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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 27 August 2026 is
acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 should be amended to recite “with conditions of low camera confidence, low furrow integrity, cleanliness, dust, or other environmental conditions” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is indefinite because of the recited limitation: the first instance of “identifying the number of outliers …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is indefinite because of the recited limitation: the first instance of “with the total number of plurality of camera image values …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 10 recites:
A method for evaluating quality of provided values for an agricultural machine, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of camera image values for a time interval;
processing the plurality of camera image values by comparing each of the plurality of camera image values to one or more of the other plurality of camera image values;
identifying the number of outliers in the plurality of camera image values for the time interval;
generating a value confidence for the time interval by comparing the number of outliers with the total number of plurality of camera image values for the time interval; and
providing feedback indicating the value confidence.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, processing …, identifying …, and generating … in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for evaluating quality of provided values for an agricultural machine, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of camera image values for a time interval;
processing the plurality of camera image values by comparing each of the plurality of camera image values to one or more of the other plurality of camera image values;
identifying the number of outliers in the plurality of camera image values for the time interval;
generating a value confidence for the time interval by comparing the number of outliers with the total number of plurality of camera image values for the time interval; and
providing feedback indicating the value confidence.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining … and providing … the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining … step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of acquiring data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing … step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting information from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 10 further recite the “A method for evaluating quality of provided values for an agricultural machine, comprising: … obtaining a plurality of camera image values for a time interval; … providing feedback indicating the value confidence. “(claim 10), which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of obtaining … is well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of providing … is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 11-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 10.
Therefore, claims 10-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 10-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-20 of copending Application No. 18/985,683 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as shown in the following claim correspondence table:
Present Application
Application No. 18/985,683.
10
10, 11, 12
11
10, 12
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 10-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-20 of copending Application No. 18/416,280 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as shown in the following claim correspondence table:
Present Application
Application No. 18/416,280
10
11, 12, 13
11
13
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
14
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari (US 20190379847 A1) in view of Mizushima (US 20220192084 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ferrari discloses a method for evaluating quality of provided values for an agricultural machine (See at least abstract, [0001-0008], [0015-0020] The method may include receiving, with a computing device, the plurality of images from the vision-based sensor. The method may also include determining, with the computing device, an image parameter value associated with each of a plurality of pixels contained within each of the plurality of images. A controller of the disclosed system may be configured to determine when one or more pixels of a vision-based sensor (e.g., a camera) mounted on the agricultural machine are obscured or otherwise effectively inoperative. Specifically, in several embodiments, the controller may be configured to receive a plurality of images from the vision-based sensor. Furthermore, the controller may then be configured to determine an image parameter value associated with each of a plurality of pixels contained within each of the received images), comprising :obtaining a plurality of camera image values for a time interval (See at least abstract, [0032-0040], [0044-0050] As shown in FIG. 6, at (202), the method 200 may include receiving, with a computing device, a plurality of images from a vision-based sensor provided in operative association with an agricultural machine. For instance, as described above, the controller 126 may be communicatively coupled to one or more vision-based sensors 104. As such, the images captured by the vision-based sensor(s) 104 may be received by the controller 126. Additionally, at (204), the method 200 may include determining, with the computing device, an image parameter value associated with each of a plurality of pixels contained within each of the images received from the vision-based sensor. For instance, as described above, the controller 122 may be configured to determine image parameter value (e.g., a value associated with light, intensity, color, etc.) associated with at least a portion of the pixels contained within each of the received images. The controller 122 may be configured to assign weights to the determined image parameter values, such as based on the time when the images were captured by the vision-based sensor(s) 104. In such embodiment, the assigned weights may impact the effect each image parameter value has on the variance calculation. For example, the controller 122 may be configured to assign greater weights to the image parameter values associated with more recently captured images and lower weights to the image parameter values associated with older images. In this regard, the controller 122 may include suitable a mathematical formula(s) stored within its memory 126 for calculating or otherwise determining the variance based on the determined image parameter values); processing the plurality of camera image values by comparing each of the plurality of camera image values to one or more of the other plurality of camera image values (See at least abstract, [0030-0040] The controller 122 may be configured to determine an image parameter value for a plurality of images received from the vision-based sensor(s) 104. Thereafter, the controller 122 may be configured to process or analyze at least a portion of the pixels contained within each of the received images to determine an associated image parameter value for each analyzed pixel. In one embodiment, the controller 122 may be configured to determine the image parameter value for every pixel contained within each received image. However, in another embodiment, the controller 122 may be configured to determine the image parameter value for only a portion of the pixels contained within each received image, such as for pixels at selected locations within the images. The controller 122 may be configured to determine a variance associated with the determined image parameter values (e.g., light intensity) for such respective pixel across the received images. Specifically, in several embodiments, the controller 122 may be configured to calculate the variance in the determined image parameter values for each analyzed pixel across the received images. More specifically, the controller 122 may be configured to calculate the variance for the pixel 132 based on the determined image parameter values for the pixel 132A contained within image 130A, the pixel 132B contained within image 130B, and the pixel 132C contained within image 130C. Similarly, the controller 122 may be configured to calculate the variance for the pixel 134 based on the determined image parameter values for the pixel 134A contained within image 130A, the pixel 134B contained within image 130B, and the pixel 134C contained within image 130C); identifying the number of outliers in the plurality of camera image values for the time interval (See at least abstract, [0030-0040], [0045-0050] The controller 122 may be configured to identify when a given pixel is obscured or inoperative. Specifically, as the agricultural machine 10 is moved across the field, various objects (e.g., plants, residue, soil, and/or the like) within the field move into and subsequently out of the field(s) of view of the vision-based sensor(s) 104. That is, the images captured by the vision-based sensor(s) 104 may generally change as the agricultural machine 10 is moved across the field. As such, the determined image parameter values (e.g., intensity, color, and/or the like) may vary for each pixel across the received images. In this regard, little or no variance in determined image parameter values for a given pixel may generally be indicative of the given pixel being obscured or inoperative. The controller 122 may be configured to compare the determined variance associated with each analyzed pixel to a predetermined variance range. In the event that the determined variance for a given pixel falls outside of the predetermined variance range, the controller 122 may be configured to identify the given pixel as being obscured or inoperative. The variance associated with the image parameter values for a given pixel of the plurality of pixels is outside of a predetermined range, identifying, with the computing device, the given pixel as being at least one of obscured or inoperative. For instance, as described above, the controller 122 may be configured to identify a given pixel contained within the received images as being obscured or inoperative when the determined variance of the image parameter values for the given pixel falls below a predetermined variance range. The method 200 may also include determining, with the computing device, when the vision-based sensor is effectively obscured or inoperative based on a number or a density of individual pixels of the plurality of pixels that have been identified as being obscured or inoperative.).
Ferrari does not explicitly disclose generating a value confidence for the time interval by comparing the number of outliers with the total number of plurality of camera image values for the time interval; and providing feedback indicating the value confidence. However, Mizushima teaches generating a value confidence for the time interval by comparing the number of outliers with the total number of plurality of camera image values for the time interval (See at least abstract, [0060], [0081-0085], [0090-0095], [0163-0165], [0179-0182], [0208-0209] Confidence level generator 234 generates one or more confidence scores and/or quality scores corresponding to each image. The confidence scores and quality scores may be indicative of such things as the presence of obscurants, the ability of the system to accurately apply material based upon the image, whether the image is blurry or the image sensor 122 is damaged or blocked, among other things. confidence level generator 234 can generate one or more confidence level metrics or quality level metrics indicative of the quality of the image being analyzed and/or the confidence that the system has in being able to identify targets in that image and apply material to the targets. For instance, it may be that a number of obscurants (such as dust, smoke, etc.) are detected in the air. This may reduce the quality level corresponding to the image. In another example, it may be that the image sensor 122 is malfunctioning, or is blocked by mud, or other debris. This may also reduce the quality of the image or the confidence with which the system can identify and apply material to targets in the image. In addition, agricultural machine 100 may be traveling over an area of the field that has a high density of weeds. After the images are received by image processing module 124, confidence level generator 234 generates one or more confidence or quality metrics corresponding to the image. Performing confidence level processing is indicated by block 588 in the flow diagram of FIG. 22A. Based upon the confidence level or quality metrics, various different processing steps can be performed. If the target identified by the forward camera and image sensors 122 are different by a threshold amount, this may mean that there is dust or other obscurant and the confidence level corresponding to the image can be reduced. Real-time sensors 414 sense variable values in real-time, as machine 100 is operating. he target identification and control system captures an image of an area ahead of the agricultural machine, in the direction of travel, and processes that image to identify targets in time for applicator functionality on the agricultural machine to apply a material to those targets); and providing feedback indicating the value confidence (See at least abstract, [0080-0085], [0090-0095], [0178-0180] Confidence level generator 234 generates one or more confidence scores and/or quality scores corresponding to each image. Image quality confidence level detector 346 can sense criteria that bear upon the quality of the image. Image quality confidence level detector 346 then generates an output indicative of the image quality. One example of the operation of confidence level generator 234, in generating image quality metrics and confidence metrics corresponding to the image and the ability of the system to accurately apply material to a target). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari to incorporate the teachings of Mizushima which teaches generating a value confidence for the time interval by comparing the number of outliers with the total number of plurality of camera image values for the time interval; and providing feedback indicating the value confidence since they are directed to agricultural machines evaluating image data and incorporation of Mizushima would improve the reliability and comprehensiveness of the camera data.
Regarding claim 11, Ferrari does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of camera image values comprise a camera quality value. However, Mizushima teaches wherein each of the plurality of camera image values comprise a camera quality value (See at least abstract, [0090-0095], [0175-0180] Image quality confidence level detector 346 can sense criteria that bear upon the quality of the image. Image quality confidence level detector 346 then generates an output indicative of the image quality. Image quality level detector 346 first detects an image quality level. This is indicated by block 684 in FIG. 23. For instance, detector 346 can determine whether the image sensor is too close or too far from the target to obtain a high quality image, as indicated by block 686. Detector 346 can also detect image quality, such as whether the image is blurry, whether the image sensor is blocked, whether the image sensor is obstructed by obscurants, or otherwise. Detecting image quality is indicated by block 688. Detector 346 can also generate an image quality level based upon ambient light conditions, as indicated by block 690. The image quality level can be generated in other ways as well, as indicated by block 692). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari to incorporate the teachings of Mizushima which teaches wherein each of the plurality of camera image values comprise a camera quality value since they are directed to agricultural machines evaluating image data and incorporation of Mizushima would improve the accuracy of camera quality assessment.
Regarding claim 12, Ferrari does not explicitly disclose wherein the camera quality value is determined from image data provided by a camera. However, Mizushima teaches wherein the camera quality value is determined from image data provided by a camera (See at least abstract, [0090-0095], [0175-0182] Image quality level detector 346 first detects an image quality level. Detector 346 can also detect image quality, such as whether the image is blurry, whether the image sensor is blocked, whether the image sensor is obstructed by obscurants, or otherwise. Detecting image quality is indicated by block 688. Detector 346 can also generate an image quality level based upon ambient light conditions, as indicted by block 690. The image quality level can be generated in other ways as well, as indicated by block 692. Confidence level generator 234 can generate one or more confidence level metrics or quality level metrics indicative of the quality of the image being analyzed and/or the confidence that the system has in being able to identify targets in that image and apply material to the targets. Generating control signals based on the confidence and image quality levels is indicated by block 714. Switching between real time target identification (sense and apply) and broadcast modes is indicated by block 716. Generating an operator alert indicative of the low confidence or image quality levels is indicated by block 718. In order to evaluate the level of obscurants, such as dust, a camera or other image sensor can be deployed ahead of the boom (on a forward portion of machine 100) to detect targets. The results of detecting targets with the forward camera can be compared to the results of detecting targets from image sensors 122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari to incorporate the teachings of Mizushima which teaches wherein the camera quality value is determined from image data provided by a camera since they are directed to agricultural machines evaluating image data and incorporation of Mizushima would improve and enhance the detection of camera degradation.
Regarding claim 16, Ferrari does not explicitly disclose wherein the feedback is considered by an automated system. However, Mizushima teaches wherein the feedback is considered by an automated system (See at least abstract, [0080-0088], [0090-0094], [0230-0235] Image quality confidence level detector 346 then generates an output indicative of the image quality. The image quality and the various confidence levels generated by confidence level generator 234 may be considered by other logic or components in the system in determining whether and how to apply material to the field. It will be noted that the above discussion has described a variety of different systems, components and/or logic. It will be appreciated that such systems, components and/or logic can be comprised of hardware items (such as processors and associated memory, or other processing components, some of which are described below) that perform the functions associated with those systems, components and/or logic). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari to incorporate the teachings of Mizushima which teaches wherein the feedback is considered by an automated system since they are directed to agricultural machines evaluating image data and incorporation of Mizushima would improve the reliability of the system with automated control.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari (US 20190379847 A1) in view of Mizushima (US 20220192084 A1), and further in view of Ascherl (US 20220125032 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ferrari as modified by Mizushima does not explicitly disclose wherein the feedback is displayed visually on a user interface. However, Ascherl teaches wherein the feedback is displayed visually on a user interface (See at least abstract, [0085-0090], [0102-0110] FIG. 6 is a block diagram showing one example of an interface display that can be generated and provided by confidence system 230, such as to an operator 262 on an operator interface 262 or to a remote user 270 on a user interface 268. As illustrated in FIG. 6, interface display 450 includes confidence level indication 452, confidence level threshold indication 454. Confidence level indication 452 displays the confidence level value generated by confidence system 230, as indicated by confidence level value indication 453. While illustratively shown as a percentage, it will be noted that the confidence level value can be represented in a variety of ways, such as numeric, such as percentages (e.g., 0%-100%) or scalar values, gradation or scaled (e.g., A-F, “high, medium, low”, 1-10, etc.), advisory (e.g., “change operation”, “can't detect”, “slow”, etc.), as well as various other representations). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari as modified by Mizushima to incorporate the teachings of Ascherl which teaches wherein the feedback is displayed visually on a user interface since they are directed to agricultural machine operations and incorporation of Ascherl would improve and enhance operator awareness of data reliability.
Regarding claim 14, Ferrari as modified by Mizushima does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface displays a bar configured to change in appearance to correspond with the value confidence. However, Ascherl teaches wherein the user interface displays a bar configured to change in appearance to correspond with the value confidence (See at least abstract, [0030-0040] [0105-0110] In that case, the interface mechanisms can also include actuatable elements displayed on the display devices, such as icons, links, buttons, etc. The interface mechanisms can include one or more microphones where speech recognition is provided on spraying system 102. They can also include audio interface mechanisms such as speakers, haptic interface mechanisms or a wide variety of other interface mechanisms. The interface mechanisms can include other output mechanisms as well, such as dials, gauges, meter outputs, lights, audible or visual alerts or haptic output mechanisms, etc. Confidence level indication 452 displays the confidence level value generated by confidence system 230, as indicated by confidence level value indication 453. While illustratively shown as a percentage, it will be noted that the confidence level value can be represented in a variety of ways, such as numeric, such as percentages (e.g., 0%-100%) or scalar values, gradation or scaled (e.g., A-F, “high, medium, low”, 1-10, etc.), advisory (e.g., “change operation”, “can't detect”, “slow”, etc.), as well as various other representations. The form of representation can be selectable or otherwise customizable by the operator or user, for example, based on an operator or user preference. Additionally, confidence level indication 452 displays a real-time or near-real time confidence level value and the confidence level value indication 453 can change dynamically throughout the operation of mobile machine 101. FIG. 6 also shows that interface display can include actuatable elements 456 and 458 which are actuatable by an operator or a user to adjust the confidence level value threshold. Though, in other examples, the confidence level threshold indication 454, itself, could be actuatable by an operator or user, such that actuation surfaces a digital keyboard or number pad, or other input element, to allow for adjustment of the confidence level value threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari as modified by Mizushima to incorporate the teachings of Ascherl which teaches wherein the user interface displays a bar configured to change in appearance to correspond with the value confidence since they are directed to agricultural machine operations and incorporation of Ascherl would improve the readability of the confidence display.
Regarding claim 15, Ferrari as modified by Mizushima does not explicitly disclose further comprising displaying, on the user interface, an icon or indicator to correspond with conditions of low camera confidence, low furrow integrity, cleanliness, dust, or other environmental condition. However, Ascherl teaches further comprising displaying, on the user interface, an icon or indicator to correspond with conditions of low camera confidence, low furrow integrity, cleanliness, dust, or other environmental condition (See at least abstract, [0030-0035], [0109-0115] In that case, the interface mechanisms can also include actuatable elements displayed on the display devices, such as icons, links, buttons, etc. As illustrated, interface display 450 also includes a confidence issue indication 463. Confidence issue indication 463 displays an indication of one or more issues adversely affecting the confidence level, such as one or more characteristics adversely affecting the confidence level, as identified by confidence issue logic 362. As shown in FIG. 6, confidence issue indication 463 can display a representation, such as a word representation, of the confidence issues. For example, “machine speed too high”, “calibrate sensor”, “sensor signal strength too low”, “rain”, etc. It will be noted that the confidence issues can be represented in a variety of different ways, including, for example, numerical. Further, confidence system 230 can display a separate recommendation corresponding to each of the particular confidence levels, each of the particular recommendations can be displayed as part of recommendation indication 462, for example an ordered list of recommendations. Additionally, confidence system 230 can display separate confidence issues corresponding to each of the particular confidence levels, each of the particular confidence issues can be displayed as part of confidence issue indication 463. FIG. 6 also shows that interface display 450 can include various indications of characteristics, including, environmental characteristics indication 464, machine characteristics indication 466, and sensor characteristics indication 468. As shown, environmental characteristics indication 464 indicates, as some examples, a current wind direction and speed, a soil moisture, a current average weed height, though environmental characteristics indication 464 can include any other number of indications of characteristics of the environment in which mobile machine 101 operates). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari as modified by Mizushima to incorporate the teachings of Ascherl which teaches further comprising displaying, on the user interface, an icon or indicator to correspond with conditions of low camera confidence, low furrow integrity, cleanliness, dust, or other environmental condition since they are directed to agricultural machine operations and incorporation of Ascherl would improve and enhance diagnosis of low-confidence conditions.
Regarding claim 20, Ferrari as modified by Mizushima and Ascherl disclose further comprising displaying, on the user interface, an alert identifying obscured camera images, wherein the alert includes a text alert, an audio alert, or a camera icon (See at least Ferrari Abstract, [0030-0035], [0038-0048] The user interface 102 may include one or more feedback devices (not shown), such as display screens, speakers, warning lights, and/or the like, which are configured to communicate such feedback. Example, in such instances, in one embodiment, the controller 122 may be configured generate an operator notification (e.g., by causing a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator of the work vehicle 12 via the user interface 102) that provides an indication that one or more of the vision-based sensors 104 have been identified as being obscured or inoperative. The method 200 may include, when the variance associated with the image parameter values for a given pixel of the plurality of pixels is outside of a predetermined range, identifying, with the computing device, the given pixel as being at least one of obscured or inoperative. For instance, as described above, the controller 122 may be configured to identify a given pixel contained within the received images as being obscured or inoperative when the determined variance of the image parameter values for the given pixel falls below a predetermined variance range)
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari (US 20190379847 A1) in view of Mizushima (US 20220192084 A1), and further in view of Thompson (US 20220240438 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ferrari as modified by Mizushima does not explicitly disclose wherein the automated system is a downforce automation system. However, Thompson teaches wherein the automated system is a downforce automation system (See at least abstract, [0015-0020], [0045-0050] Regardless of the configuration, the agricultural seeding implement 10 may travel via operator control or via autonomous control. For example, the agricultural seeding implement 10 may be towed by the work vehicle that operates under control of an operator in a cab of the work vehicle or that operates autonomously (e.g., autonomously or semi-autonomously via a control system executing autonomous driving algorithms). The controller may control the downforce actuator(s) to control the downforce applied by the gauge wheel to the soil surface. The agricultural seeding implement includes a downforce actuator configured to control a downforce applied by the gauge wheel to the soil surface. For example, in certain embodiments, the agricultural seeding implement may include multiple downforce actuators each configured to control the downforce applied by the gauge wheels of a group of row units (e.g., on a sub-frame/sub-bar) coupled to the downforce actuator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari as modified by Mizushima to incorporate the teachings of Thompson which teaches wherein the automated system is a downforce automation system since they are directed to agricultural machine operations and incorporation of Thompson would improve accuracy of downforce control.
Regarding claim 18, Ferrari as modified by Mizushima does not explicitly disclose wherein the automated system is a row cleaner automation system. However, Thompson teaches wherein the automated system is a row cleaner automation system (See at least abstract, [0025-0030], [0035-0038], [0040-0045] The controller 88 is configured to output a first output signal to the first valve assembly 86 indicative of instructions to control the row cleaner actuator 84. The row cleaner actuator 84 is configured to control a downforce applied by the row cleaner blade 78 to the soil. The controller 88 may be located in/on the agricultural seeding implement, in/on an air cart coupled to the agricultural seeding implement, in/on a work vehicle coupled to the agricultural seeding implement, or in any other suitable location that enables the controller 88 to perform the operations described herein. The controller 88 is configured to determine the instructions to control the row cleaner actuator 84 based at least in part on a first determined contact force between the row cleaner blade 78 and the soil, and/or the controller 88 is configured to determine the instructions to control the packer wheel actuator 100 based at least in part on a second determined contact force between the packer wheel 92 and the soil. The controller 88 is configured to determine the instructions to control the row cleaner actuator 84 and/or the packer wheel actuator 100 based at least in part on the measured residue coverage rearward of the row unit 30 (e.g., at the trench). In the illustrated embodiment, the closing sensor 107 includes an optical sensor positioned proximate to the rear portion of the row unit 30 relative to the direction of travel 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari as modified by Mizushima to incorporate the teachings of Thompson which teaches wherein the automated system is a row cleaner automation system since they are directed to agricultural machine operations and incorporation of Thompson would improve the effectiveness of row cleaner control.
Regarding claim 19, Ferrari as modified by Mizushima does not explicitly disclose wherein the automated system is a depth control automation system. However, Thompson teaches wherein the automated system is a depth control automation system (See at least abstract, [0015-0025], [0055-0065] The row unit 30 also includes a gauge wheel (e.g., positioned adjacent to the opener disc) configured to control a penetration depth of the opener disc into the soil. The row unit 30 includes a depth adjustment assembly 56 configured to control the vertical position of the gauge wheel 54, thereby controlling the penetration depth of the opener disc 50 into the soil. The second valve assembly 180 is configured to control the fluid pressure within the packer wheel actuator 156, thereby controlling the penetration depth of the blade. The controller 160 is communicatively coupled to the second valve assembly 180 and is configured to output a second output signal to the second valve assembly 180 indicative of instructions to control the packer wheel actuator 156. The packer wheel actuator 156 is configured to control a position of the packer wheel 154 relative to the opener 140 to control the penetration depth of the opener blade 142 within the soil). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ferrari as modified by Mizushima to incorporate the teachings of Thompson which teaches wherein the automated system is a depth control automation system since they are directed to agricultural machine operations and incorporation of Thompson would improve the accuracy and reliability of seed depth placement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LABIBAH I. ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/LABIBAH ILMA ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights