DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations (See claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, and 19) that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “crop monitoring subsystem, sensor, field monitoring subsystem, an analysis engine, an anomaly locator, crop protection subsystem, a sample collector, a sample analyzer, sensing subsystem, elevated monitoring platform, crop monitoring payload, crop monitoring subsystem, field monitoring subsystem, an analysis engine, an anomaly locator, and anomaly ameliorating subsystem” in claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification describes:
Paras 0079-0080 Crop management system 100 also preferably includes at least one field monitoring subsystem comprising at least one field sensor assembly 114 for sensing at least one field parameter in the predetermined region. One example of
a field sensor assembly 114 is a scanning radar assembly, for detection of human or animal intruders, vehicles and rain and for monitoring activity of drones 108, which preferably form part of the crop management system 100.
According to the Specification, the generic place holders could be by hardware, software, and/or any combination of hardware, software. The Specification does not specifically point out the structure. The generic place holders are not modified by significant structure, material, or acts of performing the claimed function. Therefore the limitations of Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, and 19 listed above have invoked 112(f).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, and 19 have a number of limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, and 19 do NOT state that crop monitoring subsystem, sensor, field monitoring subsystem, an analysis engine, an anomaly locator, crop protection subsystem, a sample collector, a sample analyzer, sensing subsystem, elevated monitoring platform, crop monitoring payload, crop monitoring subsystem, field monitoring subsystem, an analysis engine, an anomaly locator, and anomaly ameliorating subsystem stored in memory and executed by the processor. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paras 0079-0080 state that embodiments may be entirely software, hardware, or some combination. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for having the same deficiencies as those set forth with respect to the claims that they depend from, independent claim 1.
Claim 2-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 must be introduced with “a” or “an”, as is grammatically appropriate (i.e., primary antecedent basis - a system for crop management comprising). Subsequently, claims 2-20 must refer to the already introduced limitation by either “said” or “the” (i.e., secondary antecedent basis - the system for crop management according to claim 1). Thus, it is not clear based on the recitation. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes “sensing at least one crop growth parameter in a predetermined region; sensing at least one field parameter in said predetermined region; receiving an output from at least one of said at least one crop monitoring and to identify at least one anomaly in at least one of said parameters; and providing an output indication of spatial coordinates of at least one location of said at least one anomaly”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for sensing at least one crop growth. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-20 further describe the process for sensing at least one crop growth. As a result, claims 2-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claim 1 includes crop monitoring subsystem, sensor, field monitoring subsystem, an analysis engine, and an anomaly locator. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 9-11 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 9-11 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-8 and 12-20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-8 and 12-20 include crop protection subsystem, a sample collector, a sample analyzer, analysis engine, artificial intelligence, sensing subsystem, elevated monitoring platform, crop monitoring payload, crop monitoring subsystem, field monitoring subsystem, an analysis engine, an anomaly locator, crop monitoring payload, a wireless network, a drone, anomaly ameliorating subsystem, elevated monitoring platform, platform. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2-8 and 12-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claim 1 includes crop monitoring subsystem, sensor, field monitoring subsystem, an analysis engine, and an anomaly locator. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 9-11 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 9-11 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-8 and 12-20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-8 and 12-20 include crop protection subsystem, a sample collector, a sample analyzer, analysis engine, artificial intelligence, sensing subsystem, elevated monitoring platform, crop monitoring payload, crop monitoring subsystem, field monitoring subsystem, an analysis engine, an anomaly locator, crop monitoring payload, a wireless network, a drone, anomaly ameliorating subsystem, elevated monitoring platform, platform. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2-8 and 12-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US Pub No. 10,255,670) (hereinafter Wu et al.), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a crop management system comprising:
at least one crop monitoring subsystem comprising at least one crop sensor assembly for sensing at least one crop growth parameter in a predetermined region (see Wu, column 3, lines 62-63, wherein monitoring system framework and devices that can be mounted on agricultural vehicles; and column 40, lines 5-21, wherein the power and signal voltage levels from the sensor units 50 have level shifters to make the levels compatible with those of the irrigator. Monitoring the health of vegetable types of crops, detecting weeds between plants along the crop row, or checking the underside of leaves (e.g. for aphids), and sampling for moisture content or water shortages, a short vehicle or a robotic scout (e.g. small wagon or truck that straddles a plant or fits between crop rows) that travels down the soil path between the crops. The robotic scout has the height of the crop leaves (e.g. 1 to 3 feet tall) or include lower arms or wagon platform to hold sensor units 50 that look upward at the leaves. The robotic scout includes imaging sensor units 50 and also battery packs to energize the scout and sensor units 50);
at least one field monitoring subsystem comprising at least one field sensor assembly for sensing at least one field parameter in said predetermined region (see Wu, column 1, lines 51-53, wherein intelligent sensors system (e.g. cameras, CMOS image sensors or integrated circuit chips, solid state LiDAR integrated circuit sensors); column 11, lines 29-31, wherein mapping the field using the image sensor (e.g. camera) data versus the location traversed from the GPS/RTK data; column 43, lines 25-28, wherein collecting environmental conditions, e.g., weather, time, light conditions, then setting the parameters of the image sensor units 50 (e.g. zoom, exposure time, operation mode video or still shots); and column 4, lines 34-36, wherein the measurements are easier to correlate from plant to plant and field location to location as the plant grows, matures and is harvested));
an analysis engine receiving an output from at least one of said at least one crop monitoring subsystem and said at least one field monitoring subsystem and being operative to identify at least one anomaly in at least one of said parameters (see Wu, column 26, lines 51-54, wherein the decision of the analysis is transmitted to the cab or to the reel 128 to make adjustments or to alert the operator (e.g. different alert levels indicate severity of the problem); column 44, lines 62-63, wherein provide alerts to notify the vehicle operator for identified patterns, potential harms, obstacles, predicted patterns, etc.; and column 43, lines 25-28, wherein collecting environmental conditions, e.g., weather, time, light conditions, then setting the parameters of the image sensor units 50 (e.g. zoom, exposure time, operation mode video or still shots); and
an anomaly locator operative to provide an output indication of spatial coordinates of at least one location of said at least one anomaly (see Wu, column 23, lines 66-67, wherein adding ground altitude information that may be obtained through GPS sensing or through governmental databases; column 24, lines 1-40, wherein coordinate surface location information with altitude (i.e., spatial reference system) so that a vehicle knows whether it is traveling uphill or downhill. Other embodiments include adding crop elevation (crop height distance to ground) information obtained from a previous travel pass through the field, such as based on a measured distance from a vehicle suspension ride height sensor that is mounted to the frame or suspension components of the vehicle, or such as from analyzing a previous imaging map of the field. Then, during an on-the-go pass through the field (i.e. the current pass through), the image sensor units 50 are processing the captured images and searching for changes in either the ground altitude or crop elevation from the previous pass due to new events, e.g. ground damage from a major rain, animal skirmish, and additional crop growth. In some embodiments, the search or analysis is for differences between the ground altitude or crop elevation or current image map versus the image map from previous years when the same type of crop was previously grown.……… Deviations from the average values are used by the processors to detect anomalous conditions to decide subsequent action, e.g. release spray, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 1 and also comprising at least one crop protection subsystem for ameliorating said at least one anomaly (see Wu, column 22, lines 33-35, wherein controlling fungus includes identifying the existence of fungus on the leaves and then spraying that area to prevent the spread of the fungus; column 15, lines 19-22, wherein weed, fungus or disease identification to detect anomalies (e.g. difference in expected color, height, size, shape) in otherwise-expected patterns of soil; and column 1, lines 56-59, wherein per plant monitoring, control, correlation analysis is performed to determine best practices to improve crop yield, preserve the land, save water, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals in each crop field area).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 2 and wherein at least one of said at least one crop monitoring subsystem and said at least one field monitoring subsystem monitors amelioration of said at least one anomaly (see Wu, column 22, lines 33-35, wherein controlling fungus includes identifying the existence of fungus on the leaves and then spraying that area to prevent the spread of the fungus; column 15, lines 19-22, wherein weed, fungus or disease identification to detect anomalies (e.g. difference in expected color, height, size, shape) in otherwise-expected patterns of soil; column 1, lines 56-59, wherein per plant monitoring, control, correlation analysis is performed to determine best practices to improve crop yield, preserve the land, save water, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals in each crop field area; and column 9, lines 41-45, wherein fungus monitoring and control to detect fungus and spray select areas to contain the fungus using fogging nozzles. Similarly to kill pests (e.g. aphids) underneath the leaves, a fogging spray nozzle or a drop nozzle (with nozzle tips pointing upwards)).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 1 and wherein at least one of said at least one crop monitoring subsystem and said at least one field monitoring subsystem comprises a sample collector for collecting a sample possibly evidencing said anomaly (see Wu, column 40, lines 5-21, wherein monitoring the health of vegetable types of crops, detecting weeds between plants along the crop row, or checking the underside of leaves (e.g. for aphids), and sampling for moisture content or water shortages…..; column 1, lines 51-53, wherein intelligent sensors system (e.g. cameras, CMOS image sensors or integrated circuit chips, solid state LiDAR integrated circuit sensors); column 11, lines 29-31, wherein mapping the field using the image sensor (e.g. camera) data versus the location traversed from the GPS/RTK data; column 43, lines 25-28, wherein collecting environmental conditions, e.g., weather, time, light conditions, then setting the parameters of the image sensor units 50 (e.g. zoom, exposure time, operation mode video or still shots); column 9, lines 24-28, wherein dry soil may be lighter in color and sandier as compared to more moist soil. In some embodiments, in addition to the microwave detected signals, the coloration and dumpiness or texture of the soil as detected by the image sensors can also be correlated……; and column 16, lines 52-55, wherein it is also anomalous in height compared to the other plants).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 1 and wherein at least said analysis engine employs artificial intelligence based analysis to identify said anomaly (see Wu, column 5, line 18, wherein operating systems (e.g. Artificial Intelligence AI); and column 17, lines 49-51, wherein statistical deviations from an a priori determined normal pattern are used to indicate an anomaly).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 1 and also comprising at least one environmental parameter sensing subsystem for sensing at least one environmental parameter in said predetermined region (see Wu, column 9, lines 56-58, wherein monitoring environmental conditions (e.g. forward looking image sensor (e.g. camera) units to monitor obstacles, hilly terrain, water patches, residue); and column 40, lines 50-56, wherein the type of data collected depends on the application, but most applications include targeted data gathering information along with environmental information such as location of the plant or crop row ( or sensor position), the weather conditions…..).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 8 and wherein said at least one environmental parameter includes at least one of ambient temperature, humidity, solar radiation, soil temperature, wind speed, altitude, barometric pressure and rainfall (see Wu, column 16, lines 58-60, wherein captured images are uploaded along with information regarding position, amount of spray, wind and travel speed, temperature, and other variables).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pub No. 10,255,670) (hereinafter Wu et al.) in view of Ruff et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0272971) (hereinafter Ruff et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 4.
Wu et al. fails to explicitly disclose a sample analyzer operative for analyzing said sample and for providing a sample analysis output.
Analogous art Ruff discloses a sample analyzer operative for analyzing said sample and for providing a sample analysis output (see Ruff, para [0126], wherein sample soil and perform soil chemistry tests, soil moisture tests, and other tests pertaining to soil; and paras [0130] & [0163], wherein the result data may be sent by the field manager computing device….compares predicted results with actual results on a field, such as a comparison of precipitation estimate with a rain gauge or sensor providing weather data at the same or nearby location or an estimate of nitrogen content with a soil sample measurement).
Wu directed to a system for determining yield of agricultural fields by controlling agricultural vehicles. Ruff directed to tracking of agricultural fields for implementing agricultural field trials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wu, regarding the System for Module for Agricultural Crop Improvement, to have included a sample analyzer operative for analyzing said sample and for providing a sample analysis output because both inventions teach improving the accuracy of measurements. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 5.
Wu et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein said analysis engine receives said sample analysis output and employs said analysis output in identifying said at least one anomaly.
Analogous art Ruff discloses wherein said analysis engine receives said sample analysis output and employs said analysis output in identifying said at least one anomaly (see Ruff, para [0126], wherein sample soil and perform soil chemistry tests, soil moisture tests, and other tests pertaining to soil; paras [0130] & [0163], wherein the result data may be sent by the field manager computing device….compares predicted results with actual results on a field, such as a comparison of precipitation estimate with a rain gauge or sensor providing weather data at the same or nearby location or an estimate of nitrogen content with a soil sample measurement; and para [0175], wherein Pest and disease data may include subfield pathogen presence in plant tissue, residue, and soil, damage type and extent from biotic stress caused by insects, and/or damage type and extent from biotic stress caused by pathogens. Extent of damage may be identified as low, medium or high or as one more numeric ratings. Biotic stress and pathogen presence may be measured and/or modeled).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ruff would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 1 and wherein said at least one crop growth parameter includes at least one of a crop growth influencing parameter (see Wu, column 43, lines 25-28, wherein there are external environmental conditions that drive plant development such as collecting environmental conditions, e.g., weather, time, light conditions, then setting the parameters; column 13, lines 65-67, wherein the crop field and capture images of the status of the field and any emerged crop plants 10 (com, beans, vegetables, fruits). The health of the soil and plants; column 8, lines 45-65, wherein Soil condition monitoring. For example, the moisture content of the soil…..The measurements are converted to soil moisture observations…).
Wu et al. fails to explicitly disclose a crop growth indicating parameter.
Analogous art Ruff discloses a crop growth indicating parameter (see Ruff, para [0207], wherein there are indicators of the crop's physiological condition and overall growth stage such as triggers may include when a field is under-performing (e.g., low crop biomass or low predicted crop yield within a certain timeframe), when a field is in an unusual condition (e.g., low soil moisture or nitrate), when a change occurs in the environment (e.g., extreme heat wave), or when an experiment prescribed to a similar field has produced a certain outcome).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ruff would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 9 and wherein said at least one crop growth indicating parameter includes at least one of plant size, plant UV spectrum, plant visible spectrum, plant IR spectrum and plant temperature (see Wu, column 26, lines 14-15, wherein crop yield (including vegetable yield) by estimating the size and amount of crops produced in each area of a field; and column 16, lines 58-60, wherein captured images are uploaded along with information regarding position, amount of spray, wind and travel speed, temperature, and other variables).
Claims 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pub No. 10,255,670) (hereinafter Wu et al.) in view of Shore et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0217830) (hereinafter Shore et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 1 and also comprising:
at least one elevated monitoring platform (see Wu, column 2, lines 2-4, wherein FIG. 2 depicts vehicle where example image sensors (e.g. camera or video) or smartphone-type electronics are mounted on a platform (e.g. attachment or mounting fixture, e.g. rods). Further, column 7, lines 50-56, wherein affixing the sensor units 50 on attachment fixtures 1952, sticks, paddles, platforms, etc., maintains the exact distance between pairs or multiples of sensors, which aids calibration for depth for mapping or correcting small variations among individual sensors); and
at least one crop monitoring payload removably mounted onto each of said at least one elevated platform, said crop monitoring payload (see Wu, column 12, lines 32-37, wherein LiDAR (i.e., payload), proximity sensors or lasers are used to detect distances or height of crop leaves in the directions where the image sensors do not have coverage. The image sensors are 35 focusing on the forward and rearward views if the sensor attachment fixtures are mounted to the top of a spray boom or planter unit; column 7, lines 50-56, wherein affixing the sensor units 50 on attachment fixtures 1952, sticks, paddles, platforms, etc., maintains the exact distance between pairs or multiples of sensors, which aids calibration for depth for mapping or correcting small variations among individual sensors….by affixing the sensors eases moving the attachment fixtures 1952 or paddles from one machine to another machine for re-use. (i.e., attached to a surface or structure in a way that allows it to be easily detached, repositioned, or taken off)) comprising at least one of:
at least one crop monitoring subsystem comprising at least one crop sensor assembly for sensing at least crop growth parameters in a predetermined region (see Wu, column 3, lines 62-63, wherein monitoring system framework and devices that can be mounted on agricultural vehicles; and column 40, lines 5-21, wherein the power and signal voltage levels from the sensor units 50 have level shifters to make the levels compatible with those of the irrigator. Monitoring the health of vegetable types of crops, detecting weeds between plants along the crop row, or checking the underside of leaves (e.g. for aphids), and sampling for moisture content or water shortages, a short vehicle or a robotic scout (e.g. small wagon or truck that straddles a plant or fits between crop rows) that travels down the soil path between the crops. The robotic scout has the height of the crop leaves (e.g. 1 to 3 feet tall) or include lower arms or wagon platform to hold sensor units 50 that look upward at the leaves. The robotic scout includes imaging sensor units 50 and also battery packs to energize the scout and sensor units 50);
at least one field monitoring subsystem comprising at least one field sensor assembly for sensing at least one field parameter in said predetermined region;
an analysis engine receiving an output from at least one of said at least one crop monitoring subsystem and said at least one field monitoring subsystem and being operative to identify at least one anomaly in at least one of said parameters; and
an anomaly locator operative to provide an output indication of spatial coordinates of at least one location of said at least one anomaly.
