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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally filed on 11/22/2024 and claim benefit to provisional application 63/614,737, which was filed on 12/26/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/22/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6, 7-11, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 3-6, Claim 3 states “wherein the one or more attributes include a thickness of the cane”. The thickness of the cane has already been introduced in claim 2. Therefore, the claim should be reworded to state “wherein the one or more attributes include the thickness of the cane”.
Regarding Claims 7-11, Claim 7 states “wherein the attribute concerning buds includes a size of buds on the cane”. The size of the buds on the cane have already been introduced in claim 2, and “the attribute concerning buds” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the claim should be reworded (e.g. wherein the one or more attributes includes the size of buds on the cane).
Furthermore, “a size of buds” in line 7 should be “the size of buds”.
Regarding Claim 11, there should be a “when” at the start of line 7 so that the claim reads “and when the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane determined as a cane to be retained is smaller than the predetermined range”.
Regarding Claims 18-20, Claim 18 states “wherein the data processor is configured or programmed input the generated cut-point data to the control device”. The claim should be amended to read “wherein the data processor is configured or programmed to input the generated cut-point data to the controller” to resolve the grammatical error and antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 1 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “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); based on the measurement value(s), determining a number of buds to be retained on each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained; generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed; 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.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine whether a cane should be retained or removed based on the measurement values. The person can mentally determine a number of buds to be retained for each cane that is to be retained based on the measurement values. The person can mentally generate cut-point data, such as where to cut the cane, for each cane that is to be removed. The person can mentally generate the cut-point data, such as where to cut the cane, for each cane to be retained based on the number of buds to be retained. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring measurement values based on sensor data is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring measurement values based on sensor data is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 2 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 2 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the one or more attributes include at least one of a thickness of the cane, a size of buds on the cane, or a length between nodes of the cane. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is merely stating what data is gathered (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the one or more attributes include at least one of a thickness of the cane, a size of buds on the cane, or a length between nodes of the cane. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is merely stating what data is gathered (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 3 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 3 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “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, determining a factor score based on the thickness of the cane; 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.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine a factor score using the thickness of the cane. The person can then mentally determine whether the cane should be removed or retained based on the factor score. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the one or more attributes include a thickness of the cane. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is merely stating what data is gathered (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the one or more attributes include a thickness of the cane. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is merely stating what data is gathered (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 4 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “wherein the factor score of each of the one or more canes regarding the thickness of the cane is determined to be: if the thickness of the cane is larger than a predetermined range, lower than when the thickness of the cane is within the predetermined range; and if the thickness of the cane is smaller than the predetermined range, lower than when the thickness of the cane is larger than the predetermined range.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine the factor score to be high when the thickness of the cane is within a predetermined range. The person can mentally determine the factor score to be a medium value when the thickness is greater than the predetermined range. The person can determine the factor score to be low when the thickness is below a predetermined range. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 5 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 5 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “wherein the determining the number of buds to be retained includes: when the thickness of the cane determined as a cane to be retained is smaller than the predetermined range, determining the number of buds to be retained so as to have a smaller value than the setting value.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine the number of buds to be retained to be smaller than the setting value when the thickness is smaller than the predetermined range. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquiring information on a setting value for the number of buds to be retained. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring information on a setting value for the number of buds to be retained is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquiring information on a setting value for the number of buds to be retained. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring information on a setting value for the number of buds to be retained is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 6 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquiring information on the setting value based on a user input. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring information on the setting value based on a user input is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquiring information on the setting value based on a user input. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring information on the setting value based on a user input is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 7 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “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, determining a factor score based a size of buds on the cane; 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.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine a factor score using a size of buds on the cane. The person can then mentally determine whether the cane should be removed or retained based on the factor score. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the attribute concerning buds includes a size of buds on the cane. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is merely stating what data is gathered (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the attribute concerning buds includes a size of buds on the cane. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is merely stating what data is gathered (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 8 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “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, among buds on the cane, determining the factor score based on a mean value of sizes of as many buds as the setting value; 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.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine the factor score based on a mean value of sizes of as many buds as the setting value. The person can then mentally determine whether the cane should be removed or retained based on the factor score. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquiring information on a setting value for the number of buds to be retained. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring information on a setting value for the number of buds to be retained is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquiring information on a setting value for the number of buds to be retained. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring information on a setting value for the number of buds to be retained is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 9 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquiring information on the setting value based on a user input. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring information on the setting value based on a user input is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquiring information on the setting value based on a user input. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring information on the setting value based on a user input is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 10 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “wherein the factor score of each of the one or more canes regarding the size of buds on the cane is determined to be: if the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane is larger than a predetermined range, lower than when the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane is within the predetermined range; and if the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane is smaller than the predetermined range, lower than when the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane is larger than the predetermined range.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine the factor score to be high when the mean value of the sizes of buds is within a predetermined range. The person can mentally determine the factor score to be a medium value when the mean value of the sizes of buds is greater than the predetermined range. The person can determine the factor score to be low when the mean value of the sizes of buds is below a predetermined range. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 11 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 11 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “wherein the determining the number of buds to be retained includes: when the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane determined as a cane to be retained is larger than the predetermined range, determining the number of buds to be retained so as to have a larger value than the setting value; and the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane determined as a cane to be retained is smaller than the predetermined range, determining the number of buds to be retained so as to have a smaller value than the setting value.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine the number of buds to be retained to be larger than the setting value when the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane determined as a cane to be retained is larger than the predetermined range. A person can mentally determine the number of buds to be retained to be smaller than the setting value when the mean value of the sizes of buds on the cane determined as a cane to be retained is smaller than the predetermined range. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 13 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 13 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes; wherein…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.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally group a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes. The person can then mentally determine whether the cane should be removed or retained and the number of buds to be retained. The person can then mentally generate the cut-point data, such as where to cut, for one or more canes that are grouped into a same group among the plurality of groups. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquisition of the measurement value(s). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring measurement values is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquisition of the measurement value(s). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring measurement values is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 14 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 14 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “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.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine whether the canes should be removed or retained based on the measurement values and the priority levels. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are one or more attributes include two or more attributes, and acquiring information on priority levels of the two or more attributes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because stating one or more attributes includes two or more attributes is merely stating how much data is gathered and acquiring information on priority levels of the two or more attributes is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are one or more attributes include two or more attributes, and acquiring information on priority levels of the two or more attributes. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because stating one or more attributes includes two or more attributes is merely stating how much data is gathered and acquiring information on priority levels of the two or more attributes is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 15 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “based on the number of buds to be retained, generating the cut-point data for each cane to be retained.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally generate the cut-point data for each cane to be retained based on the number of buds to be retained. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquiring information on a number of buds to be retained on each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring information on a number of buds to be retained on each cane is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquiring information on a number of buds to be retained on each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring information on a number of buds to be retained on each cane is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 16 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 16 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “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.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally generate the cut-point data, such as where to cut, so that each cane includes one or more buds. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 17 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 17 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data; based on the measurement value(s), determine the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained; based on the measurement value(s), determine a number of buds to be retained on each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained; generate the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed; 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.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally generate cut-point data for a cane of a fruit tree based on sensor data. A person can mentally determine whether a cane should be retained or removed based on the measurement values. The person can mentally determine a number of buds to be retained for each cane that is to be retained based on the measurement values. The person can mentally generate cut-point data, such as where to cut the cane, for each cane that is to be removed. The person can mentally generate the cut-point data, such as where to cut the cane, for each cane to be retained based on the number of buds to be retained. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of one or more canes of the fruit tree; a data processor, and based on the sensor data, for each of the one or more canes, acquire a measurement value(s) concerning one or more attributes, including an attribute concerning vigor of the fruit tree. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of one or more canes of the fruit tree and acquiring measurement values based on sensor data is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)), and a data processor is simply a tool used to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of one or more canes of the fruit tree; a data processor, and based on the sensor data, for each of the one or more canes, acquire a measurement value(s) concerning one or more attributes, including an attribute concerning vigor of the fruit tree. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of one or more canes of the fruit tree and acquiring measurement values based on sensor data is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)), and a data processor is simply a tool used to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
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 1, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al (US 20160205872 A1) in view of Lyons et al (US 20160057940 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Chan and Lyons respectively)
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Chan teaches 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 (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0005, 0034, 0047, 0073-0077, and Figure 9, the method executed by the computer is for generating cut-point/pruning data on a cane/branch of a fruit tree), the method comprising:
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 (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0002, 0047, 0073-0077, and Figure 9, the system generates cut-point/pruning data on a cane/branch of a fruit tree), the system comprising:
a sensor or sensors to acquire sensor data of one or more canes of the fruit tree (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0051-0052, the sensors acquire sensor data of the branches/canes); and
a data processor configured or programmed to generate the cut-point data for a cane of the fruit tree based on the sensor data (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0034, 0049-0052, 0073-0077, and Figure 9, the processor 310 generates cut-point/pruning data based on the sensor data); wherein
the data processor is configured or programmed to:
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 (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0051-0052, the sensors acquire attributes concerning vigor of the canes/branches);
Chan fails to disclose 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);
based on the measurement value(s), determining a number of buds to be retained on each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained;
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed; 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.
However, Lyons teaches 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) (See at least Lyons Paragraph 0094, the shoots/canes that are too short or too long are removed, and the shoots/canes between 20-60 cm are retained);
based on the measurement value(s), determining a number of buds to be retained on each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0094-0100, the number of buds/flowers is determined for each retained shoot/cane based on the length of the shoot/cane);
generating the cut-point data for each cane determined as a cane to be removed (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0066 and 0094, the vision system and algorithm are used to determine how the arm is to remove the shoots/canes to be eliminated, which is interpreted as generating cut-point data for a cane to be removed); 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 (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0066, 0094-0100, and 0103-0104, the number of buds/flowers is used to determine removal zones/cut-point data for the branches/canes that are to be retained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Chan with Lyons to generate cut-point data for each cane determined to be removed and generate cut-point data for each cane determined to be retained based on the number of buds to be retained. This modification, as taught by Lyons, would eliminate canes that are too long or too short, and reduce the cropping potential by thinning out the number of fruiting shoots, which would prevent misshapen fruit, reduce the risk of insect damage, and enhance coloration of mature fruits (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0092-0100).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Chan fails to disclose grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes; 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.
However, Lyons teaches grouping a plurality of canes of the fruit tree into a plurality of groups based on sensor data of the plurality of canes (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0094-0100, the canes/shoots are placed into groups based on the length); 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 (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0066, 0094-0100, 0103-0104, and Figure 2, the process is carried out for the plurality of canes/shoots, some of which belong to the same group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Chan with Lyons to group the plurality of canes into a plurality of groups. This modification, as taught by Lyons, would eliminate canes and reduce the cropping potential by thinning out the number of fruiting shoots according to which group they belong in, which would prevent misshapen fruit, reduce the risk of insect damage, and enhance coloration of mature fruits (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0092-0100).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Chan fails to disclose acquiring information on a number of buds to be retained on each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained; based on the number of buds to be retained, generating the cut-point data for each cane to be retained.
However, Lyons teaches acquiring information on a number of buds to be retained on each cane having been determined as a cane to be retained (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0094-0100, for each cane/shoot that is retained, the number of buds/flowers to be retained is acquired); based on the number of buds to be retained, generating the cut-point data for each cane to be retained (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0094-0100, and 0103-0104, the cut-point/removal data is generated based on the number of buds/flowers to be retained for each cane/shoot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Chan with Lyons to generate the cut-point data based on the number of buds retained. This modification, as taught by Lyons, would reduce the cropping potential by removing the appropriate number of buds, which would prevent misshapen fruit, reduce the risk of insect damage, and enhance coloration of mature fruits (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0092-0100 and 0103-0104).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Chan fails to disclose 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.
However, Lyons teaches 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 (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0094-0100, and 0103-0104, each cane/shoot that is retained includes one or more buds/flowers after being cut).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Chan with Lyons to generate the cut-point data so that each cane that is retained includes one or more buds. This modification, as taught by Lyons, would reduce the cropping potential by removing the appropriate number of buds while keeping at least one bud, which would prevent misshapen fruit, reduce the risk of insect damage, and enhance coloration of mature fruits while still keeping at least one bud to flower into a fruit (See at least Lyons Paragraphs 0092-0100 and 0103-0104).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Lyons, and in further view of George et al (US 20130199089 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as George)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Chan fails to disclose the one or more attributes include at least one of a thickness of the cane, a size of buds on the cane, or a length between nodes of the cane.
However, George teaches the one or more attributes include a thickness of the cane (See at least George Paragraphs 0014-0020, the attribute includes thickness of the cane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Chan with George to have the attribute include a thickness of the cane. George teaches that the selection for cutting unwanted canes is based on the thickness of the cane (See at least George Paragraphs 0014-0020). This modification, as taught by George, would ensure that the canes retained have a sufficient thickness (See at least George Paragraphs 0014-0020), which would ensure all the nutrients and energy of the vine are taken up by the select canes and thus promotes a full crop from the selected canes over a shorter time-period (See at least George Paragraph 0010).
Claims 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Lyons, and in further view of Fang (US 20250176478 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Fang)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Chan fails to disclose 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.
However, Fang teaches 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 (See at least Fang Paragraphs 0043-0045 and Figures 3-4, the control algorithm outputs the control information regarding the cut-point data to the robotic controller that controls the robot with a cutter for cutting a cane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Chan with Fang to input the generated cut-point data to the controller that controls the cutter. This modification, as taught by Fang, would allow the controller to control the position of the cutter to make a cut at the appropriate location (See at least Fang Paragraphs 0043-0045), thus, improving the accuracy of the cutter.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Chan teaches a cutter to cut a cane of the fruit tree (See at least Chan Paragraph 0030 and Figures 2a-2b, the pruning device is the cutter) and a controller configured or programmed to control a three-dimensional position of the cutter (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0030, 0044, and 0047, the processing circuit 150 is interpreted as the controller, which controls the pruning device/cutter);
…and
the controller is configured or programmed to control the three-dimensional position of the cutter based on the cut-point data (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0030, 0044, 0047, 0050, 0073, and 0076, the processing circuit 150/controller controls the pruning device/cutter based on the cut-point/pruning data).
Chan fails to explicitly disclose the data processor is configured or programmed input the generated cut-point data to the control device.
However, Fang teaches the data processor is configured or programmed input the generated cut-point data to the control device (See at least Fang Paragraphs 0043-0044 and Figure 3, the control algorithm/data processor outputs the control information regarding the cut-point data to the robotic controller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Chan with Fang to input the generated cut-point data to the controller that controls the cutter. This modification, as taught by Fang, would allow the controller to control the position of the cutter to make a cut at the appropriate location (See at least Fang Paragraphs 0043-0045), thus, improving the accuracy of the cutter.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Chan teaches an agricultural machine comprising the system of claim 18 (See at least Chan Paragraph 0028 and Figures 2a-2b, the unmanned pruning vehicle is the agricultural machine).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Chan teaches an arm supporting the cutter (See at least Chan Paragraph 0030 and Figures 2a-2b), a support supporting the arm (See at least Chan Paragraph 0030 and Figures 2a-2b, the chassis is the support), and a driver to move the support (See at least Chan Paragraph 0032 and Figure 2b, the wheels are the driver to move the support/chassis); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to control the three-dimensional position of the cutter by controlling an operation of the arm (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0030, 0044, 0047, and Figure 2b, the position of the cutter/pruning device is controlled, which is connected to the arm with a joint to allow for the arm to be orientated at different angles).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Lyons, and in further view of Fridman et al (US 20250165998 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Fridman)
Regarding Claim 14, modified Chan teaches the one or more attributes include two or more attributes (See at least Chan Paragraphs 0051-0052, the sensors acquire multiple attributes).
Even though Lyons teaches the thinning process includes determining the one or more canes each as a cane to be removed or a cane to be retained (See at least Lyons Paragraph 0094, the thinning process includes determining which cane to remove and which cane to retain), modified Chan fails to disclose acquiring information on priority levels of the two or more attributes; and
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.
However, Fridman teaches acquiring information on priority levels of the two or more attributes (See at least Fridman Paragraphs 0039 and 0041, the system prioritizes parameters relevant to thinning, which includes two or more attributes); and
the thinning process is based on the measurement values and the priority levels (See at least Fridman Paragraphs 0019-0021, 0039, 0041, and 0051, the branch pruning, which is part of the thinning process, is based on the measurement values and the prioritization of parameters relevant to thinning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Chan with Fridman to determine 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. This modification, as taught by Fridman, would allow the system to prioritize the various parameters relevant to the thinning in order to reach the average fruit required according to the strain/cultivar, wherein the prioritization of parameters may vary among different strains/cultivars (See at least Fridman Paragraph 0039), thus, ensuring the desired number of fruits are reached for each strain/cultivar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haldewang et al (US 20220110263 A1) teaches managing agricultural crops by using a vehicle that shoots pellets
Geltner (US 20200120886 A1) teaches a plant treatment system that prunes branches
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657