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
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 15-17, and 20-22 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 15-17, and 20 are amended, and Claims 21-22 are added without presenting new matter. Claims 2, 6, 13-14, and 18-19 are cancelled.
Response to Remarks
Objections
Examiner acknowledges the submission of a replacement Fig. 2 overcoming the objection set forth in the previous office action.
Examiner acknowledges the corrections to the specification overcoming the objections set forth in the previous office action.
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 6 overcoming the objection set forth in the previous office action.
Amendments to the Claims and New Claims
In light of the amendments to Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 15-17, and 20, new rejections under 35 USC 112 and 103 are set forth below. Added claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
Examiner acknowledges that the claimed invention solves certain common problems in the field of endeavor, as detailed in the specification (Remarks, pages 7-8). However, Examiner respectfully notes that the intended location and use case of the method are not claimed in the original filing and thus did not affect the patentability of the claims. Moreover, such elements are arbitrary considerations determined by the user which do not affect how the claimed method, as written, is performed.
While the amended claims include further details regarding the intended location and use case of the method, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims as written overcome rejection under 35 USC 103, as detailed in the below 103 rejections.
Applicant argues that Ting is not concerned with deploying the composition analyzer in the field. Applicant further argues that Ting’s composition analyzer is not configured for spectral measurements in a field and for exporting the measurements later (Remarks, page 9, 4th and 6th paragraphs).
Examiners notes that the intended location where the method is performed was not claimed in the original filing, nor do the claims limit the method to use cases where the method can be performed without internet connectivity. It was not originally claimed that the spectral measurements are made locally and exported later after establishing internet connectivity. Regardless, Examiner argues that the location is arbitrary, and the device of Ting is capable of performing the originally claimed method without internet connectivity. Moreover, Examiner respectfully disagrees that there is a meaningful difference in the skill level required to operate the device of Ting compared to the claimed invention, and notes that such considerations do not affect the examination of how the prior art reads on the actual language of the claims.
Applicant argues that Messerschmidt does not teach the limitation missing from Ting of prompting the user to scan the crop sample with the spectrometer (Remarks, page 9, 7th paragraph).
Examiner acknowledges that Messerschmidt does not teach prompting the user to scan a crop sample via the interface, and the statement in the original rejection contains a minor error stating that Messerschmidt teaches this exactly. However, it is noted that Messerschmidt is incorporated simply as a general example of prompting the user to perform a spectroscopic measurement via a GUI. Applying such a step to a crop does not introduce any critical or nonobvious difference; indeed, prompting a user to perform a step via a GUI is well-known and ubiquitous, as is performing a spectroscopic measurement.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 14 and 19 rendering their previous rejections under 35 USC 112 moot.
While the amendments to the claims address the antecedence issue in Claim 20, Examiner upholds the rejection under 35 USC 112b. The issue of lack of clarity on how multiple spectrometers are integrated into the method of claim 1 set forth in the previous office action is expanded upon and clarified in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 20 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 1 recites “a farmer bringing the acquisition system to a location of a crop sample in a field”. “A farmer” has been included to indicate the type of person/level of skill necessary to perform the claimed method. However, whether a person could be considered a farmer is arbitrary and does not place any limitation on how the method is performed. It is therefore unclear how this limitation is intended to be interpreted. “A field” also appears to be intended to place limitation on the usage context of the method that would affect how it is performed, but fails to do so in a precise way such that any further limitation on the method can be assumed.
Claim 20 recites “a first spectrometer, further comprising a second spectrometer.” It is unclear how multiple spectrometers would be integrated into the method of claim 1. Claim 1 explicitly recites steps of controlling the display device to prompt the farmer to scan the crop sample with the spectrometer, followed by acquiring a spectrum of the crop sample via the spectrometer. With two spectrometers now included, it is unclear if the “scan the crop sample with the spectrometer” step is performed once with both the first and second spectrometer simultaneously to cover both spectral bands, or if the method changes to a series of more steps (e.g. prompting the user to scan with the first spectrometer, acquiring a first spectrum, associating the spectrum to the crop metadata in the memory of the computer; then prompting the user to scan again with the second spectrometer, acquiring a second spectrum, …). Either of these cases or any similar case will be treated as teaching the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting et al. (US 2022/0252511 A1) in view of Messerschmidt et al. (US 20220225908 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ting teaches a method for acquiring a spectrum of a crop sample using an acquisition system having a spectrometer (para. [0066]: “the light detector may be a spectrometer”), a user interface (para. [0026]: first setting unit) including a display device (para. [0097]: first setting unit may be touch screen), and a computer operatively connected to the spectrometer and to the user interface, the computer having a processor and a memory having instructions stored thereon, the instructions being executable by the processor (Fig. 10: first processor connected to first setting unit and sensor, which can be a spectrometer; a computer with memory having instructions executable by the processor for taking input, displaying the spectrum, prompting, etc. is implicitly present), the method comprising:
operating the acquisition system, said operating including the computer being activated to execute the instructions and perform the following steps:
controlling the display device to prompt the [user] to input a crop information via the user interface (para. [0026]: “the first setting unit is used to input at least one parameter related to a planted crop”);
receiving crop metadata pertaining to the crop information from the user interface (para. [0027]: “the at least one parameter… comprises at least one crop information, a crop kind, …”);
scanning the crop sample with the spectrometer (para. [0066]: “the light detector may be a spectrometer to convert the light into the spectral signal of the object”);
acquiring a spectrum of the crop sample via the spectrometer (see above);
associating the spectrum to the crop metadata in the memory of the computer (See para. [0098]. Per MPEP 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification; the plain meaning of the word “metadata” (i.e. any data that describes other data) is assumed because the specification does not explicitly define otherwise. Thus, displaying the spectrum data alongside the crop information as in Ting implies and constitutes “associating the spectrum to the crop metadata in the memory of the computer”)
Ting does not explicitly teach the user being a farmer, and a farmer bringing the acquisition system to a location of a crop sample in a field, and operating the acquisition system at the location. As outlined above, the designation of the user as a “farmer” is arbitrary and not limiting. The choice of location of operation is also arbitrary, and there is nothing to suggest that the acquisition system of Ting cannot be brought to a particular “field” location and operated on crops there.
Ting does not teach controlling the display device to prompt the farmer to scan the crop sample with the spectrometer.
In the same field of endeavor, Messerschmidt teaches controlling a display device to prompt a user to scan a sample with a spectrometer (para. [0179]). Particularly, Messerschmidt teaches the use of a graphical user interface to prompt the user to perform a non-invasive measurement of a sample, subsequently processing spectroscopic data corresponding to the non-invasive measurement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a known technique (prompting a user to perform a step via a GUI of Messerschmidt) to improve a similar device (i.e. the spectrometer of Ting) in the same way (improve the user experience of a spectral measurement system). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Ting teaches the spectrometer being operable in a spectral band defined between about 350 nm and 2,500 nm (para. [0080]: LED light source for optical detector emits near-infrared light).
Regarding claim 8, Ting teaches scanning the crop sample more than once, thereby obtaining a plurality of spectra of the crop sample (para. [0103]: multiple repeated measurements). Prompting the user to do so via the user interface is obvious in light of the teachings of Messerschmidt, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
While Ting does not explicitly teach associating the plurality of spectra of the crop sample to the crop metadata, Ting does teach associating a spectrum to the crop metadata in para. [0098], as outlined in the rejection of claim 1. Associating each of the multiple spectra is simply a duplication of that step with no new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 12, it is a commonly known technique to embed metadata in a file containing the data it describes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a known technique (embedding metadata in a file, e.g. a PDF) to a known device ready for improvement (the spectrometer of Ting) to yield predictable results (a file of the spectrum data embedded with the associated metadata). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 22, Ting does not teach a cache memory. In the same field of endeavor, Messerschmidt teaches a computer with memory for executing computer-readable instructions, wherein the memory is a cache memory (Paragraphs [0096-7]). In light of the teachings of Messerschmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cache memory to store the computer-readable instructions for performing the various functions of the spectroscopic device. As is well-known in the art, using a cache memory is advantageous for reducing the time needed for the computer to access the instructions, increasing the efficiency of the method.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting in view of Messerschmidt and further in view of Portello et al. (US 2020/0359570 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt does not teach said controlling the display device to prompt the farmer to input a crop information further comprising prompting the farmer to select a crop location amongst a plurality of predetermined crop locations.
In the same field of endeavor, Portello teaches controlling the display device to prompt the farmer to input a crop information further comprising prompting the farmer to select a crop location amongst a plurality of predetermined crop locations (para. [0062]; Fig 7B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a known technique (prompting a user to select a location amongst a predetermined list, as in Portello) to improve a similar device (the user interface of Ting or Messerschmidt) in the same way (improve the user experience of a crop data management system). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Portello teaches controlling the display device to prompt the farmer to input a crop information further comprising prompting the farmer to select a type of crop amongst a plurality of predetermined types of crop (para. [0063]; Fig. 7C).
Claims 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting in view of Messerschmidt and further in view of Ye et al (CN 116660206 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt does not teach operating further comprising prompting the farmer to calibrate the spectrometer prior to said prompting the farmer to scan the crop sample, and obtaining at least one of an integration time, a dark baseline and a white baseline from the spectrometer.
In the same field of endeavor, Ye teaches calibrating the spectrometer prior to scanning the crop sample, the calibration comprising obtaining at least one of an integration time, a dark baseline and a white baseline for the spectrometer (para. [0065]: white board used for realizing calibration) with the benefit of ensuring the accuracy of the collected spectrum data. Prompting the user to do so via the user interface is obvious in light of the teachings of Messerschmidt, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. In light of the teachings of Ye, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt such that the user is prompted to calibrate and obtain a white baseline for the spectrometer prior to being prompted to scan the crop with the spectrometer.
Regarding claim 10, Ye teaches monitoring a recalibration condition, and recalibrating the spectrometer once the recalibration condition has occurred (para. [0065]: calibration is performed every a period of time). Prompting the user to do so via the user interface is obvious in light of the teachings of Messerschmidt, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Ye teaches the recalibration condition comprising at least one of a predetermined amount of time that passed after a previous calibration, and a predetermined number of spectra acquired after the previous calibration (para. [0065]: calibration is performed every period of time).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting in view of Messerschmidt and further in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2002/131218 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt does not teach activating a lamp prior to said prompting the farmer to scan the crop sample, and prompting the farmer to wait for a predetermined amount of time sufficient for parameters of the lamp to stabilize.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches activating a lamp prior to scanning the sample (paragraphs [0002]-[0003]) and waiting for a predetermined amount of time sufficient for parameters of the lamp to stabilize (paragraphs [0011]-[0014]). This ensures the accuracy of the obtained spectrum measurements; compared to waiting a predetermined warmup time without considering the stabilization of parameters, it saves standby time and energy. Prompting the user to do so via the user interface is obvious in light of the teachings of Messerschmidt, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. In light of the teachings of Tanaka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt such that the user activates the lamp of the spectrometer prior to scanning the sample and is prompted to wait until the parameters of the lamp stabilize.
Claims 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting in view of Messerschmidt and further in view of Goldring et al. (US 10,791,933 B2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt does not teach the computer being activated to execute the instructions and transmit the associated crop metadata and spectrum to a cloud server.
In the same field of endeavor, Goldring teaches the computer being activated to execute the instructions and transmit the associated crop metadata and spectrum to a cloud server (description para. 158). Transmitting the spectrum contextualized with the crop metadata to a server allows the data to be stored for later use and accessed from various locations, as well as many other well-known advantages. In light of the teachings of Goldring, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt such that the spectrum and its metadata are transmitted to a cloud server.
Regarding claim 16, in the same field of endeavor, Goldring teaches the cloud server determining a condition of the crop from the spectrum (description para. 159), the condition of the crop including at least one of a type and concentration of at least one type of nutrient (description para. 159: “nutritional content of food”), a presence of disease and a stage of growth, and the cloud server associating the condition of the crop with the crop metadata in a computer-readable memory (description para. 159: “In addition, the analyzed spectral data 435 and/or related additional analysis results 440 may be dynamically added to a universal database 119 operated by the cloud server, where spectral data associated with sample materials may be stored”). This improves efficiency by allowing the user to remotely access condition information of the crop at any time.
Regarding claim 17, in the same field of endeavor, Goldring teaches the cloud server transmitting the associated crop metadata and condition of the crop to a remote computer (description para. 160: “The cloud based system or server 118 may be accessed remotely, for example via wireless internet connection, by one or more spectrometers and hand held devices of the spectrometer system. In many embodiments, the cloud server is simultaneously accessible by more than one users/hand held devices of the system.”)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting in view of Messerschmidt and further in view of Barrett (US 2023/0400408 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt does not teach the spectrometer being a first spectrometer, further comprising a second spectrometer, the first spectrometer and the second spectrometer each covering a corresponding spectral band.
In the same field of endeavor, Barrett teaches the spectrometer being a first spectrometer, further comprising a second spectrometer, the first spectrometer and the second spectrometer each covering a corresponding spectral band (para. [0060]) with the benefit of covering a wider spectral band than could be covered by a single spectrometer. In light of the teachings of Barrett, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ting and Messerschmidt to include two spectrometers each covering a respective spectral band.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting in view of Messerschmidt, Ye, and Liu et al. (CN 111595813 A).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ting, Messerschmidt, and Ye does not teach the recalibration condition comprising a detection of an outlier condition.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches the recalibration condition comprising a detection of an outlier condition (Paragraph beginning with “In the present embodiment, the calibration process…” in the machine translation describes the spectrometer needing recalibration if the collected spectrum data deviates too much from a known spectrum).
In light of the teachings of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detecting deviation/outliers in the acquired spectrum as one of the conditions for recalibrating the spectrometer. This improves the accuracy of the device by detecting and discounting spectra that are clearly influenced by systematic errors in the measurement.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8389. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/WILLIAM LAURENCE TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884