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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 4/11/2024 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-12 and 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2-12 and 14 recited broad structure or limitations.
Therefore, the claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of comparison to the cited prior art, limitations following the term “optionally” are deemed non-limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0209747) in view of Tran (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0111960).
With respect to claim 1, Jung et al disclose: A measurement system [ the abstract discloses measuring and analyzing crops ] including: a sensor system [ figure 2 teaches a UAV (100) used as a sensor system ] that includes: a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) module [ paragraph [0048] teaches using LIDAR sensors ] with a laser emitter configured to generate measurement data representing raw range measurements to measure
heights of a crop [ paragraph [0042] teaches measuring crop height ], and a computing module [ taught by computing environment (140) in figure 2 ], including: at least one wireline/wired communications module configured to communicate with the LiDAR module for the computing module to acquire the measurement data from the LiDAR module [ paragraph [0043] states, “…The networked environment 130 includes a UAS (such as the unmanned aerial vehicle 100) and a computing environment 140, which are in data communication with each other via a network. The network includes, for example, the Internet, intranets, extranets, wide area networks (WANs), local area networks (LANs), wired networks, wireless networks, or other suitable networks, etc., or any combination of two or more such networks. For example, such networks may comprise satellite networks, cable networks, Ethernet networks, and other types of networks…” ]; and at least one wireless communications module configured for the computing module to communicate using a wireless connection/link with a remote computing system that is configured receive the acquired measurement data [ met by the wireless link from aerial vehicle (100) to computing environment (140) ] and to determine/calculate/estimate phenotypic quantities of the crop based on the measured heights for the purpose of high-throughput plant phenotyping (HTPP) [ taught by figure 5A; paragraph [0055] states, “…With reference to FIG. 5A, an example of interpolating measurements taken throughout a growing season to daily measurements is shown according to various embodiments. Notably, daily estimates of each phenotype may be generated by interpolating phenotypic measurements from image data 159 acquired by the UAS…” ]; and a mobile/vehicle mount configured to hold/support the sensor system above the crop and to direct the laser emitter towards the crop [ taught by UAV (100); figure 1 ].
Jung et al does not show the LIDAR sensors explicitly including a laser emitter.
Paragraph [0108] of Tran establishes that LIDAR sensors were known before the effective filing date of the present application to have included a laser emitter to facilitate range measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a laser emitter in the system of Jung et al in order to have facilitated crop height measurement.
Claim 13 is rejected by the combination of Jung et al and Tran, as applied to claim 1.
Claims 5 and 16 are met by the combination of Jung et al and Tran, as applied to claim 1, in that figure 1 of Jung et al shows measuring a field crop.
With regard to claim 7, the limitation not under “optionally” reciting including a power source would have been obvious in view of the combination of Jung et al and Tran, as applied to claim 1, because it would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan to have provided a power source to the components in the UAV (100) disclosed by Jung et al.
Jung et al discloses a GPS module (175); thus, meeting the limitations not under “optionally” as set forth by claim 8.
The limitations of claim 9 would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving because the use of a UAV (100), as set forth in the combination of Jung et al and Tran, as applied to claim 1, would have required using low weight components to meet their aerial application.
Claim 10 recites subject matter implicit from the teaching of paragraph [0043] of Jung et al; thus, rendering this subject matter met by the combination of Jung et al and Tran, as applied to claim 1.
Claim 12 is met by the computing environment (140) disclosed by Jung et al; thus, rendering the limitations not under “optionally” met by the combination of Jung et al and Tran, as applied to claim 1.
With regard to claim 15, the combination of Jung et al and Tran, as applied to claim 13, teaches:
the remote computing system automatically determining/calculating/estimating
phenotypic quantities ("phenotypic measurements") of the crop based on the received
data representing the corresponding measured heights for the purpose of the HTPP; [ paragraph [0055] of Jung et al states, “…With reference to FIG. 5A, an example of interpolating measurements taken throughout a growing season to daily measurements is shown according to various embodiments. Notably, daily estimates of each phenotype may be generated by interpolating phenotypic measurements from image data 159 acquired by the UAS…” ] ; and the remote computing system automatically outputting the phenotypic measurements to machine-readable memory and/or to a user device for display to a user [ Jung et al teaches a machine learning routine (160) ].
Claims 2-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0209747) in view of Tran (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0111960), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0204732).
Suzuki et al teach that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a MEMS mirror (7) to scan a source beam in one dimension (paragraph [0065]) wherein reflection from an object are detected by a solid state element (SPAD; paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Jung et al and Tran to include the subject matter of claims 2-4 and 14, not under “optionally”, because Suzuki et al taught these were known components of a range measuring LIDAR.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0209747) in view of Tran (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0111960), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saez et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0156770).
Paragraph [0073] of Saez et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have provided a housing the protects the components of a crop sensing system from the environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the combination of Jung et al and Tran to include a housing when seeking to protect components.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0209747) in view of Tran (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0111960), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gurzoni et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0019777).
With regard to crop sensors, paragraph [0033] of Gurzoni et al states, “…The sensor apparatus may be mounted on machinery (e.g. tractors), autonomous robots, or other transport devices, and be used to capture sensor data about the state of the plant area on periodic intervals (e.g., every two weeks). The transport device may move along, for example, orchard while the inspection system collects orchard data…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have had a reasonable expectation of success in alternatively moving the scanning system of the combination of Jung et al and Tran via a ground-based wheeled system, rather than a UAV, because Gurzoni et al taught ground based mounting could enable the desired function of covering an area to be scanned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights