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 .
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 21 -40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 21 recites an apparatus (machine). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Claim 40 is directed to a method. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory a category of intention, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A. Step 2A of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong one, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 21 recites the abstract ideas of “Determine a presence…” and “Receive a first set of images…”.
Claim 40 recites the abstract ideas of “Receiving a first set of images…”, and “Determining a presence…”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Furthermore, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)CID(A), claims directed toward a mental process include claims to “‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 199 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 21 recites the additional elements of: “An electronic controller”, “Receive a signal…”, and “Trigger a camera…”.
The additional element of “An electronic controller” merely amounts to a tool, recited at a high level of generality, to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The additional element of “Receive a signal…” is considered insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “Trigger a camera…” which is recited at a high level of generality, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic machine or computing components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 40 recites the additional elements of: “Receive a signal…”, and “Trigger a camera…”.
The additional element of “Receive a signal…” is considered insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “Trigger a camera…” which is recited at a high level of generality, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic machine or computing components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(f).
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to claims 21 and 40, as noted above, “receiving” is considered insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations do not amount to more than mere data gathering.
With respect to “trigger a camera…” this additional element amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to claim 21 “An electronic controller” merely amounts to a tool, recited at a high level of generality, to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Claims 22, 24, and 29 merely recite additional elements, generically recited which generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 23, 25-28, and 30-39 merely further the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnett (U.S. Pub. No 2020/0352088).
Regarding Claim 21, Arnett discloses a system for automatically capturing visual data of a seed placed by a seed planting machine, the system comprising:
An electronic controller (Arnett: 16) configured to:
Receive a first set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0053]) based on a set of sequential images indicative of a seed being dispensed by the seed planting machine;
Determine a presence of a dispensed seed based on a seed image in the first set of sequential images (Arnett: Paragraph [0055]);
Receive a signal to capture further visual seed data based on the presence of the dispensed seed (Arnett: Paragraph [0074]); and
Trigger a camera (Arnett: 14) to capture a second set of images including visual seed data of the dispensed seed in response to a determination, based on the signal, that the seed has been dispensed by the seed planting machine (Arnett: Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding Claim 22, Arnett discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising an imaging device (Arnett: 14: multiple sets) configured to capture the first set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 23, Arnett discloses the system of claim 21, wherein each image of the sets of images (Arnett: Paragraphs [0053], [0076]) includes an image of a seed.
Regarding Claim 24, Arnett discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to store one or more of the first set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0053]) in a memory (Arnett: Paragraph [0086]) and wherein the controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to confirm the presence of the dispensed seed based on the one or more stored images.
Regarding Claim 25, Arnett discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to adjust the settings (Arnett: Paragraph [0077]) of the planting machine based on the confirmation of the presence of the dispensed seed.
Regarding Claim 26, Arnett discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to determine a seed impact location (Arnett: 66) based on the one or more stored images.
Regarding Claim 27, Arnett discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the impact location is a side wall of a seed trench (Arnett: Figure 6: location determined within furrow regardless of location).
Regarding Claim 28, Arnett discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the impact location is a bottom of a seed trench Arnett: Figure 6: location determined within furrow regardless of location).
Regarding Claim 29, Arnett discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the camera (Arnett: 14) is coupled to the seed planting machine and configured to capture images across a plurality of seed trenches (after imaging first trench, camera may be moved to another trench).
Regarding Claim 30, Arnett discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the electronic controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to determine a variation of seed placement (Arnett: 58) in a seed trench based on one or more of the first set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0053]) and the second set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding Claim 31, Arnett discloses the system of claim 30, wherein the electronic controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to determine a variation threshold of seed placement based on one or more of the first set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0053]) and the second set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding Claim 32, Arnett discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the electronic controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to determine if seed in an agricultural operation meets the variation threshold, based on one or more of the first set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0053]) and the second set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding Claim 33, Arnett discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the variation of the variation threshold is a variation of seed placement (Arnett: 58) with respect to side walls of the seed trench (Arnett: Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 34, Arnett discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the variation is a variation of movement of a seed after the seed is placed in the seed trench (Arnett: Paragraph [0074]; after time of flight).
Regarding Claim 35, Arnett discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the variation is a depth of seed in the seed trench (Arnett: Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 36, Arnett discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to transmit one or more actuation signals to trigger one or more functions of the planting machine based on the variation threshold (Arnett: Paragraph [0082]).
Regarding Claim 37, Arnett discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the electronic controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to generate and transmit one or more actuation signals to the controllable actuator (Arnett: Paragraph [0093]), wherein the actuation signals control a cutting depth of the planting machine (Arnett: Paragraph [0082]).
Regarding Claim 38, Arnett discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the electronic controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to generate and transmit one or more actuation signals to a controllable seed dispensing actuator (Arnett: Paragraph 0045]), wherein the actuation signals control an ejection speed of the planting machine (Arnett: Paragraph [0153]: seed speed can be controlled by adjusting height of frame via actuator)
Regarding Claim 39, Arnett discloses the system of claim 38, wherein the electronic controller (Arnett: 16) is configured to generate and transmit one or more actuation signals to the seed planting machine, wherein the actuation signals control a ground speed of the planting machine (Arnett: Paragraph [0178]).
Regarding Claim 40, Arnett discloses a method for capturing visual data of a seed placed by a seed planting machine, the method comprising:
Receiving a first set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0053]) based on a set of sequential images indicative of a seed being dispensed by the seed planting machine; and
Determining a presence of a dispensed seed based on a seed image in the first set of sequential images (Arnett: Paragraph [0055]);
Receiving a signal to capture further visual seed data based on the presence of the dispensed seed (Arnett: Paragraph [0074]); and
Triggering a camera (Arnett: 14) to capture a second set of images (Arnett: Paragraph [0076]) including visual seed data of the dispensed seed in response to a determination, based on the signal, that the seed has been dispensed by the seed planting machine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220132828 (AGRICULTURAL MACHINE SPRAYING MODE FIELD MAP VISUALIZATION AND CONTROL), US 10618861 (Agricultural operation monitoring apparatus, systems and methods), US 20210307236 (AGRICULTURAL TRENCH DEPTH SENSING SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUS), US 10255670 (Image sensor and module for agricultural crop improvement), US 9226442 (System and method for spraying seeds dispensed from a planter).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM 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, Nicole A Coy can be reached at (571) - 272 - 5405. 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights