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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18956577 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
18956518 (Current)
18956577
A method using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes, the sensor data being acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained; and
1
based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into one of the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained;
1
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
1
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined to be removed.
1
A system for generating cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the system comprising:
16
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of a plurality of canes of the fruit tree; and
16
sensor data of the plurality of canes, the sensor data being acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data;
16
wherein the at least one data processor is configured or programmed to: group the plurality of canes into a plurality of groups based on the sensor data;
16
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes, the sensor data being acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
based on the sensor data, determine one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained;
16
based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into one of the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained;
1
generate the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
16
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined to be removed.
1
Regarding claim 16, in particular the limitation: “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data”, the examiner finds that since the data processor is further defined by the limitations following it, which has double patenting issue. In addition, the method of reference case claim 1 is using a computer, which must contain a processor, to perform the methods including: “based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into one of the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained” and “generating the cut-point data for each cane determined to be removed.”
As such, the limitation of “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data” also has double patenting issue.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 16 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18956522 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
18956518 (Current)
18956522
A method using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes;
13
based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained; and
1
determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement values and the priority levels; +
1 + 13
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
1
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed
1
A system for generating cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the system comprising:
16
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of a plurality of canes of the fruit tree; and
16
for each of one or more canes of the fruit tree, acquiring measurement values concerning two or more attributes, based on sensor data of the one or more canes being acquired by a sensor or sensors, the sensor data including an image of the one or more canes acquired by an imager;
1
a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data;
16
wherein the at least one data processor is configured or programmed to: group the plurality of canes into a plurality of groups based on the sensor data;
16
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes;
13
based on the sensor data, determine one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained;
16
determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement values and the priority levels; + wherein the acquisition of the measurement values, the determination as to a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained, and the generation of the cut-point data are performed for one or more canes that are grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups.
1 + 13
generate the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
16
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed
1
Regarding claim 16, in particular the limitation: “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data”, the examiner finds that since the data processor is further defined by the limitations following it, which has double patenting issue. In addition, the method of reference case claim 1 is using a computer, which must contain a processor, to perform the methods including: “determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement values and the priority levels” and “generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed”.
As such, the limitation of “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data” also has double patenting issue.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 16 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18956541 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
18956518 (Current)
18956541
A method using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes;
12
based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained; and
1
based on the measurement value(s), determining the two or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained; + wherein the acquisition of the measurement value(s), the determination as to a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained, and the generation of the cut-point data are performed for two or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups.
1 +12
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
1
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed;
1
A system for generating cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the system comprising:
16
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of a plurality of canes of the fruit tree; and
16
for each of two or more canes of the fruit tree, acquiring a measurement value(s) concerning one or more attributes, based on sensor data of the two or more canes acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data;
16
wherein the at least one data processor is configured or programmed to: group the plurality of canes into a plurality of groups based on the sensor data;
16
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes;
12
based on the sensor data, determine one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained;
16
based on the measurement value(s), determining the two or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained; + wherein the acquisition of the measurement value(s), the determination as to a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained, and the generation of the cut-point data are performed for two or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups.
1 + 12
generate the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
16
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed;
1
Regarding claim 16, in particular the limitation: “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data”, the examiner finds that since the data processor is further defined by the limitations following it, which has double patenting issue. In addition, the method of reference case claim 1 is using a computer, which must contain a processor, to perform the methods including: “based on the measurement value(s), determining the two or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained” and “generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed”.
As such, the limitation of “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data” also has double patenting issue.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 16 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18956569 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
18956518 (Current)
18956569
A method using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes;
13
based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained; and
1
determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement values; + wherein the acquisition of the measurement values, the determination as to a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained, and the generation of the cut-point data are performed for one or more canes that are grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups.
1 + 13
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
1
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
1
A system for generating cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the system comprising:
16
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of a plurality of canes of the fruit tree; and
16
based on sensor data including information indicating a three-dimensional structure of the one or more canes, the sensor data being acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data;
16
wherein the at least one data processor is configured or programmed to: group the plurality of canes into a plurality of groups based on the sensor data;
16
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes;
13
based on the sensor data, determine one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained;
16
determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement values; + wherein the acquisition of the measurement values, the determination as to a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained, and the generation of the cut-point data are performed for one or more canes that are grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups.
1 + 13
generate the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
16
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
1
Regarding claim 16, in particular the limitation: “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data”, the examiner finds that since the data processor is further defined by the limitations following it, which has double patenting issue. In addition, the method of reference case claim 1 is using a computer, which must contain a processor, to perform the methods including: “determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement values” and “generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed”.
As such, the limitation of “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data” also has double patenting issue.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 16 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18956573 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
18956518 (Current)
18956573
A method using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes;
13
based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained; and
1
determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement value(s); + wherein the acquisition of the measurement value(s), the determination as to a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained, the determination of the number of buds to be retained, and the generation of the cut-point data are performed for one or more canes that are grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups.
1 + 13
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
1
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed;
1
A system for generating cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the system comprising:
16
A method for using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off, the method comprising:
1
a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of a plurality of canes of the fruit tree; and
16
for each of one or more canes of the fruit tree, acquiring a measurement value(s) concerning one or more attributes, including an attribute concerning vigor of the fruit tree, based on sensor data of the one or more canes being acquired by a sensor or sensors;
1
a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data;
16
wherein the at least one data processor is configured or programmed to: group the plurality of canes into a plurality of groups based on the sensor data;
16
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes;
13
based on the sensor data, determine one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained;
16
determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement value(s); + wherein the acquisition of the measurement value(s), the determination as to a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained, the determination of the number of buds to be retained, and the generation of the cut-point data are performed for one or more canes that are grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups.
1 + 13
generate the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed.
16
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed;
1
Regarding claim 16, in particular the limitation: “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data”, the examiner finds that since the data processor is further defined by the limitations following it, which has double patenting issue. In addition, the method of reference case claim 1 is using a computer, which must contain a processor, to perform the methods including: “determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement value(s)” and “generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed”.
As such, the limitation of “a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data” also has double patenting issue.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morcellet (FR2994057A1, hereinafter Morcellet) in view of Fernandes et al. (Towards Precise Pruning Points Detection using Semantic-Instance-Aware Plant Models for Grapevine Winter Pruning Automation, hereinafter Fernandes).
Regarding claim 1, Morcellet discloses
A method using a computer or computers to generate cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off (P. 4, Para. 1: “the images are converted into a cloud of points, this cloud of points is analyzed; the processing means determine an automatic selection of the cutting points”, P. 4 Para. 3: “The parameters characterizing the skeleton of a vine are stored in a database… the X, Y and Z coordinates of the arrival node of each branch… determination, on each part of the Y, of the main branch by virtue of a score given according to: its largest thickness; - its linearity; - the number of "daughter" branches for this branch”), the method comprising:
grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes acquired by a sensor or sensors (P. 4 Para. 3: “determination of the coordinates of the first "Y" of the foot starting from the bottom of the skeleton (it being understood that the base of the Y is the parent branch and the two upper arms of Y corresponding to the branches "children")”);
based on the sensor data, determining one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained (P. 4 Para. 3: “assigning a "score" to each "girls" branch according to: - the usual type of cut of the winemaker; - its length; - his direction; - the number of knots (or eyes); - its position on the parent branch; - selection of the cutting points according to the branches to cut selected, and depending on the type of size selected”); and
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed (P. 4 Para. 3: “the images are converted into a cloud of points, this cloud of points is analyzed; the processing means determine an automatic selection of the cutting points”).
However, Morcellet does not explicitly disclose
performing the method on one or more canes of a fruit tree.
Fernandes teaches
performing the method on one or more canes of a fruit tree (Fig. 3: “Schematic representation of a grapevine pruning region area, illustrating the 5 grapevine organs: Main Cordon, Arm, Spur, Cane, and Node. The red lines indicate the desired pruning points”).
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 Morcellet with pruning cane of grapevine of Fernandes to effectively increase the speed of winter pruning of grapevine in a vineyard.
Regarding claim 2, dependent upon claim 1, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Morcellet further discloses
the determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained includes: based on the sensor data, determining a measurement value(s) concerning one or more attributes of each of the one or more canes; and determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement value(s) (P. 4 Para. 3: “assigning a "score" to each "girls" branch according to: - the usual type of cut of the winemaker; - its length; - his direction; - the number of knots (or eyes); - its position on the parent branch; - selection of the cutting points according to the branches to cut selected, and depending on the type of size selected”).
Regarding claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 2.
Morcellet further discloses
the one or more attributes include at least one of a color of the cane, a direction in which the cane extends, a thickness of the cane, a height of a base of the cane, sizes of buds on the cane, directions in which buds on the cane are facing, a length of the cane, or a length between nodes of the cane (P. 4 Para. 3: “assigning a "score" to each "girls" branch according to: - the usual type of cut of the winemaker; - its length; - his direction; - the number of knots (or eyes); - its position on the parent branch; - selection of the cutting points according to the branches to cut selected, and depending on the type of size selected”).
Regarding claim 4, dependent upon claim 1, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Morcellet further discloses
inputting the generated cut-point data to a controller configured or programmed to control a three-dimensional position of a cutter to cut a cane of the fruit tree (P. 4 Para. 1: “the processing means determine an automatic selection of the cutting points; - Cutting means are moved to the cutting positions, make the cuts, are returned to the waiting position.”).
Regarding claim 5, dependent upon claim 1, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Fernandes further teaches
based on the sensor data, grouping the plurality of canes into the plurality of groups by relying on base positions of the plurality of canes (Fig. 1 Spur Perception).
Regarding claim 6, dependent upon claim 5, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 5.
Fernandes further teaches
based on the sensor data, among the plurality of canes, grouping any canes growing from within a region spanning a predetermined range into a same group (Fig. 1 Spur Perception, PR Perception, PR Segmentation, Fig. 3: “Schematic representation of a grapevine pruning region area, illustrating the 5 grapevine organs: Main Cordon, Arm, Spur, Cane, and Node. The red lines indicate the desired pruning points”).
Regarding claim 7, dependent upon claim 5, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 5.
Fernandes further teaches
based on the sensor data, among the plurality of canes, grouping any canes growing from a same spur into a same group(Fig. 1 Spur Perception, PR Perception, Fig. 3: “Schematic representation of a grapevine pruning region area, illustrating the 5 grapevine organs: Main Cordon, Arm, Spur, Cane, and Node. The red lines indicate the desired pruning points”).
Regarding claim 10, dependent upon claim 1, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Morcellet further discloses
acquiring information on a number of buds to be retained on each cane to be retained; and based on the number of buds to be retained, generating the cut-point data for each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained (P. 4 Para. 3: “assigning a "score" to each "girls" branch according to: - the usual type of cut of the winemaker; - its length; - his direction; - the number of knots (or eyes); - its position on the parent branch; - selection of the cutting points according to the branches to cut selected, and depending on the type of size selected”).
Regarding claim 12, dependent upon claim 10, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 10.
Fernandes further teaches
the generating the cut-point data for each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained includes: generating the cut-point data so that each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained includes one or more buds after being cut (Fig. 3: “Schematic representation of a grapevine pruning region area, illustrating the 5 grapevine organs: Main Cordon, Arm, Spur, Cane, and Node. The red lines indicate the desired pruning points”, TABLE III: Types of pruning cuts: “Base-bud cut[:] The base-buds are kept only, while the Base-bud cut remaining (upper) part is removed”).
Regarding claim 13, dependent upon claim 1, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Fernandes further teaches
the one or more canes include two or more canes; and the determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained includes: among the two or more canes, determining that any cane other than the cane(s) determined as a cane(s) to be retained is a cane to be removed (Fig. 3: “Schematic representation of a grapevine pruning region area, illustrating the 5 grapevine organs: Main Cordon, Arm, Spur, Cane, and Node. The red lines indicate the desired pruning points”; It can be observed that the cane on the right Is removed while the cane on the left was left with only two nodes left).
Regarding claim 14, dependent upon claim 1, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Fernandes further teaches
the sensor data includes: an image of the plurality of canes acquired by an imager; and an estimated depth of the plurality of canes acquired based on the image (Fig. 2, P. 2 Section II RELATED WORK: “Our proposed method uses an off-the-shelf depth camera (Intel realsense) and does not require a uniform background behind the grapevine.”, P. 4 Section VI PRUNING POINTS DETECTION: “We define
(
x
o
,
y
o
,
z
o
)
and
(
x
e
,
y
e
,
z
e
)
as the basal cane origin and endpoint in the 3D space, that can be computed thanks to the depth image and camera intrinsic parameters.”).
Regarding claim 15, dependent upon claim 1, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Morcellet further discloses
point cloud data acquired by a LiDAR sensor by sensing the plurality of canes (the images are converted into a cloud of points, this cloud of points is analyzed; the processing means determine an automatic selection of the cutting points;).
Fernandes further teaches
the sensor data includes: an image of the plurality of canes acquired by an imager (Fig. 2, Fig. 2, P. 2 Section II RELATED WORK: “Our proposed method uses an off-the-shelf depth camera (Intel realsense) and does not require a uniform background behind the grapevine.”).
Regarding claim 16, Morcellet discloses
A system for generating cut-point data including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a point on a cane of a fruit tree where the cane is to be cut off (P. 4, Para. 1: “the images are converted into a cloud of points, this cloud of points is analyzed; the processing means determine an automatic selection of the cutting points”, P. 4 Para. 3: “The parameters characterizing the skeleton of a vine are stored in a database… the X, Y and Z coordinates of the arrival node of each branch… determination, on each part of the Y, of the main branch by virtue of a score given according to: its largest thickness; - its linearity; - the number of "daughter" branches for this branch”), the system comprising:
a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of a plurality of canes of the fruit tree; and
at least one data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data; wherein the at least one data processor is configured or programmed to:
group the plurality of canes into a plurality of groups based on the sensor data (P. 4 Para. 3: “determination of the coordinates of the first "Y" of the foot starting from the bottom of the skeleton (it being understood that the base of the Y is the parent branch and the two upper arms of Y corresponding to the branches "children")”);
based on the sensor data, determine one or more canes having been grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained (P. 4 Para. 3: “assigning a "score" to each "girls" branch according to: - the usual type of cut of the winemaker; - its length; - his direction; - the number of knots (or eyes); - its position on the parent branch; - selection of the cutting points according to the branches to cut selected, and depending on the type of size selected”); and
generate the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed (P. 4 Para. 3: “the images are converted into a cloud of points, this cloud of points is analyzed; the processing means determine an automatic selection of the cutting points”).
However, Morcellet does not explicitly disclose
performing the method on one or more canes of a fruit tree.
Fernandes teaches
performing the method on one or more canes of a fruit tree (Fig. 3: “Schematic representation of a grapevine pruning region area, illustrating the 5 grapevine organs: Main Cordon, Arm, Spur, Cane, and Node. The red lines indicate the desired pruning points”).
Regarding claim 17, dependent upon claim 16, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 16.
Morcellet further discloses
a cutter to cut a cane of the fruit tree and a controller configured or programmed to control a three-dimensional position of the cutter (P. 4 Para. 1: “Cutting means are moved to the cutting positions, make the cuts, are returned to the waiting position.”);
wherein the at least one data processor is configured or programmed to input the generated cut-point data to the controller (P. 4 Para. 1: “the processing means determine an automatic selection of the cutting points”); and
the controller is configured or programmed to control the three-dimensional position of the cutter based on the cut-point data (P. 4 Para. 1: “Cutting means are moved to the cutting positions, make the cuts, are returned to the waiting position.”).
Regarding claim 18, dependent upon claim 17, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 17.
Morcellet further discloses
An agricultural machine (Fig. 1, P. 3 Para. 4: “With reference to FIG. 1, a vine-size robot according to the present embodiment of the invention comprises: a mobile structure 1, intended to be moved between the rows of vines, carried by at least one pair caterpillar 10; means for capturing images relating to the vines V and to their branches; image processing means 3; cutting means 4”).
Regarding claim 19, dependent upon claim 18, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 18.
Morcellet further discloses
an arm supporting the cutter, a support supporting the arm, and a driver to move the support (Fig. 1, P. 3 Para. 4: “With reference to FIG. 1, a vine-size robot according to the present embodiment of the invention comprises: a mobile structure 1, intended to be moved between the rows of vines, carried by at least one pair caterpillar 10; means for capturing images relating to the vines V and to their branches; image processing means 3; cutting means 4; - Piloting means 30, in connection with the image processing means 3 and with the cutting means 4, so as to direct the cutting means 4 on cutting points and trigger a cut on these cutting points.”); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to control the three-dimensional position of the cutter by controlling an operation of the arm (Fig. 1, P. 3 Para. 4: “Piloting means 30, in connection with the image processing means 3 and with the cutting means 4, so as to direct the cutting means 4 on cutting points and trigger a cut on these cutting points”, P. 4 Para. 1: “Cutting means are moved to the cutting positions, make the cuts, are returned to the waiting position.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morcellet (FR2994057A1, hereinafter Morcellet) in view of Fernandes et al. (Towards Precise Pruning Points Detection using Semantic-Instance-Aware Plant Models for Grapevine Winter Pruning Automation, hereinafter Fernandes) and Luo et al. (US 2025/0285197 A1, hereinafter Luo).
Regarding claim 8, dependent upon claim 1, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Morcellet in view of Fernandes does not explicitly tech
the determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained includes: based on the sensor data, determining whether or not the one or more canes include an unpromising cane that is not suited for selection as a cane to be retained; and
if an unpromising cane is included, determining a cane selected from among the one or more canes excluding the unpromising cane as a cane to be retained.
Luo teaches
the determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained includes: based on the sensor data, determining whether or not the one or more canes include an unpromising cane that is not suited for selection as a cane to be retained (Para [0100]: “In some embodiments, when the plant species is a fruit tree and the pruning goal is to maintain health, the pruning plan may be pruning drooping branches, parallel branches, crossing branches, and retrograde branches, etc., thereby increasing ventilation and light exposure, reducing pathogen infection, and making the fruit tree grow more vigorously.”); and
if an unpromising cane is included, determining a cane selected from among the one or more canes excluding the unpromising cane as a cane to be retained (Para [0103]: “In some embodiments, when the ecological feature of the plant is an evergreen fruit tree, the new buds may be trimmed according to the pruning principle of removing the weak and keeping the strong. In addition, if the branches are too long, the nutritional plant type needs to be pinched to ensure the plant type and sufficient nutrition for fruiting.”).
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 Morcellet in view of Fernandes with determining unpromising branches and removing unpromising branches while preserving other branches of Luo to effectively maintain the health of a fruit tree.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morcellet (FR2994057A1, hereinafter Morcellet) in view of Fernandes et al. (Towards Precise Pruning Points Detection using Semantic-Instance-Aware Plant Models for Grapevine Winter Pruning Automation, hereinafter Fernandes), Luo et al. (US 2025/0285197 A1, hereinafter Luo), and Bucher et al. (US 2022/0222819 A1, hereinafter Bucher).
Regarding claim 9, dependent upon claim 8, Morcellet in view of Fernandes and Luo teaches everything regarding claim 8.
However, Morcellet in view of Fernandes and Luo does not explicitly teach
if an unpromising cane exists, providing notification that the unpromising cane exists.
Bucher teaches
if an unpromising cane exists, providing notification that the unpromising cane exists (Para [0044]: “For example, in instances in which a disease is detected by the crop view capture module 205 on a branch of a crop, such as from images and/or video from the digital camera 210, the associated autonomous device and/or autonomous system may prune the diseased branch, provide a notification of the pruning, and/or schedule reminders for future observation of the crop.”).
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 Morcellet in view of Fernandes and Luo with providing notification of pruning of diseases branches of Bucher to effectively reduce the cost and time needed for maintain crops.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morcellet (FR2994057A1, hereinafter Morcellet) in view of Fernandes et al. (Towards Precise Pruning Points Detection using Semantic-Instance-Aware Plant Models for Grapevine Winter Pruning Automation, hereinafter Fernandes) and Gao et al. (Image Processing and Analysis for Autonomous Grapevine Pruning, hereinafter Gao).
Regarding claim 11, dependent upon claim 10, Morcellet in view of Fernandes teaches everything regarding claim 10.
However, Morcellet in view of Fernandes does not explicitly tech
the acquiring information on the number of buds to be retained includes: acquiring information on the number of buds to be retained based on a user input.
Gao teaches
the acquiring information on the number of buds to be retained includes: acquiring information on the number of buds to be retained based on a user input (Fig. 1 &2: “At pruning the mature shoot most distant from the permanent cordon is generally removed and the closest one cut back to a 2-node spur”, P. 3 Section D. Find all the Noes on This Cane: “According to the 2-bud spur pruning method, the pruning point will be the middle between the second and the third nodes from the bottom of the cane”, the “2-bud spur pruning method” is a preset method, thus the “2 buds” requirement is implied to be user inputted).
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 Morcellet in view of Fernandes with presetting the amount of bud to be kept on a cane of Gao as Morcellet, Fernandes, and Gao are all in same field of vineyard grapevine pruning and Gao’s approach will produce the predictable result of better yield of grapes.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
BETETA (ES 2795500 A1, hereinafter Beteta) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Beteta discloses an autonomous device for the automatic pruning of vines that allows automating the process of pruning the trellised vines. An artificial vision module is configured to receive the point cloud images, of a vine with branches, and generate, by combining and processing the images, a 3D model only of the vine with branches and send the 3D model to the artificial intelligence module, which is configured to identify the branch to be pruned, calculate the 3D position of the cutting position of the branch to be pruned and transfer the cutting position and a cutting path to the robotic arm motor module that connects with the robotic arm to bring the cutting element to the cutting position following the cutting path and actuate the cutting element. cut.
RIBEIRO et al. (WO 2011/158072 A1, hereinafter Ribeiro) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Ribeiro discloses vegetative expression determination in tree- shrub vegetation, which is oriented along surfaces (e.g. grapevines and actinideae), regardless of their variety group. The method consists of acquiring an on-field digital image of the grapevine, which is subject to digital processing, giving way for the identification, localization and isolation of the reference mark, which will allow determining the area of a pixel, and the grapevine canes, in order to calculate the total area of the canes. Based on a pixel area in the total area of the canes, on the cane quantity and on the medium area per cane and medium weight per cane polynomial ratio , the vigor and vegetative expression are thus obtained.
Silwal et al. (Bumblebee: A Path Towards Fully Autonomous Robotic Vine Pruning, hereinafter Silwal) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Silwal discloses the design and field evaluation of a rugged, and fully autonomous robot for end-to-end pruning of dormant season grapevines. The proposed design incorporates novel camera systems, a kinematically redundant manipulator, a ground robot, and novel algorithms in the perception system.
FRIDMAN et al. (US 2025/0165998 Al, hereinafter Fridman) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Fridman discloses a system for controlling thinning of plant reproductive structures (e.g., fruits and/or bloom) includes a processing unit; and a non-transitory media readable by the processing unit. The media storing instructions that when executed by the processing unit, cause the processing unit to generate a thinning policy based on analysis of data that may include one or more of the following: strains/cultivars, geographical area, topographic, soil, farming practice, climate, season, target market preferences, and trade.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CHEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:30 am - 4:30pm ET F: 9:30 am - 2:30pm 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, STEPHEN R KOZIOL can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/J. C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights