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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krakowka (PL 239526, previously provided, see English translation previously provided) in view of Seo (KR 102337873, provided herein, see English translation provided herein).
For claim 1, Krakowka teaches an aerial crop monitoring system (description and figs., claim 1, “a system for monitoring an area”, the system can be used to monitor crops) comprising:
a network of connected tension members (3, 4) arranged in a three-dimensional region (see fig. 1);
a carriage (13) coupled to the network and configured to travel along the tension members within the three-dimensional region (see fig. 2) to at least one of deliver a resource or capture data (“The monitoring device 12 comprises, depending on the needs, e.g. a vision camera, a thermal imaging camera, a laser scanner or sound sensors, smoke detectors, chemical or biological substances”); and
at least one rigid transfer member (5) coupled to the network and arranged at or proximate to an intersection of at least two tension members, wherein the transfer member is configured to direct the carriage between two tension members (see figs. 1, 3-6).
Krakowka is silent about the tension members being within a covered growing environment and wherein the carriage is configured to do at least one of deliver a resource configured to affect plant growth of at least one plant within the crop or capture data indicative of a status of at least one plant. However, Krakowka does teach “the monitoring of terrain of any shape by a monitoring device moving along a rope track spanning over the terrain”.
Seo teaches an aerial monitoring crop system (abstract and figs.) including a carriage (fig. 2, 5) configured to travel within a 3D region of a covered growing environment (see figs, description, “a zigzag pipe rail 1 is installed on the ceiling of a greenhouse”) and wherein the carriage is configured to do at least one of deliver a resource configured to affect plant growth of at least one plant within the crop or capture data indicative of a status of at least one plant (camera 30 photographs/captures data about crops, see claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the monitoring system of Krakowski particularly monitor a greenhouse and collect crop data, as taught by the aerial monitoring system of Seo, in order to monitor the desired variables/location with the camera.
For claim 2, modified Krakowski further teaches wherein the carriage comprises a sensing unit including a sensor array configured to generate and/or collect data corresponding to a facility or product therein (“The monitoring device 12 comprises, depending on the needs, e.g. a vision camera, a thermal imaging camera, a laser scanner or sound sensors, smoke detectors, chemical or biological substances”).
For claim 3, modified Krakowski further teaches wherein the carriage comprises at least one mechanism for delivering the resource to a facility or products therein (“The monitoring device 12 comprises, depending on the needs, e.g. a vision camera, a thermal imaging camera, a laser scanner or sound sensors, smoke detectors, chemical or biological substances”, chemical and biological substances are a resource to the area).
For claim 4, modified Krakowski further teaches wherein the resource comprises at least one of a treatment, lighting, irrigation, feeding, or a change in an ambient condition (chemical and biological substances constitute treatment).
For claim 5, modified Krakowski further teaches wherein the delivery mechanism is configured to interact with actuators installed within the facility to adjust at least one of plant spacing, location, orientation, lighting, irrigation, feeding, HVAC settings, or other facility parameter (chemical and biological substances are an “other” parameter).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krakowka in view of Seo and Yang et al. (US 11176684, hereafter referred to as Yang).
For claim 6, Krakowka teaches an aerial crop monitoring system (description and figs., claim 1, “a system for monitoring an area”, the system can be used to monitor crops) comprising:
a network of connected tension members (3, 4) arranged in a three-dimensional region (see fig. 1);
a carriage (13) coupled to the network and configured to travel along the tension members within the three-dimensional region (see fig. 2) to at least one of deliver a resource or capture data (“The monitoring device 12 comprises, depending on the needs, e.g. a vision camera, a thermal imaging camera, a laser scanner or sound sensors, smoke detectors, chemical or biological substances”); and
at least one rigid transfer member (5) coupled to the network and arranged at or proximate to an intersection of at least two tension members, wherein the transfer member is configured to direct the carriage between two tension members (see figs. 1, 3-6).
Krakowka is silent about the tension members defining a 2D grid corresponding to an arrangement of plants; the carriage configured to travel within the 2D grid relative to a location of one or more plants within the arrangement of plants to at least one of deliver a resource or capture data. However, Krakowka does teach “the monitoring of terrain of any shape by a monitoring device moving along a rope track spanning over the terrain”.
Seo teaches an aerial monitoring crop system (abstract and figs.) including an arrangement of plants (crops per abstract) a carriage (fig. 2, 5) configured to travel within the system relative to a location of one or more plants (see description, “in the rail-using crop growth measuring device for big data collection, a zigzag pipe rail 1 is installed on the ceiling of a greenhouse, and moves in a zigzag manner along the pipe rail 1 . As a growth measuring device of a rail-moving crop that takes pictures of crops planted in multiple rows”) and wherein the carriage is configured to do at least one of deliver a resource or capture data (camera 30 photographs/captures data about crops, see claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the monitoring system of Krakowski particularly monitor plants and collect crop data, as taught by the aerial monitoring system of Seo, in order to monitor the desired variables/location with the camera.
Yang teaches an aerial monitoring system (abstract) including a 3D region defining a 2D grid corresponding to an item to be monitored, the carriage configured to travel within the 2D grid relative to a location of the item to be monitored (see Fig. 5B, camera’s 511, 512, 513, 514 traveling along a 2D grid, Col. 8, line 65- Col. 9, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the monitoring system of modified Krakowski include a 2D grid, as taught by the monitoring system of Yang, in order to effectively cover and monitor the entire area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights