CTNF 18/845,103 CTNF 99321 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 is a National Stage application of PCT/JP2023/004008. Priority to JAPAN 2022-039959 with a priority date of 3/15/2022 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS(s) dated 10/17/2024 and 9/9/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file. 07-30-03-h AIA 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: “spike number counting unit” in claims 1-4; “correction unit” in claims 1-4; and “spike number prediction unit” in claims 1-4. 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 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18844209 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim: A spike number prediction device, a counting unit that counts the number of spikes of grain from image data using an image recognition technique, a unit region defined in a cultivation field of the grain from which image data is obtained, and a prediction unit that predicts the number of spikes of grain in a predetermined target range based on a relative size relationship between the target range and the unit region, and a spike number count value. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of this application have not in fact been patented . Claim 1-4 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 18844492 . 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 in which a region including a two-dimensional unit region set in a cultivation field of the grain is reflected and detect corners of the two-dimensional unit region in obtained first divided images using an image recognition technique; an exclusion unit configured to acquire a position of the two-dimensional unit region based on positions of the corners detected by the corner detection unit and exclude image data of a region outside the two-dimensional unit region from image data of the first divided images based on the position of the two-dimensional unit region; a target object detection unit configured to perform grid division on an image based on image data after exclusion in the exclusion unit 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 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 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto et al (US 20210142484 A1, hereafter referred to as Yamamoto) in view of Zeng et al (US 20220358641 A1, hereafter referred to as Zeng). Claim 1 Regarding Claim 1 , Yamamoto teaches A spike number prediction device that predicts the number of spikes of grain, the spike number prediction device comprising: a spike number counting unit configured to count, from image data of the grain obtained by imaging a two-dimensional unit region set in a cultivation field of the grain, the number of spikes of the grain of the two-dimensional unit region based on an image recognition technique (Yamamoto in ¶49 discloses “The feature amount acquisition unit 204 detects the target object using an object detection technique from the image acquired by the image acquisition unit 202 and acquires a feature amount based on the number of detected target objects. The feature amount indicates a feature of the preset region where the detected target objects are.”) ; 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 (Yamamoto in ¶63 discloses “the learning unit 203 learns an estimation parameter (which is a linear regression parameter in the present exemplary embodiment) using the combination of the number of detected targets (feature amount) and the actual number that are registered in the table 301. The linear regression is expressed by, for example, the formula (1)”; See also formula (1); Table 301 pairs detection count with actual count (manual ground truth). The learned regression is the “correlation information between count value obtained by statistical processing and true value”) . Yamamoto does not explicitly teach all of a spike number prediction unit configured to predict, based on a relative size relationship between a predetermined target range in the cultivation field of the grain and the two-dimensional unit region, and the corrected spike number value after correction by the correction unit, the number of spikes of the grain in the target range. However, Zeng teaches a spike number prediction unit configured to predict, based on a relative size relationship between a predetermined target range in the cultivation field of the grain and the two-dimensional unit region, and the corrected spike number value after correction by the correction unit, the number of spikes of the grain in the target range (Zeng in Abstract and ¶6-7 discloses using a rectangular area within field images to calculate “conversion coefficients” for each depth position. The conversion coefficient is derived from the ratio of actual width to pixel width. The coefficients are used to analyze the image for the full cultivation area) . 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 Yamamoto by incorporating a scaling mechanism that predicts the total number of grain spikes in a target range based on the relative size relationship between a sampled two-dimensional unit region and the target range, using area-based conversion coefficients that is taught by Zeng , since both reference are analogous art in the field of agricultural crop monitoring using image analysis; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Yamamoto’s ML-based estimation framework that corrects detected crop object counts using learned regression parameters with Zeng’s reference-area-based conversion coefficient method that scales measurements from a defined rectangular region to the full cultivation area using the relative size relationship between the reference area and the field yields the predictable result of a spike number prediction that accounts for hidden/occluded grain spikes through statistical correction and scales the corrected count from a sampled unit region to the total field target range, thereby improving the accuracy of grain spike count predictions for agricultural management decisions such as fertilizer application. 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, Yamamoto in view of Zeng teaches The spike number prediction device according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit is configured to perform correction based on a ridge width of ridges where seeding of the grain is performed, having a predetermined correlation with a degree of denseness of the grain (Zeng in ¶6 discloses the conversion coefficient is calculated by dividing the actual width of the rectangular region (the ridge) by the pixel count, establishing a direct correlation between ridge width and measurement correction. The width of a ridge where grain is seeded correlates with the density of grain planting) . Claim 3 Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Zeng teaches The spike number prediction device according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit is configured to perform correction further based on a degree of growth of the grain (Yamamoto in ¶136 discloses “The feature amount acquisition unit 204 acquires the amount of leaves that is the index value indicating the amount of leaves based on the ratio between the number of pixels of the region of the detected leaves and the number of pixels of the entire image"; Leaf amount is an index of the crop’s growth stage. ¶140 discloses “as the amount of leaves increases, the possibility that the target object is hidden increases. Thus, the estimation apparatus 100 uses the amount of leaves as a feature amount to prevent the estimated value from becoming excessively small even in a case where the amount of leaves is great and many objects are hidden.”) . Claim 4 Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Zeng teaches The spike number prediction device according to claim 2, wherein the correction unit is configured to perform correction further based on a degree of growth of the grain (Zheng in ¶6-8, 33 discloses ridge-width-based correction. Yamamoto in ¶136-140 discloses growth-stage-based correction) . 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: 6/11/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 2 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 3 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 4 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 5 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 6 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 7 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 8 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 9 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 10 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 11 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 12 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/845,103 Page 13 Art Unit: 2674
Prosecution Insights