Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, lines 3-4 discloses “one or more hardware processor”, but should be changed to -one or more hardware processors-.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, each discloses “lesser than”, but should be changed to -less than-.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea (mathematical concepts and mental processes) without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referred to establish ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, Step 1: the claim recites a system, which would be categorized as a process under the four recognized statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One: However, the claim is further directed to the abstract ideas (mathematical concepts and mental processes) of identifying deficiencies of crop growth (mental processes) based on classification of their health state (mathematical concepts) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include generic computer elements (memory and one or more hardware processors). The addition of generic computer elements amounts to merely an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer elements, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Step 2B: The additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 8-12, additional limitations do not amount to significantly more and therefore the claims are all ineligible.
Regarding claim 1-6 and 13-18, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 7-12 is incorporated herein. In addition, the system of claims 7-12 corresponds to the method of claims 1-6 as well as the non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums of claims 13-18, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-18, the claims recite computer-implemented functions including computing a balanced plant nutrition index (BPNI) using a trained single shot deep learning network to determine crop growth stage, classifying crop health based on healthy morphological features, segmenting unhealthy crops into lower leaf, middle leaf, upper leaf, and terminal bud regions based on pixel length, as well as identifying nutrient deficiencies by growth stage and affected region, computing high-significance and low-significance nutrient deficiency percentages, computing weighted deficiency scores, computing a total nutrient deficiency score, and recommending deficient nutrients based on range levels.
Applicants are respectfully reminded, for computer-implemented functional claims, “examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that claims 1, 7, and 13 are each an originally-filed claim. However, originally-filed claims 1, 7, and 13 do not disclose how the 1, 7, and 13 themselves, or how the “determining by a trained single shot deep learning network” itself, is done (as well as the other function disclosed above) and so does not provide the necessary written description support for pending claims 1, 7, and 13. Accord Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (indicating original claim language does not necessarily satisfy the written description requirement for the claimed subject matter). That is to say, originally-filed claim 1, 7, and 13 itself, or themselves, do not provide an algorithm that performs the function “determining by a trained single shot deep learning network” (as well as the other function disclosed above) in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe an algorithm that performs the function “determining by a trained single shot deep learning network” (as well as the other function disclosed above) in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. For example, Applicant’s specification discloses “trained single shot deep learning network embedded into the crop nutrient deficiency detector 208 detects the location of discolored leaves at various affected area in the crop image” as seen in Par. [068] of the applicant’s originally filed specification. However, such disclosure merely details about the components, thus is not an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Applicant is also reminded, “if the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Therefore, because an algorithm for the function “determining by a trained single shot deep learning network” (as well as the other function disclosed above) is not disclosed in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter, and in accordance with MPEP § 2161.01, claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected for lack of written description.
Claims 2-5, 8-12, and 14-18 recite limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13, thus are also rejected.
Claims 1-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Each of the claims 1-18 broadly recite determining crop growth-stage nutrient deficiencies for crops using multi-view images, a trained single shot deep learning network, BPNI computation, morphological-feature comparison, plant-region segmentation, affected-area detection, nutrient-deficiency identification, weighted scoring, and nutrient recommendation. Specifically, the claims are not limited to a particular crop, nutrient set, camera system, neural-network architecture, BPNI formula, segmentation method, scoring formula, or recommendation threshold.
To practice the full scope of the claims, one of ordinary skill would need to determine, without undue experimentation, how to acquire and process top, front, right-side, and left-side images for each crop; train the single shot deep learning network for the recited growth stages; compute BPNI; define healthy morphological features for each growth stage; segment crops into lower leaf, middle leaf, upper leaf, and terminal bud regions based on pixel length; identify symptoms such as discoloration, white stripes, dead spots, curling, burns, and stains; map symptoms and plant regions to nutrient deficiencies; classify nutrients into high-significance and low-significance categories; compute deficiency percentages; select high and low weights; calculate total nutrient deficiency scores; and establish range levels for recommendations.
Absent sufficient disclosure of these details, undue experimentation would be required to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention, especially to perform all of the limitations disclosed above. Accordingly, claims 1-18 fail to satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 13 each recite “for each crop the image capturing device captures a top view, a front view, a right side view and a left side view.” The phrase “each crop” lacks clear scope because the claim also recites crop fields and field crops. It is unclear whether the four views are captured for each individual plant, crop species, crop field, crop row, or image acquisition event.
Additionally, claims 1, 7, and 13 each recite “a high weight” and “a low weight,” but does not define the values, ranges, or selection criteria for these weights, or whether the high weight must be greater than the low weight.
Lastly, claims 1, 7, and 13 each recite recommending deficient nutrients “when the total nutrient deficiency score is at least within a range level.” The phrase “at least within a range level” is unclear because it does not specify whether the score must exceed a threshold, fall within a range, correspond to a severity level, or satisfy another condition.
Claims 2-5, 8-12, and 14-18 recite limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13, thus are also rejected.
Examiner’s Comments
The Office has established rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) with regard to claims 1-18. The scope of claims 1-18 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) render applicant's claims as being incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). However, the number of issues with regard to claims 1-18 cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights