DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claims in view of the 2019 PEG is provided below.
Regarding claim 1: A method for detecting diseases within harvested materials during operation of an agricultural harvester, the method comprising:
receiving, with a computing system, an image of billets created by a chopper assembly of the agricultural harvester;
analyzing, with the computing system, the image to identify indications of disease in association with one or more of the billets contained within the image; and
initiating, with the computing system, a control action in response to the identification of indications of disease in association with the one or more billets contained within the image.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of receiving, with a computing system, an image of billets created by a chopper assembly of the agricultural harvester. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the limitation that a computer system can be configured to perform the task. That is, other than reciting a “with a computing system”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could observe an image of billets. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
The limitation of analyzing, with the computing system, the image to identify indications of disease in association with one or more of the billets contained within the image, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the limitation that a computer system can be configured to perform the task. That is, other than reciting a “with a computing system”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally analyze an image of billets to determine if the imaged billets appear to be diseased. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
The claim recites the limitation of initiating, with the computing system, a control action in response to the identification of indications of disease in association with the one or more billets contained within the image. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the limitation that a computing system can be configured to perform the task. That is, other than reciting a “with the computing system”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally derive an instruction and/or command to be input (i.e. conveyed, sent, etc.) to perform said task. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a computing system. According to the specification, the computer is identified as a general purpose computer such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a generic computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receiving, analyzing, and initiating steps. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes using a generic or general-purpose processor/computer.
Besides being interpreted as directed to a judicial exception in prong one, the claim limitations of “receiving, with a computing system, an image of billets created by a chopper assembly of the agricultural harvester”, and “initiating, with the computing system, a control action in response to the identification of indications of disease in association with the one or more billets contained within the image” are also directed to extra-solution activity of receiving and sending data. This step could also amount to mere data gathering and output which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing system. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Per the evaluation in step 2A, general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (receiving and sending computer signals) is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of “receiving, with a computing system, an image of billets created by a chopper assembly of the agricultural harvester”, and “initiating, with the computing system, a control action in response to the identification of indications of disease in association with the one or more billets contained within the image” were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein does not provide any indication that the computing system is anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-10, these claims are dependent upon independent claim 1, and provide additional elements (i.e. steps, limitations, etc.) that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, and as such, they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Further, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0337232) in view of Anderson et al. (US Publication No. 2022/0110253).
Blank teaches:
Re claim 1. A method for detecting diseases within harvested materials during operation of an agricultural harvester, the method comprising:
receiving, with a computing system, an image of billets created by a chopper assembly of the agricultural harvester (paragraph [0070]: “Crop Processing Sensor 75 (not shown) is a crop processing result sensor for detecting the quality of or damage to the crop—such as damage to billets—as the crop passes through the harvester such as, in one example, along elevator 56. … Sensor 75 may include vision technology (e.g., a camera) disposed proximate the elevator 56 and/or the discharge opening 58 and sending a signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to total damaged billets discharged from the discharge opening 58 and/or a number of damaged billets being discharged from the discharge opening 58. The sensor 75 may quantify the number of damaged billets as an absolute amount or as a percentage of the total passing through the discharge opening 58.”);
analyzing, with the computing system, the image to identify indications of disease in association with one or more of the billets contained within the image (Fig. 5; paragraph [0082]: “The control arrangement 155 comprises a controller circuit 220 that receives signals from at least: … crop processing result sensors (which includes the billet loss sensor 74, crop processing sensor 75, trash sensor 82 and secondary cleaner sensor 92).”; and paragraph [0107]: “Referring again to FIG. 5, the harvester 10 comprises a system for detecting void crop plant information of the harvester 10 which includes an input from … control arrangement subsystem 155, a sensor fusion logic circuit subsystem 156 and georeferencing subsystem 157. With respect to the map 500 of field 16 in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6C, a void crop plant 502 within the field 16 representing damage to or loss of an entire plant or damage to a plant such that it will not reach an expected yield potential is shown. A void crop plant may be caused by a planting skip, pests …”); and
initiating, with the computing system, a control action in response to the identification of indications of disease in association with the one or more billets contained within the image (map 500, Fig. 5; paragraph [0107]).
While Blank teaches, at paragraphs [0070, 0082, and 0107], using a crop processing sensor 75 to detect damage to billets which may be caused by pests, Blank fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) identify indications of disease.
Anderson teaches, at paragraph [0026 and 0053], pests, detected by sensors onboard harvesters, can include pathogens, such as bacterial and viral diseases, as well as fungi. This allows for the detection of diseased plants during harvesting.
In view of Anderson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Blank, (re claim 1) identify indications of disease, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Blank teaches using a crop processing sensor 75 to detect damage to billets which may be caused by pests and Anderson teaches, pests, detected by sensors onboard harvesters, can include pathogens, such as bacterial and viral diseases, as well as fungi. This allows for the detection of diseased plants during harvesting.
Blank further teaches:
Re claim 2. Wherein receiving the image of billets comprises receiving the image from a vision-based sensor located on or within the agricultural harvester at a location downstream of the chopper assembly (paragraph [0070]).
Re claim 3. Wherein the vision-based sensor comprises at least one camera (paragraph [0070]).
Re claim 4. Wherein the vision-based sensor is provided in operative association with an elevator assembly of the agricultural harvester (paragraph [0070]).
Blank fails to specifically teach: (re claim 5) wherein analyzing the image to identify indications of disease comprises analyzing the image to identify a discoloration in association with the one or more billets that is indicative of a disease.
Anderson teaches, at paragraph [0033], using color to detect disease on plants. This allows for determining where diseased plants are on a field.
In view of Anderson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Blank, (re claim 5) wherein analyzing the image to identify indications of disease comprises analyzing the image to identify a discoloration in association with the one or more billets that is indicative of a disease, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Anderson teaches using color to detect disease on plants. This allows for determining where diseased plants are on a field.
Blank further teaches:
Re claim 8. Wherein initiating the control action comprises generating a notification in response to the identification of indications of disease (paragraph [0107], crop void map 500, Fig. 5).
Re claim 9. Further comprising presenting the notification to an operator via a user interface of the agricultural harvester or transmitting the notification to a remote computing system (paragraph [0119]: “The georeferencing system 157 provides the ability to export all files, upload all files, then provides a preview where a user may select and delete unwanted files. Once the land files are uploaded, the georeferencing subsystem 157 links void crop plants and/or crop yields associated with one or more specific locations onto the uploaded land files of the sugarcane field 16 such that void crop plants and/or crop yields are projected onto a map as illustrated by FIGS. 5 and 6B-6C.”).
Re claim 10. Wherein initiating the control action comprises generating a map that correlates the identified indications of disease to locations within a field (paragraph [0107], crop void map 500, Figs. 5 and 6C).
Re claim 11. A system for detecting disease within harvested materials during operation of an agricultural harvester, the system comprising:
a chopper assembly configured to chop harvested materials into billets (paragraph [0055]: “The chopper 28 includes counter-rotating drum cutters 30 with overlapping blades for cutting the stalks of crop, such as cane C, into billets B, which are pieces of the stalk.”);
a vision-based sensor supported on or within the agricultural harvester, the vision-based sensor being configured to capture images of the billets created by the chopper assembly (paragraph [0070]: “Crop Processing Sensor 75 (not shown) is a crop processing result sensor for detecting the quality of or damage to the crop—such as damage to billets—as the crop passes through the harvester such as, in one example, along elevator 56. … Sensor 75 may include vision technology (e.g., a camera) disposed proximate the elevator 56 and/or the discharge opening 58 and sending a signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to total damaged billets discharged from the discharge opening 58 and/or a number of damaged billets being discharged from the discharge opening 58. The sensor 75 may quantify the number of damaged billets as an absolute amount or as a percentage of the total passing through the discharge opening 58.”); and
a computing system configured to (control arrangement 155, Figs 3 and 5):
receive an image of billets captured by the vision-based sensor (paragraph [0070]);
analyze the image to identify indications of disease in association with one or more of the billets contained within the image (Fig. 5; paragraph [0082]: “The control arrangement 155 comprises a controller circuit 220 that receives signals from at least: … crop processing result sensors (which includes the billet loss sensor 74, crop processing sensor 75, trash sensor 82 and secondary cleaner sensor 92).”; and paragraph [0107]: “Referring again to FIG. 5, the harvester 10 comprises a system for detecting void crop plant information of the harvester 10 which includes an input from … control arrangement subsystem 155, a sensor fusion logic circuit subsystem 156 and georeferencing subsystem 157. With respect to the map 500 of field 16 in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6C, a void crop plant 502 within the field 16 representing damage to or loss of an entire plant or damage to a plant such that it will not reach an expected yield potential is shown. A void crop plant may be caused by a planting skip, pests …”); and
initiate a control action in response to the identification of indications of disease in association with the one or more billets contained within the image (map 500, Fig. 5; paragraph [0107]).
While Blank teaches using a crop processing sensor 75 to detect damage to billets which may be caused by pests, Blank fails to specifically teach: (re claim 11) identify indications of disease.
Anderson teaches, at paragraph [0026 and 0053], pests, detected by sensors onboard harvesters, can include pathogens, such as bacterial and viral diseases, as well as fungi. This allows for the detection of diseased plants during harvesting.
In view of Anderson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Blank, (re claim 11) identify indications of disease, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Blank teaches using a crop processing sensor 75 to detect damage to billets which may be caused by pests and Anderson teaches, pests, detected by sensors onboard harvesters, can include pathogens, such as bacterial and viral diseases, as well as fungi. This allows for the detection of diseased plants during harvesting.
Blank further teaches:
Re claim 12. Wherein the vision-based sensor is located on or within the agricultural harvester at a location downstream of the chopper assembly (paragraph [0070]).
Re claim 13. Wherein the vision-based sensor is provided in operative association with an elevator assembly of the agricultural harvester (paragraph [0070]).
Re claim 14. Wherein the vision-based sensor comprises at least one camera (paragraph [0070]).
Blank fails to specifically teach: (re claim 15) wherein the computing system is configured to analyze the image to identify a discoloration in association with the one or more billets that is indicative of a disease.
Anderson teaches, at paragraph [0033], using color to detect disease on plants. This allows for determining where diseased plants are on a field.
In view of Anderson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Blank, (re claim 15) wherein the computing system is configured to analyze the image to identify a discoloration in association with the one or more billets that is indicative of a disease, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Anderson teaches using color to detect disease on plants. This allows for determining where diseased plants are on a field.
Blank further teaches:
Re claim 18. Wherein the control action comprises the generation of a notification in response to the identification of indications of disease (paragraph [0107], crop void map 500, Fig. 5).
Re claim 19. wherein the computing system is further configured to present the notification to an operator via a user interface of the agricultural harvester or transmit the notification to a remote computing system (paragraph [0119]: “The georeferencing system 157 provides the ability to export all files, upload all files, then provides a preview where a user may select and delete unwanted files. Once the land files are uploaded, the georeferencing subsystem 157 links void crop plants and/or crop yields associated with one or more specific locations onto the uploaded land files of the sugarcane field 16 such that void crop plants and/or crop yields are projected onto a map as illustrated by FIGS. 5 and 6B-6C.”).
Re claim 20. Wherein the control action comprises the generation of a map that correlates the identified indications of disease to locations within a field along which the agricultural harvester is operating (paragraph [0107], crop void map 500, Figs. 5 and 6C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights