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 .
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.
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)(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.
Claims 23, 26-30, 33-37 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al (11,803,959).
Regarding claims 23, 30, and 37 Yang discloses
Receiving (obtaining), from a camera and by a computing device (sensor and system), an image of a plant (note fig. 6, block 602, col. 14 lines 20-23 and 28-29, obtaining digital image that captures a first plant by a sensor);
Analyzing, by the computing device, the image of the plant (note fig. 6 block 604 and col. 14 lines 25-27 and 34-40, examiner interprets determining additional data of additional attributes as result from analyzing the digital image);
Based on analyzing the image of the plant, determining, by the computing device, an identifier that is associated with the plant (note fig. 6 block 606 and col. 14 lines 42-48, applying data to machine learning model output a unique identifier); and
Storing, by the computing device, the identifier that is associated with the plant (note fig. 6 block 608 and col. 14 lines 49-55, system stores in database association between digital image, included in database indexed, share unique identifier).
Regarding claims 26, 33 and 40 Yang discloses,
Wherein analyzing the image of the plant comprises: Identifying, using a first model trained using machine learning, visual boundary cues in the image (note col. 7 lines 35-43, cnn detect bounding shape); and
Identifying, using a second model trained using machine learning, groups of plants in the image.
(Note col. 8 lines 48-53, different machine learning model may be trained for each genus).
Regarding claims 27, 34 and 41 Yang discloses,
Storing, by the computing device, data indicating likely changes to the identifier over time (col. 14 lines 49-55, system stores in database association between digital image, included in database indexed, share unique identifier).
Regarding claims 28, 35 and 42 Yang discloses,
Receiving, from the camera and by the computing device, an additional image of the plant (note fig. 6, block 602, col. 14 lines 20-23 and 28-29, obtaining digital image that captures a first plant by a sensor);
Analyzing, by the computing device, the additional image of the plant (note fig. 6 block 604 and col. 14 lines 25-27 and 34-40, examiner interprets determining additional data of additional attributes as result from analyzing the digital image);
Based on analyzing the additional image of the plant, determining, by the computing device an updated identifier that is associated with the plant (note fig. 6 block 606 and col. 14 lines 42-48, applying data to machine learning model output a unique identifier); and
Replacing, by the computing device, the identifier that is associated with the plant with the updated identifier that is associated with the plant (note fig. 6 block 612, first plant information to be output, plant information may be determined based on, among other things, the digital that captures the first plant and the previously-captured digital images of the first plant).
Regarding claims 29 and 36 Yang discloses,
Based on analyzing the image of the plant, determining, by the computing device, an additional identifier that is associated with an additional plant that is in the image(note fig. 6 block 604 and col. 14 lines 25-27 and 34-40, cites determining additional data of additional attributes as result from analyzing the digital image) ; and storing, by the computing device, the additional identifier that is associated with the additional plant (note fig. 6 block 608 and col. 14 lines 49-55, system stores in database association between digital image, included in database indexed, share unique identifier).
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 24, 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Pati et al (11,688,061).
Regarding claim 24, 31 and 38 Yang discloses,
Wherein determining the identifier that is associated with the plant comprises: Determining a unique plant identifier feature set for the plant, wherein the universal plant identifier feature set comprises data representing components of the plant and relationships of the components. Yang does not disclose relationship of the components that have been encoded into a hierarchical graph. Pati discloses relationship of the components that have been encoded into a hierarchical graph (note col. 8 lines 60 – col. 9 lines 5, encoded into hierarchical graph of ROI and fig. 5). Yang and Pati are combinable because they from both image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include relationship of the components that have been encoded into a hierarchical graph in the system of Yang as evidenced by Pati. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides Improved techniques for training in digital imaging would be highly desirable (note col. 1 lines 61-62). It would have been obvious to combine Pati with Yang to obtain the invention as specified by claims 24, 31 and 38
Claims 25, 32 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of O’Bryan (12,033,015)
Regarding claim 25, 32 and 39 Yang discloses,
Wherein determining the identifier that is associated with the plant comprises: Determining a visual identifier device that is proximate to the plant. Yang does not disclose wherein the visual identifier comprises machine readable code. O’Bryan discloses wherein the visual identifier comprises machine readable code (note fig. 3a block 315, barcode and col. 9 lines 31-45, cites barcode to track plants). Yang and O’Bryan are combinable because they from both image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include visual identifier comprises machine readable code in the system of Yang as evidenced by Pati. The suggestion/motivation for doing so overcomes the challenge to store data about the tag, the object tagged, the location of the object, etc., and prevent tags from being removed from the object or reused with different objects (note col. 1 lines 5-9). It would have been obvious to combine Pati with Yang to obtain the invention as specified by claims 25, 32 and 39
Related Prior Art
Fox et al (11,074,447) Receiving (obtaining), from a camera and by a computing device (sensor and system), an image of a plant (note col. 17 lines 35-55).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
August 5, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights