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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 5-20 been renumbered 4-19 in order to address the fact that claim 4 is missing from the claims as filed.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 of the claim, the phrase “forming a trench” should be amended to read “forming the trench”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A closing system” in claims 1-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14 is 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 that the general illumination light, the structured light unit, and the camera are all synchronized so that the general illumination light and the structured light are activated when the camera captures the two-dimensional image. However, claim 13, the claim on which claim 14 depends, sets forth alternating between operating the general illumination light and projecting the patterned light from the structured light unit. Therefore, it is unclear how the structured light unit and the general illumination light can both be activated when the camera captures the two-dimensional image in claim 14 when the structured light and general illumination light operate at different times in claim 13, the claim on which claim 14 depends. Should claim 14 be dependent on claim 12 rather than claim 13?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-6, 8-10, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnett et al (2020/0352081).
Regarding claim 1, Arnett (Figs. 1-2 show various views) discloses a visualization system 14 for a planter row unit 10, the planter row unit including a closing system 26 and one or more furrow opening disks (opener 22 featuring coulter blades 30 on opener frame 20; see paragraph 0041), the visualization system comprising a structured light unit (see paragraphs 0051 and 0056 which state that the visualization system includes a light source, with that light source capable of being structured light as in paragraph 0056) coupled to the planter row unit at a location between the closing system and the one or more furrow opening disks (see Fig. 1 showing system 14 between the closing system and the opening disc; see Fig. 2 for more detail of the location of elements 14a, 14b in relation to elements 26 and 22/30), where the structured light unit is configured to project a patterned light (a structured light source inherently projects patterned light) on a ground surface G having a trench F formed therein by the one or more furrow opening disks (see paragraph 0041 for generation of the trench on the ground; see paragraph 0050 to show that the visualization system 14 obtains information about the trench or furrow F); a camera coupled to the planter row unit at a location between the closing system and the one or more furrow opening disks (the visualization system 14 includes, for example, an RGB camera as in paragraph 0053; see Figs. 1 and 2 as described above for the location of the visualization system), wherein the camera is configured to capture a two-dimensional image of the patterned light on the trench in the ground surface (the camera will inherently capture two-dimensional images of the patterned light on the trench; see also paragraph 0052-0053 for a description of the capture of images when the visualization system is operating in a time-of-flight mode); and a controller 16 operatively coupled to the camera, the controller configured to determine a three-dimensional measurement of the trench from the two-dimensional image (see paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0078-0080, which describe that the controller can generate information about one or more furrow parameters including depth maps based on the generated two-dimensional image).
As for claim 4, Arnett discloses that, when a commodity (seeds S, paragraph 0043 for example) is disposed in the trench (see paragraph 0043), the camera and the controller are configured to determine a depth of the commodity in the trench based on a location of the commodity in the trench in the two-dimensional image and the three-dimensional measurement of the trench (see paragraph 0055, which describes that object location and distance data can be used to build a matrix of depth values corresponding to pixels on the camera array so that seeds can be located and measured).
As for claim 5, Arnett discloses that the camera and controller are operable in a synchronized manner to capture the image of the commodity in the trench (see paragraph 0078, stating that the controller is configured to process the information obtained by the visualization unit to generate one or more furrow and seed parameters).
As for claim 6, Arnett discloses that the patterned light comprises one or more points in the two-dimensional image, where the controller is configured to determine the three-dimensional measurement of the trench from the one or more points (this is inherent to using patterned light from a structured light unit to measure three-dimensional objects; in this case, the furrow being seeded by the row planter unit of Arnett).
Regarding claim 8, Arnett (Figs. 1 and 2) discloses a method of determining a three-dimensional measurement of a trench F formed in a ground surface G by a planter row unit 10, the planter row unit comprising a closing system 26 and one or more furrow opening disks (opener 22 featuring coulter blades 30 on opener frame 20; see paragraph 0041), the method comprising: forming the trench F by the planter row unit in the ground surface (see paragraph 0041); projecting a patterned light from a visualization system 14 on the trench (see paragraphs 0051 and 0056, which state that the visualization system includes a light source, with that light source capable of being structured light as in paragraph 0056; a structured light source inherently projects patterned light) the visualization system comprising a structured light unit (see paragraphs 0051 and 0056, which state that the visualization system includes a light source, with that light source capable of being structured light as in paragraph 0056) and a camera coupled to the planter row unit (the visualization system 14 includes, for example, an RGB camera as in paragraph 0053; see Figs. 1 and 2 as described above for the location of the visualization system); capturing with the camera a two-dimensional image of the projected patterned light on the trench (see paragraph 0053); communicating the two-dimensional image of the projected patterned light from the camera to a controller 16 (see paragraph 0078); and determining with the controller a three-dimensional measurement of the trench from the two-dimensional image (see paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0078-0080, which describe that the controller can generate information about one or more furrow parameters including depth maps based on the generated two-dimensional image).
As for claim 9, Arnett further discloses determining a three-dimensional location of the projected patterned light from the captured two-dimensional image with the visualization system and the three-dimensional measurement of the trench (see paragraph 0061-0063 and Figs. 5 and 6, which, while showing images for the generally discussed time of flight sensor, would show similar images when patterned light is used from a structured light unit as discussed above); and measuring a three-dimensional trench profile from the three-dimensional measurement of the trench with the visualization system (see paragraph 0063 and profile shape display element 44 showing a furrow profile 60).
As for claim 10, Arnett further discloses determining a trench quality condition of the trench by comparing the three-dimensional trench profile to an ideal trench profile (see paragraphs 0066 and 0067, disclosing verification of furrow quality compared to a target value).
As for claim 15, Arnett further discloses depositing a commodity in the trench by the planter row unit (see paragraph 0043 – seed distribution element 28 deposits seeds S into furrow F); determining a location of the commodity in the trench in the two-dimensional image with the visualization system (see paragraph 0073, stating that the visualization system of the planter unit provides real-time data about seed parameters including locations of seeds; see also element 66 in Fig. 6); and determining the commodity depth from the location of the commodity in the two-dimensional image and the three-dimensional measurement of the trench with the visualization system (see paragraph 0073, stating that the visualization system provides information about the depth of the seeds; paragraph 0080 states that the controller displays both furrow parameters and seed parameters; see also Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Arnett (see Figs. 1 and 2) discloses a method of measuring an actual trench profile F formed in a ground surface G by a planter row unit 10, the planter row unit having a closing system 26 and one or more furrow opening disks (opener 22 featuring coulter blades 30 on opener frame 20; see paragraph 0041), the method comprising projecting a patterned light from a visualization system 14 onto a trench F formed in a ground surface G by the one or more furrow opening disks (see paragraph 0041 for discussion of forming the trench; see paragraphs 0048-0050 for discussion of using the visualization system to image the trench), wherein the visualization system comprises at least a structured light unit (see paragraphs 0051 and 0056, which state that the visualization system includes a light source, with that light source capable of being structured light as in paragraph 0056; a structured light source inherently projects patterned light) and a camera (see paragraph 0053); capturing a two-dimensional image of the projected patterned light on the trench with the camera of the visualization system (the camera will inherently capture two-dimensional images of the patterned light on the trench; see also paragraph 0052-0053 for a description of the capture of images when the visualization system is operating in a time-of-flight mode), the camera being coupled to the planter row unit (see Fig. 2; visualization system 14 is coupled to the planter unit 10); determining via a controller 16 a three-dimensional location of the projected patterned light from the captured two-dimensional image (see paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0078-0080, which describe that the controller can generate information about one or more furrow parameters including depth maps based on the generated two-dimensional image), the controller being operably coupled to the camera for receiving the two-dimensional image (see paragraph 0078); and measuring an actual trench depth from the three-dimensional location of the projected patterned light with the visualization system (see paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0078, disclosing, for example, using the controller to determine the trench depth).
As for claim 19, Arnett further discloses depositing a commodity in the actual trench by the planter row unit (see paragraph 0043 – seed distribution element 28 deposits seeds S into furrow F); determining a location of the commodity in the two-dimensional image (see paragraph 0073, stating that the visualization system of the planter unit provides real-time data about seed parameters including locations of seeds; see also element 66 in Fig. 6); and determining the commodity depth from the location of the commodity in the two-dimensional image and the actual trench depth (see paragraph 0073, stating that the visualization system provides information about the depth of the seeds; paragraph 0080 states that the controller displays both furrow parameters and seed parameters; see also Fig. 6).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnett et al (2020/0352081).
As for claim 3, Arnett discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to further disclose a general illumination light coupled to the planter row unit at a location between the closing system and the one or more furrow opening disks, where the general illumination light, the structured light unit, and the camera are operable in a synchronized manner; wherein the general illumination light and the structured light unit are activated when the camera captures the two-dimensional image.
Arnett, in paragraph 0051, discloses using LED sources as part of the disclosed time of flight sensor, with those sensors being attached to the planter row unit as seen in Fig. 2. In this light, Arnett contemplates using LEDs, but does not contemplate using that as a separate light source from the structured light unit. Arnett also contemplates using a plurality of sensors 14a, 14b in Fig. 2. Finally, Arnett contemplates having these sensors operate at the same time, as Arnett is silent with regards to alternating use of the sensors, and paragraph 0049 gives advantages of optimizing monitoring by using a plurality of sensors (including light sources). As a result, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known use of additional illuminating sources for imaging trenches formed by a planter row unit as suggested by Arnett, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a general illumination light coupled to the planter row unit at a location between the closing system and the one or more furrow opening disks, where the general illumination light, the structured light unit, and the camera are operable in a synchronized manner; wherein the general illumination light and the structured light unit are activated when the camera captures the two-dimensional image, the motivation being to provide additional light at alternative locations for optimizing depth and seed measurements during operation of the planter row unit as suggested by paragraphs 0048 and 0049 of Arnett.
As for claim 7, Arnett discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose a spotlight or light emitting diode coupled to the planter row unit, wherein the spotlight or the light emitting diode is coupled between the closing system and the one or more furrow opening disks.
Arnett, in paragraph 0051, discloses using LED sources as part of the disclosed time of flight sensor, with those sensors being attached to the planter row unit as seen in Fig. 2. In this light, Arnett contemplates using LEDs, but does not contemplate using that as a separate light source from the structured light unit. Arnett also contemplates using a plurality of sensors 14a, 14b in Fig. 2. As a result, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known use of LEDs for imaging trenches formed by a planter row unit as suggested by Arnett, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a spotlight or light emitting diode to the planter row unit in addition to the structured light unit, the motivation being to provide additional light at alternative locations for optimizing depth and seed measurements during operation of the planter row unit as suggested by paragraphs 0048 and 0049 of Arnett.
As for claim 12, Arnett discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 8, but fails to disclose illuminating the trench with a general illumination light that is mounted on the planter row unit.
Arnett, in paragraph 0051, discloses using LED sources as part of the disclosed time of flight sensor, with those sensors being attached to the planter row unit as seen in Fig. 2. In this light, Arnett contemplates using LEDs, but does not contemplate using that as a separate light source from the structured light unit. Arnett also contemplates using a plurality of sensors 14a, 14b in Fig. 2. As a result, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known use of additional illumination sources for imaging trenches formed by a planter row unit as suggested by Arnett, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a general illuminating light to the planter row unit in addition to the structured light unit to illuminate the trench, the motivation being to provide additional light at alternative locations for optimizing depth and seed measurements during operation of the planter row unit as suggested by paragraphs 0048 and 0049 of Arnett.
Claims 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnett et al (2020/0352081) in view of Strnad et al (2021/0307236).
As for claim 11, Arnett discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 9, but while Arnett discloses capturing a plurality of images (see paragraph 0052, or the plurality of sensors shown in Fig. 2), Arnett fails to disclose reconstructing a length of the trench profile with the accumulated two or more images with the visualization system.
Strnad, in a trench depth sensing system using structured light (see paragraph 0043), discloses (Fig. 16) obtaining multiple images 3210 including soil 3212 and residue 3214 and combining those images to provide a soil trench profile (see paragraph 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the plurality of images disclosed by Arnett to generate a length of the trench profile as taught by Strnad, the motivation being that generating a trench profile can allow for a plurality of metrics to be generated for a length of trench while the planter creates and traverses the trench (see paragraph 0046).
As for claim 17, Arnett discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 16. Arnett also discloses measuring a three-dimensional actual trench profile from the three-dimensional location of the projected patterned light with the visualization system (see paragraphs 0066-0067, for example) and capturing two or more images of the actual trench profile with the camera (see paragraph 0052, or the plurality of sensors shown in Fig. 2), but fails to disclose reconstructing a length of the actual trench profile with the two or more images.
Strnad, in a trench depth sensing system using structured light (see paragraph 0043), discloses (Fig. 16) obtaining multiple images 3210 including soil 3212 and residue 3214 and combining those images to provide a soil trench profile (see paragraph 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the plurality of images disclosed by Arnett to generate a length of the trench profile as taught by Strnad, the motivation being that generating a trench profile can allow for a plurality of metrics to be generated for a length of trench while the planter creates and traverses the trench (see paragraph 0046).
As for claim 18, Arnett further discloses determining a trench quality condition of the trench by comparing the three-dimensional trench profile to an ideal trench profile (see paragraphs 0066 and 0067, disclosing verification of furrow quality compared to a target value).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 13 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 examiner notes that claim 14 requires the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of that claim to be properly overcome. If claim 14 is amended to be dependent on claim 12 as suggested in the rejection above, the examiner would apply the rationale behind the rejection of claim 3 above to that claim as well.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, further comprising a general illumination light coupled to the planter row unit at a location between the closing system and the one or more furrow opening disks, wherein the general illumination light and the structured light unit are operable in an alternating sequence while the camera is operable, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 8, further comprising alternating between operating the general illumination light and projecting the patterned light from the structured light unit, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, while Arnett discloses a plurality of time of flight sensors 14, which are used to in combination with general knowledge of the skilled artisan to address illuminating the trench with both a general illumination light and patterned light from a structured light source (see the rejections of claims 3, 7, and 12 above), the examiner notes that there is no teaching or suggestion of alternating between the plurality of time of flight sensors in Arnett to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to alternat between using the general illumination light and the patterned light for illuminating the trench.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0279704 to Sharda et al. discloses a system for measuring seeds deposited by a planter row unit where a light source 42 is mounted on seed planting device 12 that illuminates furrow 14 and seeds 18 during image capture by a camera 30 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0034).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 March 5, 2026