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 .
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 101
The current claims are compliant with 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite a practical application. Namely, the claims are not just an algorithm for determining a parameter and target feature, but using those results to adjust and cause the emitter to direct an emission towards the targeted feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anderson US20230046844A1, hereinafter “Anderson.”
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 18, Anderson discloses a vehicle (P103 discloses an agricultural machine that may be a harvester, a planting machine, a tillage machine, a sprayer, a towing vehicle (such as a tractor), an implement, or another agricultural machine), comprising:
an emitter adjustable to selectively focus on a targeted feature within an operating vicinity of the vehicle (P232 discloses a sprayer has components that can recognize weeds and spray individual weed locations or other plant locations or pest locations that are detected by the sprayer during runtime); and
a control circuit communicatively coupled to the emitter, wherein the control circuit is to (See below):
determine a parameter associated with the operating vicinity of the vehicle;
detect the targeted feature based at least in part, on the parameter;
adjust the emitter to selectively focus the emitter with respect to the targeted feature; and
cause the emitter to direct an emission toward the targeted feature while sparing non-targeted features within the operating vicinity.
As above, P232 discloses a sprayer has components that can recognize weeds and spray individual weed locations or other plant locations or pest locations that are detected by the sprayer during runtime. This is 1) determining the parameter of recognizing weeds, and these weeds are in a vicinity of the vehicle; 2) detecting the targeted feature of the specific weed; 3) adjusting the emitter to focus on individual weeds; and 3) emitting the spray contents on that particular weed.
This is further expanded on in P250 which states the particular process, called see and spray, wherein see and spray vehicles identify weeds or pests or disease or other indicia that indicate that a chemical should be sprayed, as the vehicle is traveling through the field, and then sprays the identified weeds, pests, disease, or other locations. The specific location where the chemical was sprayed or otherwise administered (the discrete see and spray locations) is logged, and the discrete see and spray locations can be displayed in a georeferenced way.
Note that for claim 18, this see and spray is “machine vision”.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, and 15, Anderson discloses:
(for claim 2) wherein the control circuit is configured to detect, adjust, or both detect and adjust based on an artificial intelligence model using values of the parameter to control the emitter (P107 discloses the workflow processing system can include model 201, neural network 203, rules-based system 205, lookup tables 207, formula-based system 209, artificial intelligence-based system 211, and/or other items. It should be appreciated that to use a model, there must be values assigned to the target features. This is further shown in P30 where a metric value indicative of a measure of difference between the expected visualization and the actual visual representation).
(for claim 3) wherein the control circuit is configured to alter an operational parameter of the emitter responsive at least in part to the artificial intelligence model (See P107 and P232).
(for claim 4) wherein the parameter comprises at least one of a type of targeted item (as above, the parameter is type of weed).
(for claim 15) training an artificial intelligence model based at least in part on values of the parameter and thereby to improve a future distinction of the targeted feature from the non-targeted feature (P107 discloses the workflow processing system can include model 201, neural network 203, rules-based system 205, lookup tables 207, formula-based system 209, artificial intelligence-based system 211, and/or other items. It should be appreciated that to use a model, there must be values assigned to the target features. This is further shown in P30 where a metric value indicative of a measure of difference between the expected visualization and the actual visual representation).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses the vehicle of claim wherein the control circuit is configured to forgo or omit the emission toward the targeted feature based at least in part on:
the parameter being outside a determined range (P189 shows that items are targeted only within predetermined geographic areas).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses wherein the parameter is indicative of one or more of a position of the targeted feature (P189 and P232 disclose a particular weed in a particular location).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Anderson discloses in P192 a position and a location sensor.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Anderson discloses wherein the operational parameter is adjusted and that parameter is direction (See P175 where the distance is characterized in terms of its direction from mobile device 104, as indicated by block 372. The distance is also characterized by the distance 374 from mobile device 104, any change in elevation (such as if the user is pointing the camera in mobile device 104 slightly upwardly or downwardly to accommodate terrain, etc.) as indicated by block 376, and the displacement can be calculated using other information 378 as well).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Anderson discloses wherein emission comprises a stream of a chemical composition to eliminate the targeted feature (See P232).
Regarding claims 13, Anderson discloses comprising a mast supporting the emitter to adjust the mast (P274 disclose a sprayer boom bounce).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 11, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson US20230046844A1, hereinafter “Anderson.”
Regarding claims 6 and 19, while Anderson does not explicitly disclose two vehicles, these are not required by the system. Claim 6 simply recites assigning a task to another vehicle, which does not change the structure of the vehicle, and claim 19 is a system that comprises only a control circuit, so the second vehicle is not positively recited and not part of the system, thereby also not impacting the structure. As such, these are nonfunctional descriptive material that are not afforded patentable weight.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Anderson discloses in P232 that chemicals are sprayed. The only difference between Anderson and claims 11 and 16 is that Anderson only discloses spraying chemicals, and not electromagnetic radiation. However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the chemical of Anderson with the electromagnetic radiation or any other substance not claimed and carry out the method in the exact same way. Stated differently, the claims do not recite anything particular about the emitter that has to be changed or modified based on the substance that it is emitting. Therefore, the active step of activating the emitter stays exactly the same regardless of the substance, so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chemical of Anderson with any other substance and achieve predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to priority are not persuasive. Specifically, in the parent application, P56 is the only place parameters are described which do not relate to a targeted feature. P56 discloses data content of the image data can indicate that the portable unit is outside of the operator cab based on a change in one or more parameters of the image data. One of these parameters can include brightness or intensity of light in the image data. For example, during daylight hours, an increase in brightness or light intensity in the image data can indicate that the operator and the portable unit has moved from inside the cab to outside the cab. A decrease in brightness or light intensity in the image data can indicate that the operator and the portable unit has moved from outside the cab to inside the cab. Another parameter of the image data can include the presence or absence of one or more objects in the image data. For example, the control system can use one or more image and/or video processing algorithms, such as edge detection, pixel metrics, comparisons to benchmark images, object detection, gradient determination, or the like, to identify the presence or absence of one or more objects in the image data. If the object is inside the cab or vehicle, then the inability of the control system to detect the object in the image data can indicate that the operator is no longer in the cab or vehicle. But, if the object is detected in the image data, then the control system can determine that the operator is in the cab or vehicle.
Contrast this to the present application where the parameters are described throughout the Specification, P142 and 143 state these parameters are associated with weather, stating an algorithmic flow diagram of a method 1900 of determining a parameter and detecting a feature associated with an operating vicinity of a vehicle is depicted according to an embodiment of the invention. According to the non-limiting embodiment of FIG. 19, the method can include training 1902 the maintenance of way model using a data set relevant to the intended application. For example, if the features to be detected include plants, hazards, rail conditions, locations, and weather conditions, then information, including sensor data, associated with parameters of the features should be included in the training data. The training date may include a diverse set of labeled data from various sources including captured images or video of route conditions, traffic signs, and obstacles, three-dimensional point clouds or distance measurements for object detection and mapping, location and/or inertial measurement data associated with various vehicle positions, velocities, and orientations, weather sensor data, including temperatures, humidities, and precipitation levels (e.g., rain, fog, snow), and/or traffic data such as vehicle flow, route congestion, traffic light states, wayside information, amongst others. The data should be labeled, tagging parameters (e.g., characteristics) of features (e.g., plants, other vehicles, cars, pedestrians, traffic signs) and conditions (e.g., wet rails, snow, fog, etc.) that could effect vehicle operation. For example, images of may be labeled with bounding boxes identifying vehicles, rails, lanes, pedestrians, while other sensor data might be annotated with object distance.
Regarding the prior art arguments, Applicant appears to argue portions of the reference not cited by the Examiner. As above, P232 discloses a sprayer has components that can recognize weeds and spray individual weed locations or other plant locations or pest locations that are detected by the sprayer during runtime. This is 1) determining the parameter of recognizing weeds, and these weeds are in a vicinity of the vehicle; 2) detecting the targeted feature of the specific weed; 3) adjusting the emitter to focus on individual weeds; and 3) emitting the spray contents on that particular weed.
This is further expanded on in P250 which states the particular process, called see and spray, wherein see and spray vehicles identify weeds or pests or disease or other indicia that indicate that a chemical should be sprayed, as the vehicle is traveling through the field, and then sprays the identified weeds, pests, disease, or other locations. The specific location where the chemical was sprayed or otherwise administered (the discrete see and spray locations) is logged, and the discrete see and spray locations can be displayed in a georeferenced way.
Prior Art Cited but not Relied on
Van Alphen US20220142142A1 which is directed to an agricultural device and method for dispensing a liquid product to be sprayed over a surface, such as an agricultural field. The agricultural device includes a boom having a longitudinal supply line for transporting the liquid product and a plurality of nozzles, a pressure regulation unit for controlling the opening and closing of one or more associated nozzles, a positioning system to provide position data, where the position data comprises a real-time position of the agricultural device and a time stamp, a detection system positioned on the boom and/or in front of the agricultural device and is configured to provide detection data comprising information on the surface to be sprayed, and a map generator to, based on the detection data and position data, generate a raster-based representation of the surface, the representation comprising a number of raster elements, where each raster element includes position data associated with that raster element.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights