CTNF 18/956,556 CTNF 91072 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-9, 11, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Beteta (ES 2795500) . In re. claim 1, Beteta teaches a method for using a computing device or computing devices (8) 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: for each of one or more canes of the fruit tree, acquiring measurement values concerning two or more attributes, including an attribute concerning buds on the cane (buds (40) present) (fig. 14) (pg. 12, 3rd to last para.) and an attribute other than buds (length/position of branch, etc.) (pg. 12, 4th para.), based on sensor data of the one or more canes being acquired by a sensor or sensors (depth camera) (pg. 12, 5th para.); determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the measurement values (identification of branches to be cut) (pg. 12, 4th para.); and generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed (generating cutting point) (pg. 13, 1st. para.). In re. claim 2, Beteta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute other than buds includes at least one of a direction in which the cane extends (angle/position) (pg. 12, 4th para.), a thickness of the cane (thickness), a height of a base of the cane (if branch grows from head or trunk), or a length of the cane (length) (pg. 12, 4th para.). In re. claim 3, Beteta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute concerning buds includes at least one of a size of buds (i.e. large enough to be detected by neural network) (pg. 12, 3rd to last para.). In re. claim 4, Beteta teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: acquiring information on priority levels of the two or more attributes; wherein the determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained includes: 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 (via priority algorithm) (pg. 14, 1st para.). In re. claim 5, Beteta teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained includes: for each of the one or more canes, regarding each of the two or more attributes, determining a factor score; and determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the factor score (i.e. length/position of branch, etc. and presence of bud can be broadly considered a factor score) (pg. 12, 4th para.). In re. claim 7, Beteta teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the attribute other than buds includes a length of the cane (length) (pg. 12, 4th para.); and the determining the factor score includes: for each of the one or more canes, determining the factor score based on the length of the cane (i.e. length to be cut). In re. claim 8, Beteta teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the factor score for each of the one or more canes regarding the length of the cane is determined to be: if the length of the cane is longer than a predetermined range, lower than when the length of the cane is within the predetermined range; and if the length of the cane is shorter than the predetermined range, lower than when the length of the cane is longer than the predetermined range (understood to be encompassed by expected behavior of a real person analyzing the length) (pg. 12, 4th para.). In re. claim 9, Beteta teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: when the length of the cane determined as a cane to be retained is longer than the predetermined range, generating the cut-point data for the cane to be retained so that the length of the cane to be retained is equal to or shorter than the predetermined range (understood to be encompassed by expected behavior of a real person analyzing the length) (pg. 12, 4th para.). In re. claim 11, Beteta teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining the predetermined range based on sensor data of the fruit tree and a fruit tree that is adjacent to the fruit tree (from another branch) (pg. 12, 4th para.). In re. claim 14, Beteta teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: inputting the generated cut-point data to a controller configured or programmed to control a three-dimensional position of a cutter that cuts a cane of the fruit tree (cutting points sent to robotic arm motor module with cutting element (22)) ( pg. 13, 3rd to last para. and pg. 14, 2nd para.). In re. claim 17, Beteta teaches 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 comprises: a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of one or more canes of the fruit tree (depth camera) (pg. 12, 5th para.); and a data processor (8) configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data (pg. 8, 4th para.); wherein the data processor is configured or programmed to: based on the sensor data, for each of the one or more canes, acquire measurement values concerning two or more attributes, including an attribute concerning buds on the cane (buds (40) present) (fig. 14) (pg. 12, 3rd to last para.) and an attribute other than buds (length/position of branch, etc.) (pg. 12, 4th para.); based on the measurement values, determine the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained (identification of branches to be cut) (pg. 12, 4th para.); and generate the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed (generating cutting point) (pg. 13, 1st. para.). In re. claim 18, Beteta teaches the system of claim 17, further comprising: a cutter (cutting element (22)) to cut a cane of the fruit tree (pg. 14, 2nd para.) and a controller (15) configured or programmed to control a three-dimensional position of the cutter (pg. 8, last para); wherein the data processor is configured or programmed to input the generated cut-point data to the controller; (pg. 8, 4th para.) and the controller is configured or programmed to control the three-dimensional position of the cutter based on the cut-point data (generating cutting point) (pg. 13, 1st. para.). In re. claim 19, Beteta teaches an agricultural machine (1) comprising the system of claim 18 (fig. 5). In re. claim 20, Beteta teaches the agricultural machine of claim 19, further comprising: an arm supporting the cutter (27, 33) (figs. 7-8), a support (32, and unlabeled single arms (27) of fig. 7) supporting the arm (figs. 7-8), and a driver (motors (26, 29) to move the support (figs. 7-8); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the three-dimensional position of the cutter by controlling an operation of the arm (pg. 8, last para.) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beteta . In re. claim 6, Beteta teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained includes: for each of the one or more canes, a priority level weight that is in accordance with the priority level of the attribute; and determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained based on the total score (score resulting from most accessible cut point) (pg. 14, 1 st para.). Beteta fails to disclose calculating a total score by summing a value obtained by multiplying a factor score regarding each of the two or more attributes with a priority level weight. The examiner takes official notice that using weighted parameters to determine priority is a well-known method for providing user defined control parameters. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Beteta to calculate a total score by summing a value obtained by multiplying a factor score regarding each of the two or more attributes with a priority level weight, for the purpose of providing user defined control parameters. In re. claim 10, Beteta fails to disclose the predetermined range includes a half distance of a distance between trunks of the fruit tree and a fruit tree that is adjacent to the fruit tree. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Beteta to have the predetermined range include a half distance of a distance between trunks of the fruit tree and a fruit tree that is adjacent to the fruit tree, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II) Doing so defines a user specific behavior of a real person pruning the vineyard . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beteta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo et al. PCT/CN2023/133127, hereinafter Luo. (US 2025/0285197 is cited for convenience) . In re. claim 15, Beteta fails to disclose 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. Luo teaches acquiring information on a number of buds to be retained on each cane to be retained (number of strong buds) (para [0103]); 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 (keeping the strong) (para [0103]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Beteta to incorporate the teachings of Luo to acquire 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, generate the cut-point data for each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained, for the purpose of trimming based on known pruning principles to retain strong buds. In re. claim 16, Beteta as modified by Luo (see Luo) teach the method of claim 15, wherein 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 (keeping the strong) (para [0103]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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. /C.D.H./ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3647 /Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647 Application/Control Number: 18/956,556 Page 2 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 18/956,556 Page 3 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 18/956,556 Page 4 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 18/956,556 Page 5 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 18/956,556 Page 6 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 18/956,556 Page 7 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 18/956,556 Page 8 Art Unit: 3647
Prosecution Insights