DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
2. The communication is a Final Office Action, in response to the communication received 04/17/2026. The amendments to the Claims 1, 6, 17, 18 and 20 have been acknowledged. Claim 15 and 19 have been cancelled and claim 21 is a newly added claim. Therefore, Claims 1-14, 16-18 and 20-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
3. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims 18 and 20 are sufficient to overcome the objection set forth in the previous Office Action. The examiner withdraws the objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
5. Claim 21 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (USP 2021/0090274) in view of Koch et al. ( USP 2017/0034986) and in view of Noordam (WO-2011-062481).
As per Claim 21, Fu et al. (Fu) teaches, a method (via using a method of treating a plant using a plant identification module , method 1200, Fig.12, [0202]) for controlling a robotic action for an agricultural task, in which all steps are computer-implemented, (The method 1200 may be performed from the perspective of the control system 130. Figs. 1C, 12),[0202], also see [0199]-[0200]), comprising: receiving, using an imager moving along a crop row, at least one image of at least a portion of the crop row; “(A farming machine (e.g., farming machine 100) includes one or more sensors for capturing an image as the farming machine travels through a field. A control system (e.g., control system 130) accesses 1210 an image of the field captured by the sensors. The image includes pixels representing a plurality of objects of the field including at least one plant”, [0203]); using the at least one image, a plant detection model (Control system 130 classifies 1230 one or more pixels as a plant [or crop] based on the depth information [depth identification model 605] for the pixels. The control system 130 can additionally classify other objects in the image [e.g., dirt, grass, etc.] based on their depth information, Fig. 6, [0205]), to generate an output from the plant detection model; (Control system 130 determines 1240 a treatment action based on the depth information and pixels identified as a plant, [0206]); outputting a control signal for the robotic action based on the output from the plant detection model; (“the control system 130 classifies crops 302a, 302b, 302c and the weed 350 based on the depth information in depth map 360. The control system 130 then determines which plant(s) to treat and with which treatment action(s), if any. In a first example, the control system 130 compares the depth information of the crops 302a, 302b, 302c and the weed 350. The control system 130 determines that the weed 350 is significantly shorter than the plants 302a-c. The control system 130 selects the weed 350 for treatment with an herbicide sprayed from a spray nozzle because the weed 350 is significantly shorter than the plants 302a-c., Fig. 4B, [0206]); and conducting the robotic action for the agricultural task in response to the control signal ( via The control system 130 then actuates Step-1250 (Fig.12) a treatment mechanism 120 (Fig.3B) to treat one or more of the identified plants with the determined treatment action, as needed, [0206], Figs. 3B, 12).
However, Fu does not explicitly teach, the method comprising using an average inter-crop spacing for the crop row.
In a related field of art Koch et al. (Koch) teaches, crop stand optimization systems, methods and apparatus ,wherein, method comprising an average inter- crop spacing for the crop row (via “The relative plant location criteria may include one or more plant spacing criteria (e.g., a distance between the plant and the nearest adjacent plant, the average distance between the plant and each adjacent plant, the average distance between the plant and other plants within a threshold distance of the plant, the average distance between the plant and the nearest plants within the same planting row, the average distance between the plant and the nearest plants in the adjacent planting rows”, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fu and Koch before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Fu, to include the teachings (crop stand optimization method.. inter-crop spacing) of Koch and configure with the system of Fu in order to estimate ear potential value for each plant and optimize the crop population in field based on plant criteria. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, identifying crop appearing in certain zone of crop row and distinguishing between crop and weed (i.e., weed identification to uproot weed).
However, FU in view of Koch does not explicitly teach, determining a speed of the vehicle moving along the crop row.
In an analogous art, Noordam teaches, an autonomously moveable agricultural vehicle, wherein, determining a speed of the vehicle moving along the crop row ( via autonomously movable agricultural vehicle 10 being equipped with speed sensor 60 and speed sensor 60 is measuring the actual speed of the vehicle as it moves, See Page 6, 4th -Page 7, 1st para; pager 10, 3rd para; page 16 claim 10, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fu and Koch and Noordam before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Fu, to include the teachings (speed sensor 60) of Noordam and configure with the Farming machine of Fu in order to capture the speed of the farming machine as it moved along the field and determine position of the farming vehicle with reasonable accuracy. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to compare the actual speed with the speed set by the control circuit and if it does not match, undertake necessary action (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the vehicle).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-14, 16 , 17-18 and 20 allowed.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
7. The statement of reasons for allowance will be provided in subsequent office action pending amendments to claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, th.en the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights