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 .
Drawings
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
In each of Figures 14A, 14B and 17-19, every line, number and letter is not durable, clean, and sufficiently dark to permit reproduction. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
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 6-20 have been renumbered as CLAIMS 5-19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
CLAIM 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The originally filed specification fails to provide support for the limitation “machine learning vision” in CLAIM 14.
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1-8, 11-13, 15, 16 AND 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morgan et al. (WO 2016/205422 A1).
Morgan et al. ‘422 (“Morgan”) discloses a system (700, Figs. 7 and 8) for monitoring a seed trench comprising:
CLAIM 1 a vision sensor (750) disposed at a distal end of a seed tube (232);
CLAIM 2 (a) a video processor ([0018], CPU of 50) in communication with the vision sensor 750); and
(b) a display (screen of element 50, such as element 800) in communication with the video processor (“CPU” of 50), wherein the display is configured to display images from the vision sensor (750) to an operator;
CLAIM 3 wherein the vision sensor (750) faces a closing disk (236), and wherein the vision sensor is disposed at or below ground level during planting operations ([0040]);
CLAIM 4 wherein the system (700) is configured to detect one or more of collapsed trench sidewalls, seed placement, crop residue within the trench, clods within the trench, a collapsed trench, trench size, seed depth, and soil moisture ([0050], [0052]);
CLAIM 5 wherein the display (screen of 50) is configured display notifications to an operator of detected conditions ([0046]-[0048]);
CLAIM 6 further comprising at least one control module (300) in communication with the display (screen of 50, Fig. 3), and wherein the system is configured to send commands to the at least one control module ([0020]) to adjust one or more of seed meter ejection, in-furrow liquid treatment, supplemental row unit down force, supplemental closing wheel down force, seed firmer deployment and down force, row cleaners, and gauge wheel load;
CLAIM 7 further comprising a supplemental lighting source (740) disposed near the vision sensor (750); and
CLAIM 8 further comprising a storage medium in communication with the video processor (“CPU” of 50) and configured to store images from the vision sensor (“memory” or “remote server,” [0038], [0040]).
CLAIMS 11-13, 15, 16, 19 All of the limitations recited in the claims are taught by Morgan, as applied above to CLAIMS 1-8.
CLAIM 13 Morgan teaches expressly the display (screen of 50) having the functionality to display alerts of detected planting conditions (“alarm condition,” [0052]).
CLAIM 15 Morgan teaches expressly a GNSS unit in communication with the video processor, and wherein the system is configured to record geolocations for the images from the vision sensor (“geo-referenced location,” [0040]).
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.
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.
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 9, 10, 17 AND 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. (WO 2016/205422 A1) in view of Humpal et al. (US 2022/0192175 A1).
CLAIMS 9, 17 Morgan further teaches an additional optical sensor (305) disposed on the seed tube (232)([0020]) but fails to teach specifically either a stereo camera or a time-of-flight sensor. Humpal et al. ‘175 (“Humpal”) discloses an agricultural machine (100) comprising a plurality of image sensors (122) for capturing images of the soil, wherein the image sensors may be embodied as stereo cameras [0167]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the additional optical sensor (Morgan, 305) of the prior art system (Morgan, 700) a stereo camera, as suggested by Humpal ([0167]). The motivation for making the modification would have been to improve the accuracy of data collected and communicated to an operator, relative to that collected by a single lens camera, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 10, 18 Morgan fails to teach specifically an RGB camera. Humpal et al. ‘175 (“Humpal”) discloses an agricultural machine (100) comprising a plurality of image sensors (122) for capturing images of the soil and teaches RGB cameras as suitable for this purpose [0167]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the vision sensor (Morgan, 750) of the prior art system (Morgan, 700) an RGB camera, as suggested by Humpal. The motivation for making the modification would have been to incorporate a low cost vision sensor capable of high-resolution imaging, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
29 September 2026
Prosecution Insights