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 .
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 9/4/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 9/11/2025, 6/6/2025, 10/17/2024, and 9/5/2024 that have been previously considered remain placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 1-3 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claims 1-3 are rejected.
Applicant Arguments
In regards to Argument 1, Applicant states that the processing circuitry amendment avoids the former §112(f) interpretation (See Remarks, page 4).
In regards to Argument 2, Applicant states a terminal disclaimer has been filed to address the provisional double patenting rejections (See Remarks, page 4-5).
In regards to Argument 3, Applicant states that Pouria does not exclude the image area outside the physical frame from the counting target (See Remarks, page 5).
In regards to Argument 4, Applicant states that Yasushi uses infrared sensors, not the claimed image recognition and criticizes conventional manual square frame counting (See Remarks, page 6).
In regards to Argument 5, Applicant states that placing Yasushi’s frame in Pouria would still leave spikes outside it counted (See Remarks, page 6).
In regards to Argument 6, Applicant states that the exclusion prevents edge noise, including a photographer’s finger, from affecting counting accuracy and describes that result as unexpected (See Remarks, page 6).
Examiner’s Response
In response to Argument 1, with respect to the former §112(f) interpretation, the Examiner has fully considered the Argument and has found it persuasive.
In response to Argument 2, with respect to the former provisional double patenting grounds, the Examiner has fully considered the Argument and has found it persuasive.
In response to Argument 3, it has been considered but is moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection based on the amendments. New references, Song and Zhang, have been introduced which discloses the amended limitations. Zhang introduces a similar process as described in the amended claim where an acquired field wheat ear image is cropped using rectangular image selection to remove interfering background before subsequent recognition and counting. After reviewing the amendments, the Examiner interprets that Song in view of Zhang teaches on the amended claims that were presented. The details of the rejection are listed below.
In response to Argument 4, it has been considered but is moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection based on the amendments. New references, Song and Zhang, have been introduced which discloses the amended limitations. The details of the rejection are listed below.
In response to Argument 5, it has been considered but is moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection based on the amendments. New references, Song and Zhang, have been introduced which discloses the amended limitations. The details of the rejection are listed below.
In response to Argument 6, with respect to the asserted edge noise advantage, the Examiner agrees that excluding image data outside the frame can prevent edge noise, such as a photographer’s finger outside the frame, from affecting the count, as described in instant specification ¶19. New references, Song and Zhang, have been introduced where Zhang teaches cropping away interfering background before counting (¶22), and the proposed modification aligns the crop with Song’s physical frame.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Song et al (CN205607838U, hereafter referred to as Song) in view of Zhang et al (CN111259925A, hereafter referred to as Zhang).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Song teaches “A spike number prediction device comprising:
processing circuitry (Song in ¶¶11, 25 discloses an image processing unit with a tablet computer receiving and analyzing thermal image data) configured to
count a number of spikes of grain from image data of the grain reflected inside a frame-shaped body provided in a cultivation field of the grain (Song in ¶¶19, 59 discloses a physical measuring frame at the wheat canopy, thermal imaging, and counting wheat ears within that frame) using an image recognition technique (Song in ¶¶46-48 discloses image enhancement, thresholding, interference removal and ear region analysis to calculate an ear count),
predict, based on a relative size relationship between a predetermined target range in the cultivation field and the frame-shaped body (Song in ¶19 discloses selecting the physical frame size, counting the framed sample and converting its count to an arbitrary other field area), and a spike number count value obtained by the counting (Song in ¶19 discloses obtaining the in frame image derived count and using that count for the other area conversion), the number of spikes of the grain in the target range (Song in ¶19 discloses converting the framed count to a total for another selected field area).”
Song does not explicitly teach all of “by excluding an outside of the frame-shaped body in the image data from a target of the counting”.
However, Zhang teaches “by excluding an outside of the frame-shaped body in the image data from a target of the counting (Zhang in ¶22 discloses a rectangular crop of the acquired wheat ear image to remove unnecessary background interference)”.
Zhang is analogous art because Zhang, like Song, is in the field of image based counting of wheat ears in cultivation fields and is reasonably pertinent to the problem of excluding irrelevant image background from an accurate selected area count.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-count image processing of Song with rectangular image cropping aligned to the inner boundary of a physical sampling frame of Zhang because Zhang teaches that cropping the photographed wheat ear group to remove interfering background provides a centered, appropriately sized image for further processing (¶22), and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the imaging system of Song would keep outside ears/objects from inflating a count meant to represent the frame area, with a reasonable expectation of success because Song already sends camera images to a tablet for processing and selecting an image subregion before recognition doesn’t replace its imaging or ear recognition operations.
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, Song in view of Zhang teaches The spike number prediction device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (Song in ¶¶11, 25 discloses computer based image processing) 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 (Song in ¶¶19, 59 discloses an adjustable, known size frame, its ear count and conversion to another selected area).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Song teaches “A method, implemented by processing circuitry (Song in ¶¶11, 25 discloses an image processing unit with a tablet computer receiving and analyzing thermal image data) of a spike number prediction device, comprising:
counting a number of spikes of grain from image data of the grain reflected inside a frame-shaped body provided in a cultivation field of the grain (Song in ¶¶19, 59 discloses a physical measuring frame at the wheat canopy, thermal imaging, and counting wheat ears within that frame) using an image recognition technique (Song in ¶¶46-48 discloses image enhancement, thresholding, interference removal and ear region analysis to calculate an ear count),
predicting, based on a relative size relationship between a predetermined target range in the cultivation field and the frame-shaped body (Song in ¶19 discloses selecting the physical frame size, counting the framed sample and converting its count to an arbitrary other field area), and a spike number count value obtained by the counting (Song in ¶19 discloses obtaining the in frame image derived count and using that count for the other area conversion), the number of spikes of the grain in the target range (Song in ¶19 discloses converting the framed count to a total for another selected field area).”
Song does not explicitly teach all of “by excluding an outside of the frame-shaped body in the image data from a target of the counting”.
However, Zhang teaches “by excluding an outside of the frame-shaped body in the image data from a target of the counting (Zhang in ¶22 discloses a rectangular crop of the acquired wheat ear image to remove unnecessary background interference)”.
Zhang is analogous art because Zhang, like Song, is in the field of image based counting of wheat ears in cultivation fields and is reasonably pertinent to the problem of excluding irrelevant image background from an accurate selected area count.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-count image processing of Song with rectangular image cropping aligned to the inner boundary of a physical sampling frame of Zhang because Zhang teaches that cropping the photographed wheat ear group to remove interfering background provides a centered, appropriately sized image for further processing (¶22), and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the imaging method of Song would keep outside ears/objects from inflating a count meant to represent the frame area, with a reasonable expectation of success because Song already sends camera images to a tablet for processing and selecting an image subregion before recognition doesn’t replace its imaging or ear recognition operations.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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: 10/1/2026
Prosecution Insights