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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner is interpreting the claimed term “residue” in the context of the field of agriculture, meaning plant stems, stocks, or the like.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the one or more processor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret this as “the processor” that is introduced in independent claim 16.
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 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson et al (U.S. 2019/0281776) in view of Barrick et al (U.S. 2020/0236836) and Fu et al (U.S. 2022/0100996).
Regarding claim 8, Magnusson teaches an irrigation system (10) comprising:
a plurality of mobile support towers (16A-D) configured to move across a field (as disclosed at least in Par 0046);
a plurality of structural supports (truss sections 18A-D) extending between the mobile support towers (as disclosed in Par 0032);
a fluid-carrying conduit (conduit sections 24A-D) supported above the field by the plurality of structural supports (as seen in Fig 1);
water emitters (26A-P) coupled with the fluid-carrying conduit (as disclosed in Par 0033);
a sensor (40, 42) supported on one of the plurality of structural supports (Par 0048 discloses the sensor being positioned on the mobile support towers); and
one or more processor (control system 30, which is disclosed as having a processing element, see Par 0042) in communication with the sensor (as disclosed in Par 0047)
the processor configured to adjust irrigation based on sensor readings (see abstract).
However, Magnusson does not teach the system comprising a distance-measuring device supported on one of the plurality of structural supports and configured to measure a vertical distance to the ground of the field; wherein the sensor comprises an image-capturing device and configured to capture an image of a portion of the field; a position-detection device supported on one of the plurality of structural supports or on one of the plurality of mobile support towers and configured to capture position data associated with the portion of the field; wherein the one or more processor is in communication with the distance-measuring device and the image-capturing device and configured to: receive the vertical distance to the ground; receive the image of the portion of the field; geo-reference the image of the portion of the field using the position data; determine dimensions of the portion of the field in the image of the portion of the field based on the vertical distance to the ground; determine a residue cover percentage for the portion of the field based on the image and the dimensions of the portion of the field in the image; and adjust an amount of water applied to the portion of the field based on the residue cover percentage.
Barrick teaches a system for controlling operation of an agricultural implement based on soil data wherein a sensor comprises an image-capturing device (vision-based sensor 102) and is configured to capture an image and generate data associated with a residue cover of a portion of the field (Par 0019 discloses that the sensor 102 captures field data indicative of one or more condition characteristics of a field; and Par 0036 discloses that condition characteristics include residue coverage of the field); and a one or more processing element (controller 108) configured to receive the data associated with the residue cover of the portion of the field (Par 0036 discloses: the controller 108 includes any suitable image processing algorithms stored within its memory 112 or may otherwise use any suitable image processing techniques to determine the residue coverage); and determine a residue cover percentage for the portion of the field based on the data associated with the residue cover (Par 0036 discloses the controller configured to analyze/process the received data associated, i.e. residue cover data, to determine percent residue coverage); Barrick also teaches a position-detection device (location sensor 104 in the form of a GPS, see Par 0021) in communication with the processor (as seen in Fig 2) and configured to capture position data associated with the portion of the field (as disclosed in Par 0021), wherein the one or more processor is configured to geo-reference the data associated with the residue cover of the field using the position data (as disclosed in Par 0026 and 0033 of Barrick, the controller geo-locates the implement on the field and accesses field characteristic data from memory 112, as further seen in Fig 2; wherein field characteristic data includes residue cover).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Magnusson to incorporate the teachings of Barrick to modify the sensor and control system so that they capture and process data associated with residue cover in the field in order to take into account crop residue coverage, which slows the rate at which the soil dries out due to sunshine exposure (see Par 0036 of Barrick); this data would be helpful to the system of Magnusson when irrigating the field by making sure irrigation compensates areas in where residue is present. Barrick teaches a control system that captures and processes data associated with residue cover in the field (see Par 0036); and Magnussen teaches a control system that receives crop data from sensors and adjusts irrigation based on such detections, see abstract. As such, in combination, they teach a system receives data from sensors in order to adjust irrigation; wherein these sensors include the vision based sensor of Barrick, which is configured to capture data associated with a residue cover of a portion of the field. As such, Magnussen and Barrick teach a processor configured to adjust an amount of water applied to the portion of the field based on the residue cover percentage.
Regarding the position-detection device (location sensor/ GPS 104 of Barrick) being supported on one of the plurality of structural supports or on one of the plurality of mobile support towers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the position-detection device such that it is on the structural supports, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Japikse, where the court found that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable if the modification would not have modified the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C). In the present case, rearranging the placement of the position-detection device would not change how the device operates. Furthermore, Applicant fails to teach any criticality to having the claimed arrangement.
Fu teaches a farming machine that includes one or more image sensors for capturing an image as the farming machine moves through the field (as disclosed in abstract); wherein the apparatus comprises a distance measuring device (110/310) supported on one of a plurality of structural supports or on one of a plurality of mobile support towers (as seen in Figs 1C or 3A, device is supported on a structural support 140) and configured to capture data associated with a distance between the distance measuring device and the ground, i.e. vertical distance (as disclosed in Pars 0011, 0022, 0200, and 0204, a control system 130 receives parameters from the measuring device which include the distance between the measuring device and the ground); one or more processing element (130) in communication with the distance measuring device to receive the data associated with the distance between the sensor and the ground (as disclosed in Pars 0200 and 0204); and determine dimensions of the filed (geographic area 104) represented by the data associated with the vertical distance (as disclosed in Par 0105, the distance measuring device 310 is a camera that captures the area of ground; as disclosed in Pars 0114-0120, the system creates a depth map using a depth identification module taking ground distance into account).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Magnusson and Barrick to incorporate the teachings of Fu to provide a distance measuring device that measures distance to ground in order create a depth map which the processing system can use to determine targeted plant care (as disclosed in Pars 0010-0015 of Fu). This would add versatility to the system of Magnusson and Barrick. In combination with Barrick, the processing element would determine total area of aground associated with the residue cover based at least in part on the data associated with ground distance.
Regarding claim 9, Magnusson, Barrick and Fu teach the irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the distance-measuring device comprises at least one of a LIDAR system, a RADAR system, or an ultrasonic distance measuring system (Par 0070 of Fu discloses the distance measuring device as a LIDAR sensor).
Regarding claim 10, Magnusson, Barrick and Fu teach the irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the image-capturing device comprises at least one of a camera (sensor 102 of Barrick is disclosed as a “vision-based sensor” that captures image data, i.e. a camera, see Pars 0019-0020) or a thermal imaging device (“or” is alternate language, as such the thermal imaging device is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 11, Magnusson, Barrick and Fu teach the irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processor is configured to determine a number of pixels of the image of the portion of the field that are indicative of residue cover (In combination, Barrick teaches determining residue cover and Fu teaches imaging data represented in pixels – as disclosed in at least abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Magnusson, Barrick and Fu teach the irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processor is configured to calculate a soil water depletion value based on the residue cover percentage (Barrick teaches a control system that captures and processes data associated with residue cover in the field and acknowledges that residue cover affects water depletion, see Par 0036; and Magnussen teaches a control system that calculates soil water depletion, see Pars 0054-0055; in combination, they teach the claimed control system that performs the claimed function).
Regarding claim 13, Magnusson, Barrick and Fu teach the irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processor is configured to receive a phenotype of a crop previously planted in the portion of the field (Par 0029 of Barrick discloses the system configured to store previously captured data related to field characteristics which include crop type, i.e. phenotype, which gets stored in database server 118), and determine the residue cover percentage based at least in part on the phenotype of the crop previously planted in the portion of the field (Par 0036 of Barrick discloses determining residue cover percentage taking into account filed characteristics from the database server 118, which as stated in Par 0029 include previous crop type).
Regarding claim 14, Magnusson, Barrick and Fu teach the irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the wherein the one or more processor is configured to determine a predicted phenotype of a crop previously planted in the portion of the field based at least in part on the image of a portion of the field (Par 0032 of Barrick discloses database server 118 configured to store previous field characteristic data; Par 0036 discloses that the field characteristic data includes residue coverage of the field, and Par 0029 discloses the field characteristic data includes crop type; therefore the system can determine phenotype of a crop based in part by residue cover), and determine the residue cover percentage based at least in part on the predicted phenotype of the crop previously planted in the portion of the field (Par 0036 of Barrick discloses determining residue cover percentage taking into account filed characteristics from the database server 118, which as stated in Par 0029 include previous crop type).
Regarding claim 15, Magnusson, Barrick and Fu teach the irrigation system of claim 8, further comprising a multispectral camera configured to capture a multispectral image of the field (Par 0020 of Barrick discloses sensor 102 may correspond to a stereographic camera(s) having two or more lenses with a separate image sensor for each lens to allow the camera(s) to capture stereographic or three-dimensional images; i.e. multispectral images), wherein the one or more processor is configured to determine a second estimated residue cover percentage based on the multispectral image and compare the residue cover percentage determined using the sensor with the second estimated residue cover percentage (Pa 0040 of Barrick discloses comparing received field characteristics, which would include second residue cover percentages – as disclosed in Par 0036).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 16-17 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, the prior art does not teach a computer-implemented method of controlling operations of a lateral move or pivot irrigation system, the computer-implemented method comprising: capturing, via a sensor supported on one of a plurality of structural supports of the irrigation system or on one of a plurality of mobile support towers of the irrigation system, data associated with a residue cover of a portion of a field; capturing, via a distance measuring device supported on one of the plurality of structural supports or on one of the plurality of mobile support towers, data associated with a distance between the distance measuring device and the ground; capturing, via a position-detection device supported on one of the plurality of structural supports or on one of the plurality of mobile support towers, position data associated with the portion of the field; receiving at a processor the data associated with residue cover of the portion of the field; receiving at the processor the data associated with distance between the distance measuring device and the ground; determining, via the processor, a size of a total area of ground of the portion of the field represented by the data associated with the residue cover based at least in part on the data associated with the distance between the distance measuring device and the ground; geo-referencing, via the processor, the data associated with the residue cover of the portion of the field using the position data; determining, via the processor, a residue cover percentage for the portion of the field based on the data associated with the residue cover and the size of the total area of ground; and adjusting, via the processor, an application rate of the irrigation system based on the residue cover percentage.
Although related prior art Magnusson et al (U.S.2019/0281776), Barrick et al (U.S. 2020/0236836) and Fu et al (U.S. 2022/0100996) teach, in combination, a similar system as the one disclosed by Applicant. None of them teach a computer-implemented method for controlling operations of an irrigation system, wherein the method includes the steps of receiving at a processor data associated with the residue cover of the portion of the field, receiving data associated with the distance between the distance measuring device and the ground; geo-referencing the data associated with the residue cover of the portion of the field using position data; determining a size of a total area of ground of the portion of the field represented by the data associated with the residue cover based at least in part on the data associated with the distance between the distance measuring device and the ground; determining a residue cover percentage for the portion of the field based on the data associated with the residue cover and the size of the total area of ground; and adjusting, via the processor, an application rate of the irrigation system based on the residue cover percentage. In other words, the prior art does not teach a method of controlling the processor of an irrigation system; the method including steps to determine a residue cover percentage for the portion of the field based on associated with the residue cover, the size of the total area of ground, and position data; wherein this data is then used to adjust application rate of the irrigation system applied to the portion of the field based on the residue cover percentage. It would not be obvious to further modify these references to include the missing features of how the processor is programmed because doing so would be considered hindsight rationale, since the prior art does not disclose these features. These claims are allowed for similar reasons, as the parent case 17/082,171, see Notice of Allowability dated 09/03/2024. As such, claims 1 and 16 are deemed allowable.
Claims 2-7, 17 and 19-20 are allowed for further limiting claims 1 or 16.
Claim 18 would be allowed once 112(b) rejection is overcome.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
//CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights