DETAILED ACTION
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth …Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one agricultural working means for working…
at least one first imaging device…for acquiring…
a position unit for determining…
a data processing unit…for interpreting…
a mapping unit for providing…
a feature detection unit for detecting…
a feature location determination unit for locating…
a feature determination unit” in claim 1.
“at least one second imaging device…is adapted to provide” in claim 2;
“an operation input controller for controlling” in claim 10
Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bertucci et al. (US 2020/0029490 A1).
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
“at least one agricultural working means for working…
at least one first imaging device…for acquiring…
a position unit for determining…
a data processing unit…for interpreting…
a mapping unit for providing…
a feature detection unit for detecting…
a feature location determination unit for locating…
a feature determination unit” in claim 1.
“at least one second imaging device…is adapted to provide” in claim 2;
“an operation input controller for controlling” in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure (applicant’s figures 1,2,3) described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
PNG
media_image1.png
1587
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, prong 1:The claim(s) recite(s):
acquiring images … provide optical data…
determining the absolute position …to provide position data…
interpreting optical data… to calculate interpretation data …
providing a map … comprises:
…detecting at least one feature…
locating said detected feature…
determining attributes
1. A system for controlling agricultural operations comprising:
at least one agricultural working means for working on an agricultural field;
at least one first imaging device located at the agricultural working means for acquiring images of an environment of the agricultural working means, wherein the at least one first imaging device is adapted to provide optical data;
a position unit for determining the absolute position of the at least one first imaging device, wherein the position unit is adapted to provide position data;
a data processing unit comprising a data interpretation unit for interpreting optical data received from the at least one first imaging device in relation to position data received from the position unit, wherein the data interpretation unit is adapted to calculate interpretation data based on the received data;
a mapping unit for providing a map of data based on the interpretation data, wherein the data processing unit further comprises:
a feature detection unit for detecting at least one feature of an image of the at least one first imaging device;
a feature location determination unit for locating said detected feature in the map of data;
a feature determination unit for determining attributes of said detected feature relevant for agricultural operation of said detected feature.
Step 2A, prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as “controlling agricultural operations”, 35 USC 112(f) limitations) is not improving a technical field (precise 3D image projection1 cartography2) in view of applicant’s disclosure.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination to abstract adhere to the conventional in view of applicant’s disclosure’s prior art3, page 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
1101
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3. (Suggested4) The system according to claim 1, wherein the data processing unit is adapted to combine the received optical data [[and]] along or together with the received position data to obtain a combined map of data [[and]] further5 along or together with to include the determined features to the map of data to obtain an enhanced combined map of data comprising location [[and]] along or together with attributes of the determined features to improve an agricultural operation6.
Applicant’s disclosure, page 16,ll. 25-30:
Preferably, the data processing unit is adapted to combine the received optical data and7 the received position data to obtain a combined map of data and8 further to include the determined features to the map of data to obtain an enhanced combined map of data comprising location and9 attributes of the determined features.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bertucci et al. (US 2020/0029490 A1).
Re 1., Bertucci discloses A system for controlling agricultural operations (likewise) comprising10:
at least one agricultural working means for working on an agricultural field;
at least one first imaging device located at the agricultural working means for acquiring images of an environment of the agricultural working means, wherein the at least one first imaging device is adapted to provide optical data;
a position unit for determining the absolute position of the at least one first imaging device, wherein the position unit is adapted to provide position data (or likewise “a tractor retrofitted with an autonomous system” [0033[: fig. 13:
PNG
media_image3.png
800
1116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
);
a data processing unit comprising a data interpretation unit for interpreting optical data received from the at least one first imaging device in relation to position data received from the position unit, wherein the data interpretation unit is adapted to calculate interpretation data based on the received data;11
a mapping unit for providing a map of data based on the interpretation data (or likewise “The method 2100 includes path pre-learning12 2130 based on the waypoints in the image coordinates of the map.” [0181] penult S)
PNG
media_image4.png
678
964
media_image4.png
Greyscale
),
wherein the data processing unit further comprises:
a feature detection unit for detecting at least one feature of an image of the at least one first imaging device;
1314
a feature determination unit for determining1516 attributes of said detected feature relevant for agricultural operation of said detected feature (or likewise “computer vision processing (e.g., using convolutional a neural network) may be implemented to detect and/or classify the one or more plants.” [0134] 2nd S via fig. 9:920: “DETECT”:
PNG
media_image5.png
1197
826
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Re 2., Bertucci discloses The system17 according to claim 1, further comprising at least one second imaging device (or likewise “satellite…drone… unmanned… vehicle… drone”) [0072] 7th S & [0073] 2nd S) not located at the agricultural working means in addition to
18.
Re 3., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein the data processing unit is adapted to combine the received optical data 19 20 21 22.
Re 4., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 1,
wherein the data processing unit comprises 23 an input means for allowing the user to input confirmation data for at least confirming 24 data from all sensors and all motors and actuators are responding in an expected manner to all commands”),
wherein the 25 data processing unit calculates the interpretation of the optical data based on confirmation data input by the user via the input means.
Re 5., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 1,
wherein the data processing unit is adapted to be provided on the agricultural working means
26.
Re 6., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one first imaging device is adapted to be located at a bottom height,
wherein the bottom height is the altitude of the at least one first imaging device to the surface of the agricultural field (or likewise “FIG. 9 may be implemented to dynamically adjust, based on current image sensor data …near the waypoint…control data…in three dimensions (e.g., (x, y, z) or (east, north, altitude27))” [0092], last S & [0137] last S)
2829.
Re 7., Bertucci teaches The system according to claim 1, 30.
Re 8., Bertucci teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein the agricultural working means comprises a driving means for driving the agricultural working means, 31.
Re 9., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 1, further comprising a display device, for displaying the acquired images and/or the
wherein the display device
32
interfaces on the vehicle, including screens, lights, and audible indicators. For example, user feedback 1250 may be available to remote users via custom interfaces on cellular phones and tablets as well as desktops and laptops.” [0155]) .
Re 10., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 8,
wherein the system further comprises an operation input controller for controlling the agricultural working operation,
wherein the operation input controller
33is arranged at a location remote from the driving means (or likewise “The user interface may enable a human controller to take over the machine's operation using a live camera feed, sensor inputs, and teleoperation of actuators on the vehicle “ [0164] last S).
Re 11., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the following components is comprised in a smartphone (or likewise “ For example, the process 400 may be implemented using a personal computing device (e.g., a smartphone… process 400 … presenting 410 the map to a user in a user interface (e.g., a webpage) that enables the user to draw a path for the vehicle on the map” [0097] last S & [0098] 1st S):
a. the at least one first imaging device,
b. the at least one second imaging device;
C. the position unit;
d. the data interpretation unit;
e. the mapping unit;
f. the data processing unit;
g. the further data processing unit;
h. the display device;
i. the operation input controller.
Re 12., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 1,
wherein the data processing unit is further adapted to provide a suggested controlling response based on the determined features of the
wherein the suggested controlling response
b. automatically induces a controlling response at the agricultural working means, which is accordingly controlled based on the controlling response (or likewise: “enable the tractor to course correct34 … with range finding sensors and cameras…used to perceive … mapping of plant growth over time” [0170] last Ss).
Re 13., Bertucci discloses The system35 according to claim 10,
36
Re 14., Bertucci discloses The system according to claim 4, 37.
Re 15., Bertucci discloses A method of controlling agricultural operations by using the system according to claim 1 (or likewise “[0011] In a fourth aspect, the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in methods that include accessing motion sensor data captured using one or more motion sensors configured to detect a motion of a vehicle”) .
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Ellaboudy et al. (US 2021/000006 A1) corresponding to Bertucci et al. (US 2020/0029490 A1) as applied above in the 25 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-16. Thus Ellaboudy et al. (US 2021/000006 A1) is also applicable under 35 USC 102.
Ellaboudy teaches creating a “LiDAR and camera”-“map” in the context of fig. 32:
[0063] A first example of a map representation is a high-resolution three-dimensional point cloud map. This map format may have a sub-centimeter level resolution. It may be created using fusion of data from multiple sensors (e.g., including LiDAR and camera). Sensor configurations may be calibrated to facilitate successful fusion of data from multiple sensors. For example, the calibration may take into account the lens distortion of the camera as well as the relative position of the sensors.
PNG
media_image6.png
1289
891
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as the closest to the claimed “a mapping unit for providing a map” of claim 1 and “combine the received optical data…to obtain a combined map” of claim 3.
IDS (10/16/2024) cited MADSEN (US 2019/0128690 A1) an X-reference
MADSEN teaches combining GNSS/GPS to obtain a 3D map:
[0045] The 3D terrain map may be generated using data from a variety of different sources. For example, the system may generate the 3D map by fusing terrain point clouds with GNSS and IMU data to a detailed 3D map of the terrain in a global frame of reference.
as the closest to the claimed “combine…the received position data to obtain a combined map” of claim 3.
IDS (10/16/2024) KUMAR (WO 2016/123201 A1) an X-reference
KUMAR teaches assembling “CAMERA” and “GPS” via fig. 5:
PNG
media_image7.png
646
975
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as the closest to the claimed “combine the received optical data and the received position data to obtain a combined map” of claim 3
ROBERTSON et al. (US 2019/0261566 A1)
ROBERTSON teaches a fused-Absolute-position, world-coordinate estimate “using a combination of…GPS…and Mapping”:
One or more robots in the chain also maintain an estimate of their absolute pose in a suitable world coordinate system. This estimate may be obtained using a combination of information sources, e.g. differential GPS or a computer-vision based Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) system. Absolute position estimates from several (possibly noisy or inaccurate) sources may be fused to give less noisy and more accurate estimates.
as the closest to the claimed “the absolute position” & “a mapping unit for providing a map” of claim 1 and “combine…the received position data…to obtain a combined map” of claim 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 Applicant’s disclosure, pages 15,16: Any features explained above with regard to the at least one first imagining device, such as for instance control, acquisition or data processing, may correspondingly apply for the at least one second imaging device. Thus, according to the present invention, an improved feature recognition can be provided, wherein the images taken by multiple optical first and second devices improve the feature determination, which may not be obtained with just a single system or a system that does not provide combined optical information. In particular, the use of multiple imaging devices may allow for a precise spatial determination. For instance, a spatial planar extension with respect to the agricultural field and a respective height of a feature, such as a stone or crop to be harvested may be determined to obtain a precise 3D-extension by combining the optical information of the at least one second imaging device, which may acquire top view images of said feature with optical information of the at least one first imaging device, which may be arranged at a lower altitude and may be adapted to acquire side view images of said feature. This may allow for a precise spatial feature extension determination which may not be accurately performed by using just a single imaging device.
2 Applicant’s disclosure, page 2,ll. 20-25: Thus, force measurements at agriculture implements are mainly done to automatically control the working implement. However, there is a need for a system that measures and interprets a force of an agriculture implement for other purposes, for example for analyzing the soil of the agricultural field. Further, although some employments of optical systems in agricultural applications are known, there exists the need for a system that allows an enhanced optical spatial mapping to improve an agricultural operation.
3 art: to become highly proficient at something through practice, wherein practice is defined: a usual or customary action or proceeding (Dictionary.com)
4 MPEP 2106.07(a) II. WHEN MAKING A REJECTION, EXPLAIN WHY THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM ELEMENTS DO NOT RESULT IN THE CLAIM AS A WHOLE INTEGRATING THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OR AMOUNTING TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION (STEP 2A PRONG TWO AND STEP 2B), last para: In the event a rejection is made, it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification [Applicant’s disclosure, page 16,ll. 25-30] to determine if there are elements (“and” meaning “along or together with”) that could be added to the claim (claim 3) to make it eligible. If so, the examiner should identify those elements [Applicant’s disclosure, page 16,ll. 25-30: “and”, twice as reproduced above] in the Office action and suggest them as a way to overcome the rejection.
5 further ADVERB in addition; moreover. (Dictionary.com)
6 Applicant’s disclosure, page 2,ll.20-25
7 and: (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover. (Dictionary.com)
8 and: (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover. (Dictionary.com)
9 and: (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover. (Dictionary.com)
10 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “comprising”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionary.com)
11 pretend there is the word “and” here
12 learn: to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience, wherein knowledge is defined: the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension, wherein apprehension is defined: the faculty or act of apprehending or understanding; perception on a direct and immediate level, wherein understand is defined: to assign a meaning to; interpret. (Dictionary.com)
13 pretend there is the word “and” here
14 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
15 determine: to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc , wherein ascertain is defined: to find out definitely; learn with certainty or assurance; determine, wherein find out IDIOMS is defined: Expose, detect the true nature or character of, especially in an offense. For example, Cheaters risk being found out . [c. 1700] (Dictionary.com)
16 -ing (of “determining”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb (determine) or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding )
17 “for controlling agricultural operations”: see claim 1
18 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
19 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
20 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
21 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
22The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para: As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
23 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
24 valid: sound; just; well-founded, wherein just is defined: guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness, wherein truth is defined: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like, wherein verified is defined: confirmed as to accuracy or truth by acceptable evidence, action, etc. (Dictionary.com)
25 The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para: As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
26 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
27 altitude: the vertical height of an object above some chosen level, esp above sea level; elevation , wherein sea level is defined: the level of the surface of the sea with respect to the land, taken to be the mean level between high and low tide, and used as a standard base for measuring heights and depths, wherein base is defined: the bottom support of anything; that on which a thing stands or rests. (Dictionary.com)
28 The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para: As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
29 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
30 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
31 The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para: As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
32 The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para: As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
33 The crossed text “does not limit” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para: As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
34 correct: to make a correction or corrections, wherein correction is defined: something that is substituted or proposed for what is wrong or inaccurate; emendation, wherein proposed is defined: offered or suggested for consideration, acceptance, or action. (Dictionary.com) .
35 “for controlling agricultural operations”: see claim 1
36 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
37 The crossed text is not “a limitation in a claim” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
Prosecution Insights