DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-10, 13-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1).
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-10, 13-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2017/0223947 to Gall et al.
In regards to claims 2-3, 6-10, 13-15 and 17-21, Gall discloses and shows in Figures 1-7, a system and method for targeting an object, the system comprising:
a movable platform (14) configured to move over a region of interest on a surface (22) (par. 30-32);
a camera (18) carried by the movable platform (par. 32, 48);
an LED array (applicant’s lighting array) carried by the movable platform, wherein the lighting array is configured to illuminate the region of interest to reduce or eliminate shadows in the region of interest (par. 32; wherein active light sources such as LEDs may be utilized with a canopy “to reduce the impact of shadows and sunlight intensity/direction on the image field”);
an implement (23,25) carried by the movable platform (par. 33-34; wherein a variety of robotic appendages and tools may be utilized to perform various actions on targeted plants or weeds); and
one or more processors (38) carried by the movable platform (par. 30-32, 47), the one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
activating the lighting array to illuminate the region of interest (par. 30-32; wherein an array of LEDs is utilized to illuminate a region of interest),
obtaining an image of the region of interest from the camera while the region of interest is illuminated by the lighting array (par. 30-32; wherein various images are obtained of a region of interest),
identifying a target object in the image of the region of interest (par. 30-32; wherein “each plant or selected groups of plants” are imaged),
determining a target location of the target object in the region of interest (par. 30-31; wherein desired actions are taken on plants identified in the obtained images), and
directing the implement toward the target location of the target object to manipulate the object (par. 31-33; wherein various tools and actions may be performed on selected plants identified in the obtained images);
[claim 3 and 15] wherein the illumination from the lighting array is oriented downward toward the region of interest to reduce or eliminate the shadows in the region of interest (Figures 1-4);
[claim 6 and 17] wherein the illumination from the lighting array is configured to reduce or eliminate variations in illuminance within the region of interest due to variable ambient light (par. 32; wherein the analytics suite of the platform includes “an illumination detection device 70” and “a light sensor 20”, to monitor the light provided by the LED array and the ambient sunlight “to reduce the impact of shadows and sunlight intensity and direction on the image field”);
[claim 7 and 18] wherein the lighting array comprises a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (par. 32);
[claim 8 and 19] wherein the lighting array is coupled to the movable platform such that the region of interest illuminated by the lighting array is underneath the movable platform (Figure 1-4);
[claim 9 and 10] wherein the operations further comprise differentiating between the target object and a non-target object in the image of the region of interest, wherein the object is a plant (par. 5, 30-32; wherein “each plant or selected groups of plants” are imaged and wherein desired actions are taken on plants or weeds identified in the obtained images);
[claim 13] wherein the implement comprises a sprayer or a grabber (par. 33-34);
[claim 20 and 21] wherein the target object is a weed or a crop (par. 5, 33-34).
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.
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gall, in view of US Publication 2012/0298847 to Hayashi et al.
In regards to claim 4, Gall differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method further comprising: wherein the lighting array is configured to produce an illuminance within the region of interest that varies by no more than 50% across the region of interest.
However, Hayashi teaches and shows in Figures 1-3, an agricultural machine that utilizes plant sensors (10) to monitor growing conditions of target plants and crops (par. 24, 27), wherein the plant sensors provide light with “a uniform intensity distribution” (applicant’s less than 50% variance) (par. 79-80), for the advantage of more accurately monitoring the growing conditions of a region of interest (par. 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Gall to include the illumination conditions discussed above for the advantage of more accurately monitoring the growing conditions of a region of interest, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gall, in view of US Publication 2017/0374323 to Gornik.
In regards to claims 5 and 16, Gall the system for targeting an object, wherein the movable platform is configured to move while the camera is obtaining the images of the region of interest (par. 5, 30-32).
Gall differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system further comprising: wherein the illumination from the lighting array is configured to reduce or eliminate motion blurring in the image.
However, Gornik teaches and shows in Figures 1a and 11c, a system and method for monitoring an agricultural area of crops (abstract), wherein “motion compensation is achieved using illumination”, wherein an LED array may be utilized to provide flash illumination, “which in turn reduces effects of motion blur on the resulting image data” (par. 234).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Gall to include the illumination conditions discussed above for the advantage of providing motion compensation in order to more accurately monitoring the growing conditions of a region of interest, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gall, in view of US Publication 2013/0235183 to Redden.
In regards to claim 11, Gall differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system further comprising: deactivating the lighting array after the image of the region of interest is obtained.
However, Redden teaches and shows in Figures 1-11, a system for automated plant necrosis, wherein a mobile platform is utilized to identify individual crops within an image (Figure 1), wherein a processor controls the intensity and frequency of the light emitters, and “modulates each of a plurality of lights between a high and a low state in a pre-set pattern, pseudo-random pattern, or any other suitable pattern to facilitate point of interest identification” (par. 29); and wherein “the emitter intensity is preferably adjustable between a maximum intensity and a minimum intensity” (par. 44; wherein the alternating intensity would be understood as strobing of the light sources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Gall to include deactivating a lighting array as discussed above for the advantage of selectively radiating a region of interest with a desired pattern of illumination, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 12, Gall differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system further comprising: wherein the implement comprises an emitter configured to emit a beam to kill or damage the target object.
However, Redden teaches and shows in Figures 1-11, a system for automated plant necrosis, wherein a mobile platform is utilized to identify individual crops within an image (Figure 1), and a crop thinning system (100) may be utilized to remove selected plants or weeds, wherein the crop thinning system may be a sprayer, a blade, a radiation device or “any other suitable mechanism that eradicates or facilitates eradication of a plant” (par. 48-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Gall to include the radiation emitter discussed above for the advantage of selectively eradicating undesired plants from a region of interest, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights