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
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JAPAN 2022-039961 dated 03/15/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT PCT/JP2023/009337. Priority to JAPAN 2022-039961 with a priority date of 03/10/2023 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 9/11/2025, 6/6/2025, 10/17/2024, and 9/5/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file.
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 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), 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):
(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.
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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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), 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 counting unit configured to count” in claim 1; and
“a prediction unit configured to predict” in claim 1-2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Double Patenting
Claim 1-2 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4 of U.S. Patent No 18/845,103. The conflicting claims are not identical because patented claim 1 requires the additional elements of “a correction unit configured to correct a spike number count value obtained by counting in the spike number counting unit based on correlation information between a spike number count value obtained in advance by statistical processing and a spike number true value”, not required by claim 1-2 of the instant application.
However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of this application and claim 1 of patent '103 recite common subject matter;
Whereby claim 1 of the application, which recites the open ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional elements recited by claim 1 of the patent, and
Whereby the elements of claim 1-2i of the application are fully anticipated by patent claim 1, and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of this application have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-2 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 18/844,492. The conflicting claims are not identical because patented claim 1 requires the additional elements of “a corner detection unit configured to perform grid division on a region image … and detect corners of the two-dimensional unit region … using an image recognition technique; an exclusion unit configured to acquire a position of the two-dimensional unit region … and exclude image data of a region outside the two-dimensional unit region … a target object detection unit configured to perform grid division … in a division size according to a size of the spike of the grain as a target object and detect the spikes of the grain from obtained second divided images”, not required by claim 1-2 of the instant application.
However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of this application and claim 1 of patent '492 recite common subject matter;
Whereby claim 1 of the application, which recites the open ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional elements recited by claim 1 of the patent, and
Whereby the elements of claim 1-2 of the application are fully anticipated by patent claim 1-6, and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of this application have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over X et al (Sadeghi-Tehran, Pouria, et al. "DeepCount: in-field automatic quantification of wheat spikes using simple linear iterative clustering and deep convolutional neural networks." Frontiers in plant science 10 (2019): 1176, hereafter referred to as Pouria) in view of Yasushi et al (JP2001299091A, hereafter referred to as Yasushi).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Pouria teaches A spike number prediction device comprising:
a counting unit configured to count the number of spikes of grain (Pouria in Abstract discloses “automatically identify and count the number of wheat spikes in digital images taken under natural field conditions”; page 2 left column discloses “prior visible-image field-of-view “delimited by a black matte frame”); and
a prediction unit configured to predict, based on a relative size relationship between a predetermined target range in the cultivation field and the frame-shaped body, and a spike number count value obtained by counting in the counting unit, the number of spikes of the grain in the target range (Pouria in page 3 left column discloses “the proposed method can also calculate the number of wheat ears per square meter when a ground standard is present within the image”; “Conclusion” discloses the model delivers “the total number of wheat ears within an image and/or estimated the number of ears per square meter if a ground standard was present in the image”).
Pouria does not explicitly teach all of from image data of the grain reflected inside a frame-shaped body provided in a cultivation field of the grain … based on a relative size relationship between a predetermined target range in the cultivation field and the frame-shaped body, and a spike number count value obtained by counting in the counting unit.
However, Yasushi teaches (Yasushi in ¶2 discloses “target survey area is enclosed in a square frame (for example, 50 cm x 50 cm), and the number of rice stems growing within that frame is counted”); and
(Yasushi in Abstract discloses square frame/sample area in a crop field).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pouria by incorporating the physical square frame/quadrant sample-area that is taught by Yasushi, since both reference are analogous art in the field of crop-growth/count surveying; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Pouria’s image-recognition spike-counting algorithm with Yasushi’s known physical frame sample area yields the predictable result of obtaining a wheat-spike count from image data inside a known frame area and using that known area to compute spike density or extrapolate to a target cultivation range, thereby reducing manual field-counting labor and improving consistent area-based spike-number prediction.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Pouria in view of Yasushi teaches The spike number prediction device according to claim 1,
wherein the prediction unit is configured to predict the number of spikes of the grain in the target range from an area ratio between the target range and the frame-shaped body as the relative size relationship, and the spike number count value (Pouria in “Conclusion” discloses converting image-counted wheat ears to ears/m^2 using a ground standard. Yasushi in ¶2 discloses a physical square frame/sample area.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703) 756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights