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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wang does not disclose “detecting loosened soil” or “actuating the shovel blade in response to the detected loosened soil”. The examiner disagrees with this characterization.
Wang does disclose detecting “loosened soil” and “actuating the shovel blade in response to the detected loosened soil” through the regular operation of the machine. As Applicant stated, Wang does disclose the camera 27 which detects crops (para [0022]). The camera would detect loosened soil around the crops during the crop detection and weeding process even if these camera images may only incidentally contain loosened soil. Further, Wang also discloses “cutting the root of the weed” (para [0029]). The shovel blades 216/217 would move the loosened soil in response to detected loosened soil during the root cutting process. The examiner understands these processes disclosed by Wang to meet the method of claim 1 through normal operation of the machine.
To further illustrate the obviousness of the “detecting loosened soil” and “actuating of the shovel blade in response to the detected loosened soil” method steps, the examiner has presented Snyder as a teaching reference. Snyder teaches moving analogous shovel blades that “disturbs” the soil around the crop in a controlled manner (shovel blades 410; para [0088], lines 10-19). This “disturbed” soil is understood to be the same as “loosened” soil around the crop. Therefore, the method steps of “detecting loosened soil” and “actuating [a] shovel blade in response to the detected loosened soil”, as claimed, are understood to be standard practice for using shovel blades. The examiner believes the method of claim 1 does not distinguish the invention from the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 215222938) in view of Li et al. (CN 105874932) and Snyder et al. (US 20220172466).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Wang discloses a method for treating an agricultural field with a weeding unit traversing the agricultural field, the weeding unit comprising a weeding blade and a shovel blade (weeding blade 4; shovel blades 216/217) the method comprising:
detecting crop of a crop row growing in soil of the agricultural field (camera 27 detects crop; para [0022]);
advancing the weeding blade to cut and loosen the soil to weed the crop row (the weeding blade 4 advances through the soil to remove weeds; para [0029]);
moving loosened soil within the crop row with the shovel blade (the shovel blade 216/217 cuts the root of the weed; para [0029]).
While Wang discloses actuating the shovel blades (216/217) with actuator (23) to move the loosened soil, they fail to disclose independently actuating the weeding blade (4).
However, it is well-known in the art of agricultural tools to use actuators to move weeding tools. For example, Li discloses a similar machine (Fig 1) and teaches the weeding tools being actuated independently with separate actuators (tools 20 and 11 are actuated independently with separate actuators 3).
Wang and Li are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural weeding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Li and modified the weeding blade (4) to be actuated independently from the shovel blades (216/217). One would have made this modification to set the tools at different depths in the ground and reduce the overall energy consumption of the weeding operation (Li; abstract).
The combination of Wang and Li does disclose detecting “loosened soil” and “actuating the shovel blade in response to the detected loosened soil” through the regular operation of the machine. Wang does disclose the camera 27 which detects crops (para [0022]). The camera would detect loosened soil around the crops during the crop detection process. Further, Wang also discloses “cutting the root of the weed” (para [0029]). The shovel blades 216/217 would actuate to move the loosened soil in response to detected loosened soil during the root cutting process. Therefore, the combination of Wang and Li meets the claim language.
For the sake of argument, Snyder discloses a similar weeding machine (Fig 5) and teaches the moving analogous shovel blades that “disturb” soil around the crop (shovel blades 410; para [0088], lines 10-19). This “disturbed” soil is understood to be the same as “loosened” soil around the crop. The motion of the shovel blades is provided by a combination of electro-mechanical features so as to reduce the disturbance of soil (para [0089]). This motion is understood to be in response to the disturbed or loose soil.
Wang, Li, and Synder are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural weeding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Wang and Li to incorporate the teachings of Snyder and controlled the shovel blades to have damped motion profile when actuated in response to loosened or disturbed soil. One would have made this modification to accomplish weeding while reducing the disturbance of soil to prevent damage to the crop (Snyder; para [0088], lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wang, Li, and Snyder discloses the method wherein actuating the weeding blade comprises actuating the weeding blade in response to detected crop (the weeding blade of the combination actuates in response to detected crop as disclosed by Wang and Li).
Regarding claim 6, Wang further discloses the method further comprising:
detecting an uneven distribution of the soil (camera 27 is capable of detecting all kinds of soil, crop, and weed conditions); and
equalizing the uneven distribution of the soil by moving more loosened soil to a lower pileup of soil than to a higher pileup of soil (claim language is broad; working an uneven distribution of soil will equalize the distribution of soil from a higher pileup to a lower pileup to some degree).
Regarding claim 7, Wang further discloses the method wherein actuating the shovel blade comprises:
actuating a first shovel blade to move loosened soil from the first shovel blade to a second shovel blade; and
actuating the second shovel blade to move the loosened soil within the crop row (claim language is broad; actuating the first and second shovel blades 216/217 to close will move loosened soil toward the other blade as well as move the loosened soil within the crop row).
Regarding claim 8, Wang further discloses the method further comprising:
detecting uncovered roots of a crop (camera 27 is capable of detecting all kinds of soil, crop, and weed conditions); and
moving loosened soil on the uncovered root of the crop (claim language is broad; moving the loosened soil around the crop is considered to be moved on any uncovered roots).
Regarding claim 9, Wang further discloses the method further comprising:
detecting weed (camera 27 is capable of detecting all kinds of soil, crop, and weed conditions); and
moving loosened soil away from the weed (claim language is broad; the machine moves the weeds away from the loosened soil around the crop).
Regarding claim 10, Wang further discloses the method further comprising:
detecting weed and loosened soil (camera 27 is capable of detecting all kinds of soil, crop, and weed conditions);
determining whether the weed is at least partly separated from the loosened soil (claim language is broad; an operator is capable of determining whether weed is partly separated from the loosened soil); and
adjusting movement of the weeding blade or the shovel blade to separate the weed from the loosened soil (claim language is broad; the weeding blade 4 or the shovel blades 216/217 of the combination are considered capable of actuating to separate weed from loosened soil).
Regarding claim 11, Wang further discloses the method further comprising:
detecting weed and loosened soil (camera 27 is capable of detecting all kinds of soil, crop, and weed conditions);
determining whether the weed is at least partly separated from the loosened soil (claim language is broad; an operator is capable of determining whether weed is partly separated from the loosened soil); and
moving the loosened soil within the crop row only if the weed is at least partly separated from the loosened soil (claim language is broad; the blades move loosened soil within the crop row if weeds are removed).
Regarding claim 14, Wang further discloses a weeding unit comprising:
at least one weeding blade for cutting and loosening soil (weeding blades 4);
at least one shovel blade for moving loosened soil (blades 216/217);
an imaging unit for detecting crop (camera 27 is capable of detecting all kinds of soil, crop, and weed conditions); and
a control unit (3).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wang, Li, and Snyder discloses the weeding unit further comprising:
an actuator for actuating the at least one weeding blade (weeding blade 4 of Wang is independently actuated as taught by Li); and
an actuator for actuating the at least one shovel blade (Wang; actuator 23 actuates blades 216/217);
wherein one of the actuators comprises a parallelogram mechanism (Wang; actuator 23 is part of the frame connected to parallelogram mechanism 6/7).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wang and Li discloses the weeding unit wherein the other actuator comprises a mechanism other than the parallelogram mechanism (the actuator 3 of Li is considered to be directly connected to the tool and not part of a parallelogram mechanism).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Li, and Snyder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flajolet et al. (US 10845810).
Regarding claim 12, Wang fails to specifically disclose the method further comprising:
treating the soil with a material selected from the group consisting of a fertilizer, a pesticide, an herbicide, an insecticide, and a fungicide; and
covering the soil treated with the material at least partly with the loosened soil.
However, Flajolet discloses a similar machine to detect crop location (Fig 2; abstract) and teaches treating the soil with fertilizing, pesticide, or herbicide systems (Flajolet; col 8, lines 40-52).
Wang and Flajolet are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural machines that detect crop locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Flajolet and used fertilizing, pesticide, or herbicide systems. One would have made this modification to apply fertilizer, pesticide, or herbicide around the target plants with precision and efficiency (Flajolet; col 5, lines 30-37).
The combination is considered to cover the soil treated with fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide material at least partly with the loosened soil of the weeding and shovel blades.
Regarding claim 13, Wang fails to specifically disclose the method further comprising:
treating the soil with a material selected from the group consisting of a fertilizer, a pesticide, an herbicide, an insecticide, and a fungicide; and
covering the soil treated with the material at least partly with the loosened soil.
However, Flajolet discloses a similar machine to detect crop location (Fig 2; abstract) and teaches treating the soil with fertilizing, pesticide, or herbicide systems (Flajolet; col 8, lines 40-52).
Wang and Flajolet are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural machines that detect crop locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Flajolet and used fertilizing, pesticide, or herbicide systems. One would have made this modification to apply fertilizer, pesticide, or herbicide around the target plants with precision and efficiency (Flajolet; col 5, lines 30-37).
The combination is considered to cover the soil treated with fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide material at least partly with the loosened soil of the weeding and shovel blades.
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 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 BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights