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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Swiss on 12/02/2021 and an application filed in Swiss on 03/24/2022. It is noted, however, those applicants have NOT filed certified copies of the application CH070685/2021 and the application CH000321/2022 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings of Figs. 6 and 8A filed 07/07/2026 are entered because they overcome the drawing objections issued in the Office Action mailed 04/07/2026.
However, Fig. 7 filed 07/07/2026 would be objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more of supporting structure extensions in claims 8-9 and 28 must be shown in Fig. 7 or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
In order to overcome the drawing objection related to 550 in Fig. 7 issued in the Office Action mailed 04/07/2026, Applicant is suggested to amend para. [0076] of the specification to clarify reference character 550 in Fig. 7 refers to a supporting structure extension.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6, 14, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 5, - - the height of the first supporting structure or the height of the second supporting structure with reference to
Regarding claim 6, - - the [[distance]]height between the first supporting structure and the ground surface - -
Regarding claims 14 and 30, - - a projection on the ground [[of]]from the first array of nozzles from the second array of nozzles
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8, claim 29 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 12, and claim 30 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7, recitation “wherein each segment of the plurality of segments comprise an actuator of the plurality of actuators” is not supported by the specification.
As shown in Figs. 2 and 6, the second array of nozzles 240 in Fig. 2 comprising a plurality of segments in Fig. 6, the height control system comprising a plurality of actuators 262s in Fig. 7, wherein each of the plurality of segments is coupled to a respective actuator of the plurality of actuator as shown in Fig. 7, i.e., each segment and the respective actuator are two individual components/structures and the respective actuator is NOT comprised in each segment as claimed in claim 7.
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected as new matter.
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 7, 9, 11, and 13 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear whether i) a plurality of actuators refers to the first height actuator and the second height actuator previously claimed in claim 1; or ii) the second height actuator previously claimed in claim 1 comprising a plurality of actuators, and as explained in the 112a rejection in claim 7, limitation “each segment of the plurality of segment comprise an actuator of the plurality of actuators” is inconsistent to the specification, and thus, the clam languages of claim 7 are confusing and impossible to interpreted.
Regarding claim 9, term “the first array of low-resolution nozzles” lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear whether said term refers to the first array of nozzles previously claimed in claim 1 or a different array of nozzles.
Regarding claim 11, recitation “wherein the control unit is operated to control each nozzle of the first array of nozzles and each nozzle of the second array of nozzles to perform on the cultivated field any of the following operations” is indefinite because:
It is noted, “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); Ex parteLyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph)”, MPEP 2173.05(II).
Claim 11 claims the control unit and the method of operating said control unit to control nozzles to perform one of the claimed operations, which causes ambiguity when direct infringement occurs, i.e., a control unit cabled of controlling the claimed nozzles to perform the claimed operations or when operating a control unit to actually perform the claimed operations.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear whether “an object” and “the objects” are related to each other (and how they are related) or not related to each other.
Examiner Note
For claim 1, in light of the specification, the limitation “… wherein the second supporting structure comprises a second array of nozzles separated from each other by a second distance smaller than the first distance such that a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the second array of nozzles is higher than a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the first array of nozzles; … perform a low-resolution spot spraying and a high-resolution spot spraying respectively on different objects …” is interpreted as
- - the number of nozzles of the second array of nozzles along the second supporting structure is larger than the number of nozzles of the first array of nozzles along the first supporting structure, such that the spray area/size of each of a plurality of spot sprays sprayed by each of the second array of nozzles is smaller than the spray area/size of each of a plurality of spot sprays sprayed by each of the first array of nozzles, such that the first array of nozzles perform a low-resolution spot spraying and the second array of nozzles perform a high-resolution spraying (see para. [0004, 0048-0050] and Fig. 2 of the specification) - -
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown 20200107537.
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches the invention as claimed: A system (Fig. 1A) for spraying an area (122 in Fig. 1A) of a cultivated field ([0205]) comprising a spraying equipment (treatment system 120 in Fig. 1A comprising a plurality of manifolds 220s in Fig. 2A, and per [0108], each of the plurality of manifolds 220s in Fig. 2A is the manifold 260B as shown in Figs. 2E and 2F), the spraying equipment comprising:
a first supporting structure (a first 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A; note: 270 comprising a frame/plate where nozzles 230 are placed/coupled, see annotated Fig. 2F for clarification) and a second supporting structure (a second 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A; note: 270 comprising a frame/plate where nozzles 230 are placed/coupled, see annotated Fig. 2F for clarification), wherein the first supporting structure (the first 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) and the second supporting structure (the second 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) extend perpendicularly to a travel direction of the system when operating (because the manifold paths 240 of the first and second manifolds 220a and 220b are parallel to the travel direction and perpendicular to the manifolds 220a and 220b, see Figs. 2A-2B and [0096]),
wherein the first supporting structure (the first 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) comprises a first array of nozzles (the 230s at area 262a of the first manifold 220a, see annotated Fig. 2A) separated from each other by a first distance (a wide distance, see Fig. 2A and [0096]), wherein the second supporting structure (the second 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) comprises a second array of nozzles (the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b, see annotated Fig. 2A) separated from each other by a second distance (a narrow distance, see Fig. 2A and [0096]) smaller than the first distance (the wide distance, see Fig. 2A and [0096]) such that a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the second array of nozzles is higher than a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the first array of nozzles (the size of the spot spray sprayed by the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b is smaller than the size of the spot spray sprayed by the 230s at area 262a of the first manifold 220a, see Fig. 2A and [0096 and 0106]);
a height control system comprising a first height actuator (a first 280 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) to control a height of the first supporting structure (the frame/plate part of 270 where nozzles 230 are placed/coupled as marked in annotated Fig. 2F, per [0111], 280 is coupled to 270 to rotate 270, the frame/plate part, and thereby rotate nozzles 230 as shown in Figs. 2G-2H, and thus, a height of the 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) with reference to a ground (see annotated Figs. 2G-2H) and a second height actuator (a second 280 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) to control a height of the second supporting structure (the frame/plate part of 270 where nozzles 230 are placed/coupled as marked in annotated Fig. 2F, per [0111], 280 is coupled to 270 to rotate 270, the frame/plate part, and thereby rotate nozzles 230 as shown in Figs. 2G-2H, and thus, a height of the 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) with reference to a ground (see annotated Figs. 2G-2H);
a camera system (110 in Fig. 1A comprising cameras 112, see [0197] and Fig. 17) configured to acquire an image of objects (the image of corps per [0198], which is object 102s in Fig. 1A), wherein the objects comprise at least a portion of a plant ([0198]) ahead of the first supporting structure (the first 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) or the second supporting structure (the second 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) in the travel direction of the system (because 110 is located ahead of 120 in Fig. 1A, wherein the 120 comprising the first and second manifolds 220a and 220b in Fig. 2A);
a processing unit (a processing unit comprised in plant identification device 1702 in Fig. 17) configured to:
a) perform object recognition to identify the objects on the acquired image (per [0198], the image acquired by the camera 112 is stored at granularity of pixels and per [0197 and 0201-0202], the 1702 in Fig. 17 identified the position of plant, the location of the system, and configured to selectively activate spraying with a selective group of nozzles/patterns/spray materials while the system travels through the field, and thus, 1702 comprises the processing unit performs the object recognition function as claimed);
b) generate a mapping of the objects on a coordinate system of the system (per [0200], 1706 of 1702 identify the location of the system, and per [0197 and 0201-0202], 1702 in Fig. 17 identified the position of plant, the location of the system, and configured to selectively activate spraying with a selective group of nozzles/patterns/spray materials while the system travels through the field, and thus, 1702 comprises the processing unit performs the object recognition function as claimed),
an object tracking unit (an object tracking unit comprised in plant identification device 1702 in Fig. 17) configured to continuously track a position of the objects on the mapping (per [0200], 1706 of 1702 identify the location of the system, and per [0197 and 0201-0202], 1702 in Fig. 17 identified the position of plant, the location of the system, and configured to selectively activate spraying with a selective group of nozzles/patterns/spray materials while the system travels through the field, and thus, 1702 comprises the object tracking unit performs the object recognition function as claimed); and
a control unit configured to control the first array of nozzles (by a plurality of first valves 278 in Fig. 2B at the 262a area of the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A controls the first array of nozzles, see annotated Fig. 2A, wherein the plurality of first valves 278 are valves 192 in Fig. 1D controls plurality of nozzles 194, see [0090 and 0094]) and the second array of nozzles (by a plurality of second valves 278 in Fig. 2B at the 262b area of the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A controls the second array of nozzles, see annotated Fig. 2A, wherein the plurality of second valves 278 are valves 192 in Fig. 1D controls a corresponding nozzle 194, see [0090 and 0094]) to perform a low-resolution spot spraying (because the first array of nozzles 230 at the area 262a of the first manifold 220a has a wide distance, see annotated Fig. 2A and [0096 and 0106]) and a high-resolution spot spraying (because the second array of nozzles 230 at the area 262b of the second manifold 220b has a narrow distance, see annotated Fig. 2A and [0096 and 0106]) respectively on different objects (different corps per [0198], which are object 102s in Fig. 1A) based at least in part on the mapping of the different objects on the coordinate system of the system and the position of the different objects on the mapping (per [0197 and 0201-0202], 1703 in Fig. 17 identified the position of plant, the location of the system, and configured to selectively activate spraying with a selective group of nozzles/patterns/spray materials while the system travels through the field by sending signals to the valve assemblies, which are the respective 278s in Fig. 2B coupled to the first array of nozzles and the second array of nozzles in annotated Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
1008
1456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
712
1076
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
876
1184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Brown further teaches wherein the first height actuator (the first 280 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) is configured to control the height of the first supporting structure with reference to the ground (the frame/plate part of 270 where nozzles 230 are placed/coupled as marked in annotated Fig. 2F, per [0111], 280 is coupled to 270 to rotate 270, the frame/plate part, and thereby rotate nozzles 230 as shown in Figs. 2G-2H, and thus, the height of the 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A, see annotated Fig. 2G-2H in claim 1), and wherein the second height actuator (the second 280 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) is configured to control a vertical distance (a difference of the height of the first 270 and height of the second 270, see annotated Fig. 2G-2H) between the first supporting structure (the first 270) and the second supporting structure (the second 270).
PNG
media_image4.png
850
1331
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Brown further teaches wherein the spraying equipment further comprises a fluid distribution system (160 in Fig. 1C) arranged to provide to the first array of nozzles (the 230s at area 262a of the first manifold 220a, see annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1, which is indicated as nozzle 162 in Fig. 1C) a first chemical mixture (a first portion of the mixture of chemical from 176 and water from 164 that provides to the 230s at area 262a of the first manifold 220a, see annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1) and provide to the second array of nozzles (the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b, see Fig. 1C and [0080], and annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1) a second chemical mixture (a second portion of the mixture of chemical from 176 and water from 164 that provides to the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b, see Fig. 1C and [0080], and annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1), such that the spraying equipment sprays the first and the second chemical mixtures in a single passage (a passage covered by both of the manifolds 220a and 220b, see annotated Fig. 2A) of the system in the travel direction (annotated Fig. 2A), wherein the first and the second chemical mixtures comprise a fertilizer ([0080]).
PNG
media_image5.png
882
1272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Brown further teaches wherein the control unit is operated to control each nozzle of the first arrays of nozzles (by each of the plurality of first valves 278 in Fig. 2B at the 262a area of the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A controls each nozzle of the first array of nozzles, see annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1) and the second arrays of nozzles (by each of the plurality of second valves 278 in Fig. 2B at the 262b area of the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A controls each nozzle of the second array of nozzles, see annotated Fig. 2A) to perform on the cultivated field the following operations: performing a low-resolution spot spraying (by activate at least one of the plurality of first valves 278) while the high-resolution spot spraying is not performed (by deactivate all of the plurality of second valves 278; per [0090, 0107 and 0105] each of the plurality of first valves and each of the plurality of second valves is individually controlled, and thus, able to perform the claimed function).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown 20200107537 in view of Sandbrook 20240397928.
Regarding claim 3, Brown does not teach wherein the spraying equipment
comprises a distance measurement sensor to measure a distance from the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure to a ground surface.
However, Sandbrook teaches wherein the spraying equipment (comprising supporting structure 120 and an array of nozzles 134s, see Fig. 1 and per [0038], 134 may be a sprayer tool or watering tool) comprises a distance measurement sensor (140 in Fig. 1, which per [0054] is mounted under the supporting structure 120) to measure a distance from the supporting structure to a ground surface (per [0027], sensor 140 is a LIDAR sensor provides a 3D image to a controller 150 in order for the controller 150 to measure the distance between the group where the crops are and the supporting structure 120 where 134s are and per [0071-0072], sensor 140 and a camera are mounted under the supporting structure 120 and cooperated to capture optical images for depicting crop bed profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Brown with Sandbrook’s distance measurement sensor, such that
wherein the spraying equipment comprises a distance measurement sensor to measure a distance from the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure to a ground surface (the modification is to mount Sandbrook’s distance measurement sensor 140 under both of Brown’s first and second supporting structures, which read on the claimed limitation)
in order to predict present and location of the target plant and selectively perform an action on the target plant in a narrow time widow with increased accuracy (Sandbrook, [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Brown in view of Sandbrook further teaches wherein the distance measurement sensor (Sandbrook’s sensor 140) is mounted along the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure (as taught by Sandbrook’s [0054], Sandbrook’s sensors 140 in Sandbrook’s Fig. 1 is mounted under and along both of Brown’s first and second supporting structures 270s of Brown’s manifold 260B as shown in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that are Brown’s first manifold 220a and Brown’s second manifold 220b in Brown’s Fig. 2A, which read on the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Brown in view of Sandbrook further teaches wherein a distance information (Sandbrook’s 3D data, e.g., spherical coordinates, extracted from the 3D images taken by Sandbrook’s sensor 140 as taught by Sandbrook’s [0023]) measured by the distance measurement sensor (Sandbrook’s sensor 140) is transmitted to the height control system (Brown’s first 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A and Brown’s second 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A, wherein per Brown’s [0111], Brown’s 280s are controlled to rotate Brown’s first and second supporting structures based on the detected height of plants and per Brown’s [0197-0198 and 0201] the detected height of plants is based on the images captured by the camera 112 of the detection system, which means Brown’s height control system further comprising a processing unit to control Brown’s first and second height actuators based on the distance information acquired by Brown’s camera 112; and per Sandbrook’s [0023 and 0071-0072], the distance information measure by Sandbrook’s sensor 140 and the images acquired by Sandbrook’s camera are transmitted to Sandbrook’s controller 150 for depicting crop bed profile) to regulate (by controlling Brown’s first 280 or Brown’s second 280) the height of the first supporting structure (Brown’s 270 of Brown’s manifold 260B that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A, see demonstration in Brown’s annotated Figs. 2G-2H in claim 1) or the height of the second supporting structure (Brown’s 270 of Brown’s manifold 260B that is Brown’s second manifold 220b in Brown’s Fig. 2A, see demonstration in Brown’s annotated Figs. 2G-2H in claim 1) relative to the ground surface as a function of the distance information (because Sandbrook’s 3D data, e.g., spherical coordinates, is used to depicting the crop bed profiles that used to navigate and/or selectively activate nozzles 134, see Sandbrook’s Fig. 1 and [0023 and 0027]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown 20200107537 in view of Sandbrook 20240397928, and in further view of Leger 20240130350.
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Sandbrook further teaches wherein the height control system (Brown’s first 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A and Brown’s second 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) regulates (by controlling Brown’s first 280 or Brown’s second 280) the distance between the first supporting structure (Brown’s 270 of Brown’s manifold 260B that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A) and the ground (see demonstration in Brown’s annotated Figs. 2G-2H in claim 1) as a function of information comprising a distance information from the distance measurement sensor (Sandbrook’s 3D data, e.g., spherical coordinates, extracted from the optical images taken by Sandbrook’s sensor 140 as taught by Sandbrook’s [0023]).
Brown in view of Sandbrook does not teach a function of information comprising data from a 3D depth sensor and motion information of the second supporting structure.
However, Leger teaches wherein the control system (the gimbal assembly per [0058]) regulates the distance between the array of nozzles (272 in Fig. 2) and the target plants (based on the location of the target plants and movement of the target plant/the system vehicle 310, see Fig. 3A and [0058]) as a function of information comprising a distance information (in order to identify and localize the plant, see [0052]) from the distance measurement sensor (251 in Fig. 2 belongs to the treatment control system), data from a 3D depth sensor (the depth sensor included in the sensing system 232 in Fig. 2 belongs to the navigation system, see [0048]), and motion information (provided by speed meters included in the sensing system 232, which also belongs to the navigation system) of the supporting structure (where the array of nozzles 272s are mounted, e.g., the 624a in Fig. 6A, which is moving when the system vehicle 310 traveling through the field see Fig. 3A; and per [0048] the speed of the movement of the system vehicle 310 and data from the depth sensor included in the sensing system 232 in Fig. 2 are fused with the distance information from the distance measurement sensor 251 in Fig. 2 to control the pose and orientation of the array of nozzles 270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Brown in view of Sandbrook with Leger’s 3D depth sensor and speed meter, such that
wherein the height control system regulates the distance between the first supporting structure and the ground as a function of information comprising a distance information from the distance measurement sensor, data from a 3D depth sensor, and motion information of the second supporting structure (the modification is to provide data from Leger’s 3D depth sensor and motion information of Brown’s system vehicle, where Brown’s second supporting structure is mounted and moved along with, from Leger’s 3D speed meter to control pose and orientation of the array of nozzles of Brown in view of Sandbrook, which read on the claimed limitation)
in order to effectively and efficiently produce and harvest crops and reduce the amount of chemicals used on plants and cultivated land (Leger, [0002-0003]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown 20200107537 in view of Fu 20220101554.
Regarding claim 13, Brown does not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to further i) merge the acquired image of the objects and a depth map of the objects to obtain a 3D image, ii) extract on the 3D image a set of features comprising an edge of an object for tracking the position of the object.
However, Fu teaches wherein the processing unit (200 in Fig. 2) is configured to further i) merge the acquired image (the image acquired by camera 212, e.g., 700 in Fig. 7A, see Fig. 2 and [0095]) of the objects (102 and 106, Fig. 1E) and a depth map (740 in Fig, 7C) of the objects to obtain a 3D image (the labelled depth map 760 in Fig. 7D and [0148]) comprising a corrected mapping of the objects (per [0152 and 0153], various functions may be applied to the depth map, e.g., dilate, interpolation, smoothing, rounding, to improve spay accuracy and allow error margin), and ii) extract on the 3D image a set of features comprising an edge of an object for tracking the position of the object (the edge of different objects is extracted to separate the different objects, e.g., edge of weed 764 is extract to identify the location and the size of weed 764, in order to provide different treatment, see Fig. 7D and [0152]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Brown with Fu’s method of i) merge the acquired image of the objects and a depth map of the objects to obtain a 3D image comprising a corrected mapping of the objects, and ii) extract on the 3D image a set of features comprising an edge of an object for tracking the position of the object in order to improve treatment accuracy, treatment speed, computation speed when performing farming actions in the field (Fu, [0153]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed 07/07/2026 has been fully considered.
Applicant argues, on pp. 18-19, “… In fact, Applicant respectfully submits that FIG. 2B of Brown (reproduced below) instead suggests a single support structure 270, controlled by a single rotation mechanism 280. Thus, nowhere does Brown teach or disclose that a first and a second rotation mechanism can independently control a first or a second support structure, respectively. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Brown does not teach or disclose a first height actuator and a second height actuator that can independently control a height of a first support structure and a second support structure”.
Examiner does not agree with such argument because Brown teaches each of the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A and the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A is respectively placed in a first support structure 270 of Figs. 2E-2F and a second support structure 270 of Figs. 2E-2F, wherein an actuator 280 is provided on a support structure 270 to rotate the support structure 270 (which is the frame/plate part where nozzles 230s are placed, see annotated Fig. 2F in claim 1 above) and thereby rotate an array of nozzles (230s in the first manifold 220a or 230s in the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A), i.e., a first height actuator (a first 280 coupled to first 270 where first manifold 220a is placed) controlling a height of the first support structure (the frame/plating part of first 270 see annotated Fig. 2F in claim 1 above) with reference to a ground (see demonstration in annotated Figs. 2G-2H in claim 1 above) and a second height actuator (a second 280 coupled to second 270 where second manifold 220b is placed) controlling a height of the second support structure (the frame/plating part of second 270 see annotated Fig. 2F in claim 1 above) with reference to the ground (see demonstration in annotated Figs. 2G-2H in claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12, and 14 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.
Claim 9 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.
Claim 28 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8, claim 29 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 12, and claim 30 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 8, 12, 14 are allowable because of the reason as explained in the Office Action mailed 04/07/2026.
Claim 9 is allowable because it depends on claim 8.
Claim 28 is allowable because claim 28 comprising all of the claim limitations of claim 8.
Claim 29 is allowable because claim 28 comprising all of the claim limitations of claim 12.
Claim 30 is allowable because claim 28 comprising all of the claim limitations of claim 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights