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 Status
Pending claims 14-25 are addressed below.
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.
Claim(s) 14-22 is/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 14 recites the limitation " the control unit " in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claims 14-16, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joergensen (US20140001276) in view of Hollstein (US20180024050) and Plotzing (US20240280497 with foreign priority dated 6/10/2021).
Regarding claim 14, Joergensen discloses a method for applying at least one spray product to agricultural land having crop plants and weeds (Abstract: “a method and spray boom for discriminating cereal crop (monocot) and weeds (dicots)”), using at least one spray nozzle unit (par. 22: “a nozzle on the spray boom”) of an agricultural spraying device (see fig. 1), wherein the crop plants and the weeds can be assigned to a cotyledon class of monocotyledons or to a cotyledon class of dicotyledons (par. 76: “The statistical features can be visualized as a kind of “fingerprint” image. Three such fingerprints are shown in FIG. 6, one for pure monocots, pure dicots and finally a mixture of the two plant types”; par. 78: “Based on the illustrated fingerprints and variation of these it is possible to quantify the amount and ratio between monocotyledons (cereal crops and grass weed) and dicotyledons (weeds) in a computational efficient manner”), the method comprising the following steps:
providing or ascertaining a cotyledon class of the crop plants (par. 1 indicates the cereal crop is a monocot);
acquiring a field section of the agricultural land using an optical acquisition unit (camera) of the agricultural spraying device to obtain image information (par. 37: “ spray boom has a set of digital cameras in a vision system that takes images of the field surface immediately in front of the spraying boom. The images are analysed for the occurrence of crop and weed.”);
identifying the weeds (par. 71: “A core feature of the present invention is the detection of dicots by estimating the curvature of the leaves by sampling locally distributed points placed on the edges of the leaves, and measuring the orientation of the edge at the points in a global coordinate frame”) in the acquired field section using the control unit (fig. 1: “Spray computer” ; par. 15: “the method can be used in a robust and computer efficient manner to estimate the ratio between visible monocot and dicot leaves”) using the image information (par. 74: “To describe the shapes in the image, the relative location and orientation of pairs of edge pixels are examined”; par. 76: “The statistical features can be visualized as a kind of “fingerprint” image”) in order to assign them to one of two cotyledon classes, the two cotyledon classes including monocotyledons, and dicotyledons (par. 44: “interpretation of the statistical features resulting in a measure of the monocot/dicot ratio”, par. 76: “Three such fingerprints are shown in FIG. 6, one for pure monocots, pure dicots and finally a mixture of the two plant types”; the quoted teachings are understood to imply labeling/assigning the detected weeds as “monocots” or “dicots” are done via recognition of the “fingerprints” extracted from the captured images in order for the quantifying or measurement of ratio can be done; note 1: alternatively, this limitation is also addressed by Plotzing reference presented below);
ascertaining a first weed identification number for the weeds assigned to the monocotyledons and a second weed identification number for the weeds assigned to the dicotyledons (par. 78: “Based on the illustrated fingerprints and variation of these it is possible to quantify the amount and ratio between monocotyledons (cereal crops and grass weed) and dicotyledons (weeds) in a computational efficient manner”, this description indicates that the number/quantity of monocotyledons and dicotyledons can be computed from the illustrated fingerprints and variations of them; the number of detected dicot is number of dicot weeds, and the number of detected monocots includes grass weed), using the control unit (via computer, understood via mention of “computational efficient manner”; see also par. 15); and
applying the at least one spray product (herbicidal composition) applied to the acquired field section of the agricultural land using the at least one spray nozzle unit of the agricultural spraying device (Abstract: “discriminating cereal crop (monocot) and weeds (dicots). The spray boom includes … means for activating one or more of the spray nozzles in response to detected dicots so as to selectively apply the herbicidal composition onto the sensed area containing the dicots”) depending on:
the cotyledon class of the crop plants (“cereal crop (monocot)”), and the detected dicot weed.
Joergensen does not teach the applying the at least one spray product step is depending on: the cotyledon class of the crop plants, and the first ascertained weed identification number and/or the second ascertained weed identification number (although, Joergensen mentions “it is possible to quantify the amount and ratio between monocotyledons (cereal crops and grass weed) and dicotyledons (weeds) in a computational efficient manner” in par. 78, there is no explicit mention of the “apply the at least one spray product” step being done based on quantity or degree of coverage of detected dicots or based on both numbers of detected dicot weed and detected monocot weed; “weed identification number” understood to encompass the quantity or degree of coverage of each weed type in light of applicant’s disclosure, par. 44 of the application publication or page 11 of the specification).
Hollstein discloses a comparable method and device involving determination of weed percentage in an observation section of a field for application of varying dose of the spray product (par. 3), wherein Hollstein describes in paragraph 42: “The weed percentage may form the basis for initiating a spray application process. In this case, an initiation limit which is predefined by the user and corresponds to a weed infestation which can still be tolerated and above which spray is intended to be sprayed is taken into account”. A high weed percentage corresponds to a long spraying duration or intensive delivery of plant protection agent (or fertilizer), whereas a smaller weed percentage than this corresponds to a shorter spraying duration or less intensive delivery (par. 86), in response to instructions from the control device 100, 182 (par. 84).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Joergensen to incorporate the teachings of Hollstein to provide the applying the at least one spray product step is depending on: the cotyledon class of the crop plants, and the ascertained weed identification number associated with the dicot weeds. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating optimized application of herbicides based on the amount of detected weed (See Paragraph 3).
Further regarding claim 14, the examiner addresses the alternative limitation where both the first and second weed identification numbers are considered in the spray product application step (limitation reciting “applying the at least one spray product …depending on… the first ascertained weed identification number and the second ascertained weed identification number.”). Joergensen indicates the recognition and measurement of monocotyledons to include both the cereal crop (crop plant) and grass weed (par. 78), but is silent regarding classifying the monocotyledonous cereal crop plant and grass weed/monocotyledons weed individually. Additionally, combination of Plotzing also addresses limitation “identifying the weeds in the acquired field section using the control unit using the image information in order to assign them to one of two cotyledon classes, the two cotyledon classes including monocotyledons, and dicotyledons” (see note 1 above).
Plotzing discloses a comparable agricultural system and method for detecting of plants (par. 2) that utilize a plant classification code with different accuracy levels including “A first (roughest) accuracy level could comprise a classification into monocots (monocotyledons) and dicots (dicotyledons)… A third accuracy level could comprise a classification into (expected) useful plants/crop plants and (undesired) weed plants” (see par. 12). In par. 13, Plotzing discloses various specific examples of the plant classification codes including “the plant classification code comprises a number of detected and/or classified plant sprouts. For example, a transmitted plant classification code comprises the following message: three plant sprouts of class A (crop plant/useful plant), four plant sprouts of class U1 (monocotyledonous weed), one plant sprout of class U2 (dicotyledonous weed) and one plant sprout of class X (unclassified/undetected)” (emphasis included). Detailed classification data allows for optimized control of the product applications (fertilizer, herbicides, irrigation; see end of par. 15; see par. 64: “In the automated control of the plant protection system 68 in the cultivation step 64 a corresponding weed killer can be proposed/selected on the basis of a detection of a weed type. In the case of a detection of dicotyledonous weeds between monocotyledonous crop plants, for example, a weed killer acting only on dicotyledonous plants can be used in a selective manner”). The monitoring, classifying, and automated control of the spray products and irrigation are associated with a data processing unit/control system 80 having a processor, corresponding to a control unit, control electronics system (par. 8 and 48).
Considering the teachings of Hollstein and Plotzing as presented above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capabilities to access the potential utilization of individual plant identification, including cotyledon classification of the crop plant, monocotyledonous weeds and dicotyledonous weeds, in order to control selectively targeted treatment based on weed detection and percentage (See Paragraph 64 of Plotzing and paragraph 3 of Hollstein). No inventive effort would have been required.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Joergensen and Hollstein to further incorporate the teachings of Plotzing to provide the applying step, such that applying the at least one spray product (herbicidal composition) applied to the acquired field section of the agricultural land using the at least one spray nozzle unit of the agricultural spraying depending on: the cotyledon class of the crop plants (“cereal crop (monocot)”), both the first ascertained weed identification number (monocotyledons) and the second ascertained weed identification number (dicotyledons). Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating optimized control of spray products for weed killing (See Paragraph 64 of Plotzing and paragraph 3 of Hollstein), consequently a precise agricultural planning can be advantageously be made possible and yield can be increased (see Paragraph 14 of Plotzing).
Regarding claims 15-16, Joergensen, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 14. Joergensen alone does not teach: providing or ascertaining, depending on the cotyledon class of the crop plants a first application threshold value for the first weed identification number and a second application threshold value for the second weed identification number, wherein, in the step of applying, the at least one spray product is applied depending on the first application threshold value and/or the second application threshold value (claim 15); and wherein, in the step of applying, the first weed identification number is compared to the first application threshold value and/or the second weed identification number is compared to the second application threshold value using the control unit, wherein the at least one spray product is applied when the first application threshold value or the second application threshold value, is reached or undershot or exceeded (claim 16).
However, Plotzing suggests assigning detected plants into crop plants, monocotyledon weeds and dicotyledon weeds and provides the number of each plants detected (par. 13: “a transmitted plant classification code comprises the following message: three plant sprouts of class A (crop plant/useful plant), four plant sprouts of class U1 (monocotyledonous weed), one plant sprout of class U2 (dicotyledonous weed)”). The number of each detected weed plants corresponds to the first weed identification number and the second weed identification number. Paragraph 64 further suggest choosing the specific weed killer for the targeted type of monocotyledon or dicotyledon weed (“In the automated control of the plant protection system 68 in the cultivation step 64 a corresponding weed killer can be proposed/selected on the basis of a detection of a weed type. In the case of a detection of dicotyledonous weeds between monocotyledonous crop plants, for example, a weed killer acting only on dicotyledonous plants can be used in a selective manner”).
Additionally, Hollstein discloses a comparable method and device involving determination of weed percentage in an observation section of a field for application of varying dose of the spray product (par. 3). Hollstein describes in paragraph 42: “The weed percentage may form the basis for initiating a spray application process. In this case, an initiation limit which is predefined by the user and corresponds to a weed infestation which can still be tolerated and above which spray is intended to be sprayed is taken into account”. Paragraphs 28 and 30 describes the weed percentage associated the threshold value and control of the sprayer, i.e. “a high weed percentage is synonymous with the need to activate the field sprayer”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capabilities to assess the teachings of Plotzing and Hollstein presented above and incorporate threshold values for each of the first and second weed identification number, namely a first application threshold value for the first weed identification number and a second application threshold value second weed identification number, to determine whether or not the weed infestation can still be tolerated or must be treated to start/stop the treatment spray.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Joergensen to incorporate the teachings of Plotzing and Hollstein to incorporate providing or ascertaining, depending on the cotyledon class of the crop plants a first application threshold value for the first weed identification number and a second application threshold value for the second weed identification number, wherein, in the step of applying, the at least one spray product is applied depending on the first application threshold value and/or the second application threshold value (claim 15); and wherein, in the step of applying, the first weed identification number is compared to the first application threshold value and/or the second weed identification number is compared to the second application threshold value using the control unit, wherein the at least one spray product is applied when the first application threshold value or the second application threshold value, is reached or undershot or exceeded (claim 16). Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating optimized control of spray products for weed killing (See Paragraph 64 of Plotzing and paragraph 3 of Hollstein), consequently a precise agricultural planning can be advantageously be made possible and yield can be increased (see Paragraph 14 of Plotzing).
Regarding claim 19, Joergensen, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein Plotzing discloses the first and second weed identification numbers represent a number of the respective weeds or a degree of coverage of the acquired field section of plant material of the respective weeds or a quantity of plant material of the respective weeds (In par. 13, Plotzing discloses various specific examples of the plant classification codes including “the plant classification code comprises a number of detected and/or classified plant sprouts. For example, a transmitted plant classification code comprises the following message: three plant sprouts of class A (crop plant/useful plant), four plant sprouts of class U1 (monocotyledonous weed), one plant sprout of class U2 (dicotyledonous weed) and one plant sprout of class X (unclassified/undetected)” (emphasis included)).
Regarding claim 20, Joergensen, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein, Plotzing discloses in the step of applying, the control unit is used to ascertain whether and/or how much and/or which of the at least one spray product is applied (The monitoring, classifying, and automated control of the spray products and irrigation are associated with a data processing unit/control system 80 having a processor, corresponding to a control unit, control electronics system, see par. 8 and 48).
Regarding claim 21, Joergensen, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein, Plotzing suggests, in the step of applying, a first spray product is applied depending on the first ascertained weed identification number (par. 64: “In the automated control of the plant protection system 68 in the cultivation step 64 a corresponding weed killer can be proposed/selected on the basis of a detection of a weed type. In the case of a detection of dicotyledonous weeds between monocotyledonous crop plants, for example, a weed killer acting only on dicotyledonous plants can be used in a selective manner.”) and/or a second spray product different from the first is applied depending on the second ascertained weed identification number (The quoted teaching above in paragraph 64 of Plotzing implies that the opposite scenario of the example above can be implemented, where a detection of monocotyledonous weeds between dicotyledonous crop plants, for example, a weed killer acting only on monocotyledonous weed plants can be used in a selective manner).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Joergensen to incorporate the teachings of Plotzing to provide in the step of applying, a first spray product is applied depending on the first ascertained weed identification number and/or a second spray product different from the first is applied depending on the second ascertained weed identification number. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating optimized control of spray products for weed killing (See Paragraph 64 of Plotzing and paragraph 3 of Hollstein), consequently a precise agricultural planning can be advantageously be made possible and yield can be increased (see Paragraph 14 of Plotzing).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joergensen (US20140001276) in view of Hollstein (US20180024050) and Plotzing (US20240280497 with foreign priority dated 6/10/2021), further in view of Ehrat (US 4358054).
Regarding claim 22, Joergensen, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 21, but does not teach wherein the spray products: are provided premixed in separate spray product tanks of the agricultural spraying device; or are mixed as needed in the step of applying using a mixing unit of the agricultural spraying device.
Ehrat discloses a comparable agricultural system (fig. 3) having spray products in a plurality of auxiliary containers A for holding various chemicals including herbicides, and are mixed as needed using a mixer M (fig. 3) prior to spraying.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Joergensen to incorporate the teachings of Ehrat to provide the spray products mixed as needed in the step of applying using a mixing unit of the agricultural spraying device. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating sprays of selectively variable solution mixture in desired proportion when needed (See Paragraph Abstract).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joergensen (US20140001276) in view of Hollstein (US20180024050) and Plotzing (US20240280497 with foreign priority dated 6/10/2021), further in view of Nair (US 20170112043).
Regarding claim 23, Joergensen, as modified above in view of Hollstein and Plotzing, discloses the method of claim 14 above with many steps performed by the control unit (Joergensen’s “spray computer”; see fig. 1, and rejection of claim 14 above), including providing a cotyledon class of crop lants, identifying weeds in image information, ascertaining first and second weed identification number, and applying at least one spray product to the field using the spray nozzle unit depending on the cotyledon class of the crop plants and weed identification numbers.
Although the disclosed method mentions the class of the crop plants is known to be/assigned to monocotyledon class, Joergensen does not explicitly indicate that the control unit configured to carry out the step of receiving or ascertaining a cotyledon class of crop plants.
Nair discloses an agricultural system and method involving processing image data of the field to provide control adjustment to the agricultural system (Abstract). Nair further discloses an initialization user interface 218 that allows operator to enter a type of crop on the field (par. 69), where the control module 202 interprets the input data for classification purposes and control of the agricultural implement in comparison to processing of the imaged area (par. 70-71).
Considering disclosures of Joergensen’s consideration cotyledon class of crop plant and the intended detection of dicot weed, and similar weed type detection and classifications taught by Plotzing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the potential benefits of having the control unit receiving input of the cotyledon class of the crop plants for improving the automated identifications and discrimination between crop plants and weed and control of the spray treatments. The consideration is implied in Plotzing’s paragraph 64: “In the automated control of the plant protection system 68 in the cultivation step 64 a corresponding weed killer can be proposed/selected on the basis of a detection of a weed type. In the case of a detection of dicotyledonous weeds between monocotyledonous crop plants, for example, a weed killer acting only on dicotyledonous plants can be used in a selective manner”). Providing input of known crop plant cotyledon class into the control unit requires no inventive effort.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Joergensen to incorporate the teachings of Nair to provide the control unit configured to carry out the step of receiving or ascertaining a cotyledon class of crop plants. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a precise agricultural planning or treatment, allowing additional data inputs for improving field monitoring, verification, detection and system spray control.
Regarding claim 24, Joergensen, as modified above in view of Hollstein and Plotzing, discloses the method of claim 14 above with many steps performed by the control unit (Joergensen’s “spray computer”; see fig. 1, and rejection of claim 14 above), including providing a cotyledon class of crop lants, identifying weeds in image information, ascertaining first and second weed identification number, and applying at least one spray product to the field using the spray nozzle unit depending on the cotyledon class of the crop plants and weed identification numbers.
Joergensen’s system comprising at least one spray nozzle unit (par. 22: “a nozzle on the spray boom”);
at least one optical acquisition unit (par. 37: “ spray boom has a set of digital cameras in a vision system that takes images of the field surface immediately in front of the spraying boom. The images are analysed for the occurrence of crop and weed.”); and
a control unit (Joergensen’s “spray computer” to carry out the processing of the image information and spray control; see fig. 1, and rejection of claim 14 above).
Although the disclosed method of Joergensen mentions the class of the crop plants is known to be/assigned to monocotyledon class, Joergensen does not explicitly indicate that the control unit configured to carry out the step of receiving or ascertaining a cotyledon class of crop plants.
Nair discloses an agricultural system and method involving processing image data of the field to provide control adjustment to the agricultural system (Abstract). Nair further discloses an initialization user interface 218 that allows operator to enter a type of crop on the field (par. 69), where the control module 202 interprets the input data for classification purposes and control of the agricultural implement in comparison to processing of the imaged area (par. 70-71).
Considering disclosures of Joergensen’s consideration cotyledon class of crop plant and the intended detection of dicot weed, and similar weed type detection and classifications taught by Plotzing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the potential benefits of having the control unit receiving input of the cotyledon class of the crop plants for improving the automated identifications and discrimination between crop plants and weed and control of the spray treatments. The consideration is implied in Plotzing’s paragraph 64: “In the automated control of the plant protection system 68 in the cultivation step 64 a corresponding weed killer can be proposed/selected on the basis of a detection of a weed type. In the case of a detection of dicotyledonous weeds between monocotyledonous crop plants, for example, a weed killer acting only on dicotyledonous plants can be used in a selective manner”). Providing input of known crop plant cotyledon class into the control unit requires no inventive effort.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Joergensen to incorporate the teachings of Nair to provide the control unit configured to carry out the step of receiving or ascertaining a cotyledon class of crop plants. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a precise agricultural planning or treatment, allowing additional data inputs for improving field monitoring, verification, detection and system spray control.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joergensen (US20140001276) in view of Hollstein (US20180024050) and Plotzing (US20240280497 with foreign priority dated 6/10/2021), further in view of Nair (US 20170112043) and Freudigmann (US 20200170236).
Regarding claim 25, Joergensen, as modified above in view of Hollstein and Plotzing, discloses the method of claim 14 above with many steps performed by the control unit (Joergensen’s “spray computer”; see fig. 1, and rejection of claim 14 above), including providing a cotyledon class of crop lants, identifying weeds in image information, ascertaining first and second weed identification number, and applying at least one spray product to the field using the spray nozzle unit depending on the cotyledon class of the crop plants and weed identification numbers.
Although the disclosed method mentions the class of the crop plants is known to be/assigned to monocotyledon class, Joergensen does not explicitly indicate that the control unit configured to carry out the step of receiving or ascertaining a cotyledon class of crop plants.
Nair discloses an agricultural system and method involving processing image data of the field to provide control adjustment to the agricultural system (Abstract). Nair further discloses an initialization user interface 218 that allows operator to enter a type of crop on the field (par. 69), where the control module 202 interprets the input data for classification purposes and control of the agricultural implement in comparison to processing of the imaged area (par. 70-71).
Considering disclosures of Joergensen’s consideration cotyledon class of crop plant and the intended detection of dicot weed, and similar weed type detection and classifications taught by Plotzing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the potential benefits of having the control unit receiving input of the cotyledon class of the crop plants for improving the automated identifications and discrimination between crop plants and weed and control of the spray treatments. The consideration is implied in Plotzing’s paragraph 64: “In the automated control of the plant protection system 68 in the cultivation step 64 a corresponding weed killer can be proposed/selected on the basis of a detection of a weed type. In the case of a detection of dicotyledonous weeds between monocotyledonous crop plants, for example, a weed killer acting only on dicotyledonous plants can be used in a selective manner”). Providing input of known crop plant cotyledon class into the control unit requires no inventive effort.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Joergensen to incorporate the teachings of Nair to provide the control unit configured to carry out the step of receiving or ascertaining a cotyledon class of crop plants. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a precise agricultural planning or treatment, allowing additional data inputs for improving field monitoring, verification, detection and system spray control.
Further regarding claim 25, Joergensen and previous teaching references are silent regarding a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program executed by a computer to perform the claimed steps.
Nonetheless, Freudigmann discloses a relevant agricultural system (fig. 1) having a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program executed by a computer to perform the claimed steps (claim 27 of Freudigmann; par. 11, 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program executed by a computer to perform the claimed steps) as taught by Freudigmann, into the assembly/system disclosed by Joergensen to automate operations of the system and yielding the predictable result of facilitating precise agricultural operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, the most relevant prior arts include Joergensen, Plotzing, Hollstein, Nair, Ehrat, and Freudigmann identified above. The combination of the prior arts teaches various features of the claimed invention, as presented above, but fail to teach or suggest, in combination with other limitations of claim 14: “wherein: the first application threshold value for the first weed identification number is greater than the second application threshold value for the second weed identification number when the crop plants are assigned to the monocotyledons; and/or the application threshold value for the second weed identification number is greater than the application threshold value for the first weed identification number when the crop plants are assigned to the dicotyledons”. There is no additional teaching found to suggest obviousness toward the claimed configuration setting greater first application threshold value when the crop plants are assigned to the monocotyledons and/or setting greater second application threshold value when the crop plants are assigned to the dicotyledons.
Claim 18, depending from claim 17, are therefore is also found allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752