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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/612,947 filed on 03/21/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 09/18/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 26th, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 4-6, 9-11, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPeek (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0259496 A1) in view of Fujita (JP 5494183 B2) in further view of Hou (FRUIT VIBRATION HARVESTING TECHNOLOGY AND ITS DAMAGE. A REVIEW, April 2021, (Year: 2021)).
Regarding Claim 1:
McPeek teaches:
A method for, (See (McPeek: Field of the Invention – 2nd paragraph))
applying a shake point identification model to the image to identify a tree in the plurality of trees, the shake point identification model:, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th, 59th, and 74th paragraphs))
and generating a polygon enclosing the trunk and extending from a ground plane of the environment to the crotch point;, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th and 59th paragraphs))
McPeek does not teach but Fujita teaches:
identifying a shake point on a tree trunk:, (“The automatic harvesting apparatus 2 configured as described above swings the leaves of the apple tree by gripping and shaking a part of the apple tree (for example, an apple tree branch or trunk) with the hand portion 14b of the manipulator 14. Is. Thus, in this embodiment, the manipulator 14 is used not only as a harvesting device that harvests apple fruits, but also as a swinging device that swings the leaves of the apple tree.” (Fujita: Description))
capturing, using an identification system of an autonomous agricultural machine, an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees;, (“The manipulator 14 is a so-called robot arm including an arm portion 14 a having a plurality of joints and a hand portion 14 b attached to the tip portion of the arm portion 14 a, and is an upper portion of a shelf plate 19 provided in the central portion of the chassis 10. […] Although details will be described later, the image captured by the image sensor 15 is subjected to predetermined image processing by the controller 18 to identify the fruit of an apple that is a fruit to be harvested.” (Fujita: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek with these above aforementioned teachings from Fujita in order to create an advanced system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Fujita’s automatic harvesting equipment in order to identify a shake point on a tree trunk and capture an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees using a camera of an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Fujita would thus provide an “automatic harvesting apparatus which can be automatically harvested even if it is the fruit of the state hidden in the leaf.” (Fujita: Description)
McPeek in view of Fujita does not teach but Hou teaches:
identifying a trunk and one or more limbs of the tree, identifying a crotch point of the tree, the crotch point located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree,, ((Hou: FIG. 9 and 12))
and harvesting, using the autonomous agricultural machine, plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point determined from the polygon., (“The clamping vibration harvesting machine has been applied in practice. It has high harvesting efficiency, which can save a lot of manpower and material resources. The method is suitable for harvesting fruit on a single tall tree. For example, FMC-400, a citrus harvesting machine designed, works on the principle of reciprocating movement of the clamping head to achieve the purpose of tree trunk vibration.” (Hou: Page 157, FIG. 6-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Hou’s review of fruit vibration harvesting and its damage in order to identify a trunk and one or more limbs of a tree, identify a crotch point of the tree located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree, and harvest plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point using an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Hou would thus provide an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting as “vibration harvesting is one of the important forms in terms of fruit mechanized harvesting.” (Hou: Page 155)
Regarding Claim 4:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McPeek further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein applying the shake point identification model further comprises: identifying an emergence point of the tree on the ground plane of the tree, and wherein the polygon extends, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th-41st, 59th, 74th, and 121st paragraphs))
McPeek does not teach but Hou teaches:
[…] from the emergence point to the crotch point., ((Hou: FIG. 9 and 12))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Hou’s review of fruit vibration harvesting and its damage in order to identify a trunk and one or more limbs of a tree, identify a crotch point of the tree located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree, and harvest plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point using an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Hou would thus provide an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting as “vibration harvesting is one of the important forms in terms of fruit mechanized harvesting.” (Hou: Page 155)
Regarding Claim 5:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McPeek further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein applying the shake point identification model further comprises: identifying the shake point of the tree based on the polygon enclosing the trunk of the tree., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 15th, 38th, 59th, and 74th-75th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 6:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McPeek does not teach but Fujita teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the shake point is based on one or more of: a type of the tree, characteristics of the autonomous agricultural machine, characteristics of the tree, and characteristics of the environment., (“The automatic harvesting apparatus 2 configured as described above swings the leaves of the apple tree by gripping and shaking a part of the apple tree (for example, an apple tree branch or trunk) with the hand portion 14b of the manipulator 14. Is. Thus, in this embodiment, the manipulator 14 is used not only as a harvesting device that harvests apple fruits, but also as a swinging device that swings the leaves of the apple tree.” (Fujita: Description) Fujita further mentions “As mentioned above, although the automatic harvesting apparatus by embodiment of this invention was demonstrated, this invention is not restrict | limited to the said embodiment, It can change freely within the scope of the present invention. […] Thus, these can be appropriately changed according to the type of fruit to be harvested.” (Fujita: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek with these above aforementioned teachings from Fujita in order to create an advanced system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Fujita’s automatic harvesting equipment in order to identify a shake point on a tree trunk and capture an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees using a camera of an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Fujita would thus provide an “automatic harvesting apparatus which can be automatically harvested even if it is the fruit of the state hidden in the leaf.” (Fujita: Description)
Regarding Claim 9:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McPeek further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the polygon enclosing the trunk further comprises, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th and 59th paragraphs))
[…] determining one or more of a pitch, a roll, or a yaw of the tree, and the generated polygon is based on the determined one or more of pitch, roll, or yaw of the tree., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 49th-52nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 10:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McPeek further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the shake point identification model is a convolutional neural network trained to identify features of trees, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 82nd-83rd and 88th-89th paragraphs))
McPeek does not teach but Fujita teaches:
[…] and identify the shake point based on the identified features., (“The automatic harvesting apparatus 2 configured as described above swings the leaves of the apple tree by gripping and shaking a part of the apple tree (for example, an apple tree branch or trunk) with the hand portion 14b of the manipulator 14. Is. Thus, in this embodiment, the manipulator 14 is used not only as a harvesting device that harvests apple fruits, but also as a swinging device that swings the leaves of the apple tree.” (Fujita: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek with these above aforementioned teachings from Fujita in order to create an advanced system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Fujita’s automatic harvesting equipment in order to identify a shake point on a tree trunk and capture an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees using a camera of an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Fujita would thus provide an “automatic harvesting apparatus which can be automatically harvested even if it is the fruit of the state hidden in the leaf.” (Fujita: Description)
Regarding Claim 11:
McPeek teaches:
An autonomous agricultural machine comprising:, (See (McPeek: Summary of the Invention – 7th-8th paragraphs))
and a control system comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute computer program instructions for identifying a shake point on a tree trunk, the computer program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control system to:, (See (McPeek: Definitions – 31st-34th paragraphs))
apply a shake point identification model to the image to identify a tree in the plurality of trees, the shake point identification model:, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th, 59th, and 74th paragraphs))
and generating a polygon enclosing the trunk and extending from a ground plane of the environment to the crotch point;, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th and 59th paragraphs))
McPeek does not teach but Fujita teaches:
an identification system configured to capture images of an environment surrounding the autonomous agricultural machine;, (“The manipulator 14 is a so-called robot arm including an arm portion 14 a having a plurality of joints and a hand portion 14 b attached to the tip portion of the arm portion 14 a, and is an upper portion of a shelf plate 19 provided in the central portion of the chassis 10. […] Although details will be described later, the image captured by the image sensor 15 is subjected to predetermined image processing by the controller 18 to identify the fruit of an apple that is a fruit to be harvested.” (Fujita: Description))
a shaker configured to shake trees in the environment; a harvester configured to harvest plant matter from a tree in the environment while the shaker shakes the tree or after the shaker shakes the tree;, (“The manipulator 14 is a so-called robot arm including an arm portion 14 a having a plurality of joints and a hand portion 14 b attached to the tip portion of the arm portion 14 a, and is an upper portion of a shelf plate 19 provided in the central portion of the chassis 10. […] Although details will be described later, the image captured by the image sensor 15 is subjected to predetermined image processing by the controller 18 to identify the fruit of an apple that is a fruit to be harvested.” (Fujita: Description) Fujita further mentions “The automatic harvesting apparatus 2 configured as described above swings the leaves of the apple tree by gripping and shaking a part of the apple tree (for example, an apple tree branch or trunk) with the hand portion 14b of the manipulator 14. Is. Thus, in this embodiment, the manipulator 14 is used not only as a harvesting device that harvests apple fruits, but also as a swinging device that swings the leaves of the apple tree.” (Fujita: Description))
capture, using the identification system, an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees;, (“The manipulator 14 is a so-called robot arm including an arm portion 14 a having a plurality of joints and a hand portion 14 b attached to the tip portion of the arm portion 14 a, and is an upper portion of a shelf plate 19 provided in the central portion of the chassis 10. […] Although details will be described later, the image captured by the image sensor 15 is subjected to predetermined image processing by the controller 18 to identify the fruit of an apple that is a fruit to be harvested.” (Fujita: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek with these above aforementioned teachings from Fujita in order to create an advanced system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Fujita’s automatic harvesting equipment in order to identify a shake point on a tree trunk and capture an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees using a camera of an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Fujita would thus provide an “automatic harvesting apparatus which can be automatically harvested even if it is the fruit of the state hidden in the leaf.” (Fujita: Description)
McPeek in view of Fujita does not teach but Hou teaches:
identifying a trunk and one or more limbs of the tree, identifying a crotch point of the tree, the crotch point located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree,, ((Hou: FIG. 9 and 12))
and harvest, using the harvester, plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point determined from the polygon., (“The clamping vibration harvesting machine has been applied in practice. It has high harvesting efficiency, which can save a lot of manpower and material resources. The method is suitable for harvesting fruit on a single tall tree. For example, FMC-400, a citrus harvesting machine designed, works on the principle of reciprocating movement of the clamping head to achieve the purpose of tree trunk vibration.” (Hou: Page 157, FIG. 6-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Hou’s review of fruit vibration harvesting and its damage in order to identify a trunk and one or more limbs of a tree, identify a crotch point of the tree located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree, and harvest plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point using an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Hou would thus provide an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting as “vibration harvesting is one of the important forms in terms of fruit mechanized harvesting.” (Hou: Page 155)
Regarding Claim 14:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. McPeek further teaches:
The autonomous agricultural machine of claim 11, wherein applying the shake point identification model further comprises: identifying an emergence point of the tree on the ground plane of the tree, and wherein the polygon extends, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th-41st, 59th, 74th, and 121st paragraphs))
McPeek does not teach but Hou teaches:
[…] from the emergence point to the crotch point., ((Hou: FIG. 9 and 12))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Hou’s review of fruit vibration harvesting and its damage in order to identify a trunk and one or more limbs of a tree, identify a crotch point of the tree located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree, and harvest plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point using an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Hou would thus provide an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting as “vibration harvesting is one of the important forms in terms of fruit mechanized harvesting.” (Hou: Page 155)
Regarding Claim 15:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. McPeek further teaches:
The autonomous agricultural machine of claim 11, wherein applying the shake point identification model further comprises: identifying the shake point of the tree based on the polygon enclosing the trunk of the tree.
Regarding Claim 18:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. McPeek further teaches:
The autonomous agricultural machine of claim 11, wherein generating the polygon enclosing the trunk further comprises, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th and 59th paragraphs))
[…] determining one or more of a pitch, a roll, or a yaw of the tree, and the generated polygon is based on the determined one or more of pitch, roll, or yaw of the tree., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 49th-52nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 19:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. McPeek further teaches:
The autonomous agricultural machine of claim 11, wherein the shake point identification model is a convolutional neural network trained to identify features of trees, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 82nd-83rd and 88th-89th paragraphs))
McPeek does not teach but Fujita teaches:
[…] and identify the shake point based on the identified features., (“The automatic harvesting apparatus 2 configured as described above swings the leaves of the apple tree by gripping and shaking a part of the apple tree (for example, an apple tree branch or trunk) with the hand portion 14b of the manipulator 14. Is. Thus, in this embodiment, the manipulator 14 is used not only as a harvesting device that harvests apple fruits, but also as a swinging device that swings the leaves of the apple tree.” (Fujita: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek with these above aforementioned teachings from Fujita in order to create an advanced system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Fujita’s automatic harvesting equipment in order to identify a shake point on a tree trunk and capture an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees using a camera of an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Fujita would thus provide an “automatic harvesting apparatus which can be automatically harvested even if it is the fruit of the state hidden in the leaf.” (Fujita: Description)
Regarding Claim 20:
McPeek teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions for identifying a shake point on a tree trunk, the computer program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to:, (See (McPeek: Definitions – 31st-34th paragraphs))
apply a shake point identification model to the image to identify a tree in the plurality of trees, the shake point identification model:, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th, 59th, and 74th paragraphs))
and generating a polygon enclosing the trunk and extending from a ground plane of the environment to the crotch point;, (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th and 59th paragraphs))
McPeek does not teach but Fujita teaches:
capture, using an identification system of an autonomous agricultural machine, an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees;, (“The manipulator 14 is a so-called robot arm including an arm portion 14 a having a plurality of joints and a hand portion 14 b attached to the tip portion of the arm portion 14 a, and is an upper portion of a shelf plate 19 provided in the central portion of the chassis 10. […] Although details will be described later, the image captured by the image sensor 15 is subjected to predetermined image processing by the controller 18 to identify the fruit of an apple that is a fruit to be harvested.” (Fujita: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek with these above aforementioned teachings from Fujita in order to create an advanced system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Fujita’s automatic harvesting equipment in order to identify a shake point on a tree trunk and capture an image of an environment comprising a plurality of trees using a camera of an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Fujita would thus provide an “automatic harvesting apparatus which can be automatically harvested even if it is the fruit of the state hidden in the leaf.” (Fujita: Description)
McPeek in view of Fujita does not teach but Hou teaches:
identifying a trunk and one or more limbs of the tree, identifying a crotch point of the tree, the crotch point located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree,, ((Hou: FIG. 9 and 12))
and harvest, using the autonomous agricultural machine, plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point determined from the polygon., (“The clamping vibration harvesting machine has been applied in practice. It has high harvesting efficiency, which can save a lot of manpower and material resources. The method is suitable for harvesting fruit on a single tall tree. For example, FMC-400, a citrus harvesting machine designed, works on the principle of reciprocating movement of the clamping head to achieve the purpose of tree trunk vibration.” (Hou: Page 157, FIG. 6-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Hou’s review of fruit vibration harvesting and its damage in order to identify a trunk and one or more limbs of a tree, identify a crotch point of the tree located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree, and harvest plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point using an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Hou would thus provide an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting as “vibration harvesting is one of the important forms in terms of fruit mechanized harvesting.” (Hou: Page 155)
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPeek (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0259496 A1) in view of Fujita (JP 5494183 B2) in further view of Hou (FRUIT VIBRATION HARVESTING TECHNOLOGY AND ITS DAMAGE. A REVIEW, April 2021, (Year: 2021)) in even further view of Reitmayr (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0126769 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McPeek further teaches:
[…] and wherein the shake point identification model identifies the tree in the stream of monocular images., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th, 59th, and 74th paragraphs))
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou does not teach but Reitmayr teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the identification system comprises a single image sensor configured to capture a stream of monocular images,, (See (Reitmayr: Detailed Description – 23rd-31st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou with these above aforementioned teachings from Reitmayr in order to create a smart system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Reitmayr’s fast initialization for monocular visual slam in order to include a plurality of image sensors configured to capture a stream of monocular images in an autonomous agricultural machine, generating a virtual environment representing an environment comprising a plurality of trees, and triangulating a position of a shake point of a tree using a plurality of images of the tree. Combining McPeek and Reitmayr would thus provide “a method for visual simultaneous localization and mapping.” (Reitmayr: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 3:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. McPeek further teaches:
[…] and wherein the shake point identification model identifies the tree in the stream of monocular images and additional monocular images., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th, 59th, 64th-68th, and 74th paragraphs))
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou does not teach but Reitmayr teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the identification system comprises an additional image sensor configured to capture an additional stream of monocular images,, (See (Reitmayr: Detailed Description – 23rd-31st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou with these above aforementioned teachings from Reitmayr in order to create a smart system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Reitmayr’s fast initialization for monocular visual slam in order to include a plurality of image sensors configured to capture a stream of monocular images in an autonomous agricultural machine, generating a virtual environment representing an environment comprising a plurality of trees, and triangulating a position of a shake point of a tree using a plurality of images of the tree. Combining McPeek and Reitmayr would thus provide “a method for visual simultaneous localization and mapping.” (Reitmayr: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 7:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McPeek further teaches:
[…] and positioning the polygon in the virtual environment., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th and 59th paragraphs))
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou does not teach but Reitmayr teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein applying the shake point identification model further comprises: generating a virtual environment representing the environment;, (See (Reitmayr: Background – 3rd-7th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 49th-53rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou with these above aforementioned teachings from Reitmayr in order to create a smart system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Reitmayr’s fast initialization for monocular visual slam in order to include a plurality of image sensors configured to capture a stream of monocular images in an autonomous agricultural machine, generating a virtual environment representing an environment comprising a plurality of trees, and triangulating a position of a shake point of a tree using a plurality of images of the tree. Combining McPeek and Reitmayr would thus provide “a method for visual simultaneous localization and mapping.” (Reitmayr: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McPeek in view of Fujita does not teach but Hou teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein harvesting plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at the shake point determined from the polygon further comprises, (“The clamping vibration harvesting machine has been applied in practice. It has high harvesting efficiency, which can save a lot of manpower and material resources. The method is suitable for harvesting fruit on a single tall tree. For example, FMC-400, a citrus harvesting machine designed, works on the principle of reciprocating movement of the clamping head to achieve the purpose of tree trunk vibration.” (Hou: Page 157, FIG. 6-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Hou’s review of fruit vibration harvesting and its damage in order to identify a trunk and one or more limbs of a tree, identify a crotch point of the tree located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree, and harvest plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point using an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Hou would thus provide an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting as “vibration harvesting is one of the important forms in terms of fruit mechanized harvesting.” (Hou: Page 155)
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou does not teach but Reitmayr teaches:
[…] triangulating a position of the shake point using a plurality of images of the tree., (See (Reitmayr: Detailed Description – 34th, 56th, and 81st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou with these above aforementioned teachings from Reitmayr in order to create a smart system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Reitmayr’s fast initialization for monocular visual slam in order to include a plurality of image sensors configured to capture a stream of monocular images in an autonomous agricultural machine, generating a virtual environment representing an environment comprising a plurality of trees, and triangulating a position of a shake point of a tree using a plurality of images of the tree. Combining McPeek and Reitmayr would thus provide “a method for visual simultaneous localization and mapping.” (Reitmayr: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 12:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. McPeek further teaches:
[…] and wherein the shake point identification model identifies the tree in the stream of monocular images., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th, 59th, and 74th paragraphs))
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou does not teach but Reitmayr teaches:
The autonomous agricultural machine of claim 11, wherein the identification system comprises a single image sensor configured to capture a stream of monocular images,, (See (Reitmayr: Detailed Description – 23rd-31st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou with these above aforementioned teachings from Reitmayr in order to create a smart system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Reitmayr’s fast initialization for monocular visual slam in order to include a plurality of image sensors configured to capture a stream of monocular images in an autonomous agricultural machine, generating a virtual environment representing an environment comprising a plurality of trees, and triangulating a position of a shake point of a tree using a plurality of images of the tree. Combining McPeek and Reitmayr would thus provide “a method for visual simultaneous localization and mapping.” (Reitmayr: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 13:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. McPeek further teaches:
[…] and wherein the shake point identification model identifies the tree in the stream of monocular images and additional monocular images., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th, 59th, 64th-68th, and 74th paragraphs))
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou does not teach but Reitmayr teaches:
The autonomous agricultural machine of claim 12, wherein the identification system comprises an additional image sensor configured to capture an additional stream of monocular images,, (See (Reitmayr: Detailed Description – 23rd-31st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou with these above aforementioned teachings from Reitmayr in order to create a smart system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Reitmayr’s fast initialization for monocular visual slam in order to include a plurality of image sensors configured to capture a stream of monocular images in an autonomous agricultural machine, generating a virtual environment representing an environment comprising a plurality of trees, and triangulating a position of a shake point of a tree using a plurality of images of the tree. Combining McPeek and Reitmayr would thus provide “a method for visual simultaneous localization and mapping.” (Reitmayr: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 16:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. McPeek further teaches:
[…] and positioning the polygon in the virtual environment., (See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th and 59th paragraphs))
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou does not teach but Reitmayr teaches:
The autonomous agricultural machine of claim 11, wherein applying the shake point identification model further comprises: generating a virtual environment representing the environment;, (See (Reitmayr: Background – 3rd-7th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 49th-53rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou with these above aforementioned teachings from Reitmayr in order to create a smart system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Reitmayr’s fast initialization for monocular visual slam in order to include a plurality of image sensors configured to capture a stream of monocular images in an autonomous agricultural machine, generating a virtual environment representing an environment comprising a plurality of trees, and triangulating a position of a shake point of a tree using a plurality of images of the tree. Combining McPeek and Reitmayr would thus provide “a method for visual simultaneous localization and mapping.” (Reitmayr: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 17:
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. McPeek in view of Fujita does not teach but Hou teaches:
The autonomous agricultural machine of claim 11, wherein harvesting plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at the shake point determined from the polygon further comprises, (“The clamping vibration harvesting machine has been applied in practice. It has high harvesting efficiency, which can save a lot of manpower and material resources. The method is suitable for harvesting fruit on a single tall tree. For example, FMC-400, a citrus harvesting machine designed, works on the principle of reciprocating movement of the clamping head to achieve the purpose of tree trunk vibration.” (Hou: Page 157, FIG. 6-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Hou’s review of fruit vibration harvesting and its damage in order to identify a trunk and one or more limbs of a tree, identify a crotch point of the tree located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree, and harvest plant matter from the tree by shaking the trunk at a shake point using an autonomous agricultural machine. Combining McPeek and Hou would thus provide an effective system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting as “vibration harvesting is one of the important forms in terms of fruit mechanized harvesting.” (Hou: Page 155)
McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou does not teach but Reitmayr teaches:
[…] triangulating a position of the shake point using a plurality of images of the tree., (See (Reitmayr: Detailed Description – 34th, 56th, and 81st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPeek in view of Fujita in further view of Hou with these above aforementioned teachings from Reitmayr in order to create a smart system for identifying a shake point of a tree for autonomous harvesting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate McPeek’s systems and methods for monitoring agricultural products with Reitmayr’s fast initialization for monocular visual slam in order to include a plurality of image sensors configured to capture a stream of monocular images in an autonomous agricultural machine, generating a virtual environment representing an environment comprising a plurality of trees, and triangulating a position of a shake point of a tree using a plurality of images of the tree. Combining McPeek and Reitmayr would thus provide “a method for visual simultaneous localization and mapping.” (Reitmayr: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 18th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Hou and McPeek as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, See (Hou: FIG. 9 and 12) In doing so, Hou addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “identifying a trunk and one or more limbs of the tree, identifying a crotch point of the tree, the crotch point located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11 and 20.
Moreover, See (McPeek: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th and 59th paragraphs) In doing so, McPeek addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “and generating a polygon enclosing the trunk and extending from a ground plane of the environment to the crotch point” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11 and 20.
As a result, the combination of Hou and McPeek addresses "identifying a crotch point of the tree, the crotch point located at a connection point between the trunk and a limb of the one or more limbs of the tree" and "generating a polygon enclosing the trunk and extending from a ground plane of the environment to the crotch point" as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11 and 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
