trees, for example based upon different plant structures, reliability considerations or from the point of view of appearance and dead branches removed from consideration or old, sharply hanging branches, or younger lateral sprouts treated in a targeted manner;” column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”);
accessing, from the detection mechanism a second image of the area of the field (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” repetitive measurements at different times are read as the second imaging process), the second image comprising a second plurality of pixels representing the plant and the treatment of the plant in the area of the field (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” repetitive measurements at different times are read as the second imaging process), the second image accessed from a verification mechanism of the farming machine moving through the field (column 4, lines 29-30, “FIG. 1a a schematic illustration of the arrangement of the sensor on the carrier,”);
identifying, by the computer and based on the second plurality of pixels, a treatment indicator in the second image, the treatment indicator representing an effectiveness of the treatment (column 10, line 22, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time;” column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”); and
adjusting operating parameters of the treatment mechanism based on the treatment indicator (column 7, line 41, “For example, with the method according to the invention, the effects of plant protective agents which are used and/or other cultivation features on the plants which are subjected to the treatment, can be determined under the prevailing conditions individually, these conditions including the type of plant, the cultivation, training, fertilization, the climatic conditions, weathering. With this information it is possible to determine dosages for future treatments of the same plant stand with compatible indications so that dosages and application timing of a particular composition or any preparation or other treatment features can be optimized with respect to cost and effectiveness, but also taking into consideration resistance induction and crop yield. This allows also local dosing in individual partial dosages under different treatment conditions or positions and carrying out of horticultural operations as a function of the immediate requirements on individual plants at their individual locations.”).
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) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kummel as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of CN102506938A (hereinafter CN ‘938, a machine translation from Google Patents is provided).
Regarding dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection mechanism comprises a thermal camera.
However, CN ‘938 discloses wherein the detection mechanism comprises a thermal camera (abstract, “The invention belongs to the technical field of greenhouse crop growth information and environment information detection, and particularly discloses a detecting method for greenhouse crop growth information and environment information based on multi-sensor information. The detecting method includes the following steps: utilizing a spectrometer, a multispectral imager and a thermal imager to obtain the spectrums”).
Kummel is directed toward, “The invention relates to a method and system for volume-specific treatment of ground and plants (abstract).” CN ‘938 is directed toward, “the technical field of greenhouse crop growth information and environment information detection, and particularly discloses a detecting method for greenhouse crop growth information and environment information based on multi-sensor information (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kummel and CN ‘938 are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of plant analysis. Further, CN ‘938 allows for the use of thermal cameras to determine growth information. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be aware there are multiple different ways to analyze plant growth using a variety of imaging types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of CN ‘938 in order to ensure the method is applicable to alternative imaging types, thus not forcing users to buy additional cameras, cheapening overall implementation cost.
Regarding dependent claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection mechanism comprises a thermal camera.
However, CN ‘938 discloses wherein the detection mechanism comprises a thermal camera (abstract, “The invention belongs to the technical field of greenhouse crop growth information and environment information detection, and particularly discloses a detecting method for greenhouse crop growth information and environment information based on multi-sensor information. The detecting method includes the following steps: utilizing a spectrometer, a multispectral imager and a thermal imager to obtain the spectrums”).
Kummel is directed toward, “The invention relates to a method and system for volume-specific treatment of ground and plants (abstract).” CN ‘938 is directed toward, “the technical field of greenhouse crop growth information and environment information detection, and particularly discloses a detecting method for greenhouse crop growth information and environment information based on multi-sensor information (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kummel and CN ‘938 are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of plant analysis. Further, CN ‘938 allows for the use of thermal cameras to determine growth information. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be aware there are multiple different ways to analyze plant growth using a variety of imaging types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of CN ‘938 in order to ensure the method is applicable to alternative imaging types, thus not forcing users to buy additional cameras, cheapening overall implementation cost.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kummel as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0114210 to Guice et al. (hereinafter Guice).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection mechanism comprises a true color camera system.
However, Guice discloses wherein the detection mechanism comprises a true color camera system (paragraph 0071, “optical sensors 250, 350 such as inexpensive color cameras or two-band linear sensor arrays may be used to simply detect "green leaves" or "white shoots" growing in non-green soil outside designated crop areas 260, 360”).
Kummel is directed toward, “The invention relates to a method and system for volume-specific treatment of ground and plants (abstract).” Guice is directed toward, “A method and apparatus for controlling weeds (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kummel and Guice are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of plant analysis. Further, Guice allows for the use of color cameras to determine plant information. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be aware there are multiple different ways to analyze plant information using a variety of imaging types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Guice in order to ensure the method is applicable to alternative imaging types, thus not forcing users to buy additional cameras, cheapening overall implementation cost.
Regarding dependent claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection mechanism comprises a true color camera system.
However, Guice discloses wherein the detection mechanism comprises a true color camera system (paragraph 0071, “optical sensors 250, 350 such as inexpensive color cameras or two-band linear sensor arrays may be used to simply detect "green leaves" or "white shoots" growing in non-green soil outside designated crop areas 260, 360”).
Kummel is directed toward, “The invention relates to a method and system for volume-specific treatment of ground and plants (abstract).” Guice is directed toward, “A method and apparatus for controlling weeds (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kummel and Guice are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of plant analysis. Further, Guice allows for the use of color cameras to determine plant information. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be aware there are multiple different ways to analyze plant information using a variety of imaging types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Guice in order to ensure the method is applicable to alternative imaging types, thus not forcing users to buy additional cameras, cheapening overall implementation cost.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kummel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2004/0264762 to Mas et al. (hereinafter Mas).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Kummel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection mechanism comprises a stereo camera.
However, Mas discloses wherein the detection mechanism comprises a stereo camera (paragraph 0007, “These and other needs are satisfied by a system and method for detecting crop rows in an agricultural field scene according to the present invention. For example, a system and method according to the present invention can be configured to provide third coordinate (depth) data by using a stereo camera for capturing images”).
Kummel is directed toward, “The invention relates to a method and system for volume-specific treatment of ground and plants (abstract).” Mas is directed toward, “A System and method for creating 3-dimensional agricultural field Scene maps are disclosed comprising producing a pair of images using a Stereo camera and creating a disparity images based on the pair of images, the disparity image being a 3-dimensional representation of the Stereo images (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kummel and Mas are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of plant analysis. Further, Mas allows for the use of stereo cameras to determine plant mapping information. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be aware there are multiple different ways to analyze plants using a variety of imaging types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Mas in order to ensure the method is applicable to alternative imaging types, thus not forcing users to buy additional cameras, cheapening overall implementation cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
Claim15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 15:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record teach methods of analyzing plant image data to understand treatment data. However, none of them alone or in any combination teaches identifying liquid present on a plant, in order to determine a treatment indicator in a second image data set which represents the effectiveness of treatment. The closest prior art being Kummel discloses assessing growth over time of a crop for treatment effectiveness determination (column 10, line 23, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time”). However, Kummel fails to disclose identifying liquid present on a plant, in order to determine a treatment indicator in a second image data set which represents the effectiveness of treatment
Claims 6 and 16:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record teach methods of analyzing plant image data to understand treatment data. However, none of them alone or in any combination teaches identifying a spray blockage pattern of a treatment mechanism, in order to determine a treatment indicator in a second image data set which represents the effectiveness of treatment. The closest prior art being Kummel discloses assessing growth over time of a crop for treatment effectiveness determination (column 10, line 23, “The growth of wood and thus the individual crop yield of each tree can be determined by repetitive measurement with a sufficient spacing in time”). However, Kummel fails to disclose identifying a spray blockage pattern of a treatment mechanism, in order to determine a treatment indicator in a second image data set which represents the effectiveness of treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tong Qingxi, Zhang Xia, Zhang Bing and Wang Jihua, "Crop growth monitoring study by using multi-temporal index image cube analysis," IEEE 2002 International Conference on Communications, Circuits and Systems and West Sino Expositions, Chengdu, China, 2002, pp. 1596-1601 vol.2, doi: 10.1109/ICCCAS.2002.1179083. discloses “In this paper, a new effective data structure conception, temporal index image cube (MIIC) is proposed in aid of the parameterization of the multi-dimension spectral curve. MIIC is proved very useful for the dynamic analysis of vegetation.”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Courtney J. Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-3956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/COURTNEY JOAN NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661