While Wu discloses crop monitoring payload (i.e., LiDAR) Wu et al. fails to explicitly disclose payload as claimed.
Analogous art Shore discloses at least one crop monitoring payload (see Shore, para [0125], wherein Crop treatment method 150 may be executed by controller 16 of a crop monitoring system 10, e.g., of a crop monitoring system 10 whose mobile platform 12 includes a treatment unit 57. For example, crop monitoring system 10 may include a terrestrial mobile platform 12 (e.g., a terrestrial vehicle 70 or an irrigation machine 80). In some cases, e.g., a mobile platform 12 that includes a UAV may be capable of lifting a sufficiently heavy payload that includes a treatment substance and a treatment unit 57).
Wu directed to a system for determining yield of agricultural fields by controlling agricultural vehicles. Shore directed to a system for autonomous crop monitoring includes a mobile platform configured to autonomously propel the system to a plurality of locations in a field of the crop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wu, regarding the System for Module for Agricultural Crop Improvement, to have included at least one crop monitoring payload because both inventions teach improving accuracy in precision agriculture. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 12 and wherein said at least one crop monitoring payload, as set forth above with claim 12.
Wu et al. fails to explicitly disclose payload includes both pan and tilt capabilities.
Analogous art Shore discloses payload includes both pan and tilt capabilities (see Shore, para [0125], wherein…… e.g., a mobile platform 12 that includes a UAV may be capable of lifting a sufficiently heavy payload that includes a treatment substance and a treatment unit 57; and para [0042], wherein the imaging device may be gimballed to enable pan and tilt adjustment, and may be provided with a lens having an adjustable zoom or focus).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Shore would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 12 and wherein said at least one crop monitoring payload includes a wireless anomaly output generator operative to generate a wireless anomaly output indication via a wireless network (see Wu, column 1, lines 51-53, wherein intelligent sensors system (e.g. cameras, CMOS image sensors or integrated circuit chips, solid state LiDAR integrated circuit sensors); column 14, lines 38-49, wherein a sensor hub or signal gateway (e.g. IoT gateway). In another embodiment, 40 the image sensors units 50 are electrically-coupled (e.g. wired or wireless) directly with the spray nozzles; column 24, lines 36-39, wherein deviations from the average values are used by the processors to detect anomalous conditions to decide subsequent action, e.g. release spray, etc.; and column 40, lines 58-60, wherein Wireless transmission of the data such as for example through a LTE, 5G or next generation WIFI network is preferred).
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 12 and also comprising a drone operative to position said at least one payload on said at least one platform (see Wu, column 34, lines 51-54, wherein placing attachment fixtures or smaller attachment fixtures having image sensor system on autonomous scouts (e.g. flying drone or ground scout); and column 7, lines 14-16, wherein a GPS system (or other location services or position triangulation or 15 RTK) on the vehicle).
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 17 and wherein said drone is operative to move said at least one payload between multiple ones of said at least one platform (see Wu, column 10, lines 18-23, wherein autonomous driving, wheel adjust image (sensor) system is placed on a drone or ground robot or tall robot (e.g. irrigator system), this system can be used to aid autonomous driving, or remote controlled driving).
Regarding claim 20, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 12 and wherein said at least one elevated monitoring platform comprises a plurality of mutually spaced elevated monitoring platforms and said at least one payload comprises a plurality of payloads (see Wu, column 1, lines 51-53, wherein intelligent sensors system (e.g. cameras, CMOS image sensors or integrated circuit chips, solid state LiDAR integrated circuit sensors); and column 14, lines 38-49, wherein a sensor hub or signal gateway (e.g. IoT gateway). In another embodiment, 40 the image sensors units 50 are electrically-coupled (e.g. wired or wireless) directly with the spray nozzles (i.e., deploying these modular, multi-sensor systems, farmers can carry multiple, interchangeable payloads (e.g., LiDAR, multispectral cameras, IoT microclimate sensors) to optimize resource usage and improve crop yields)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pub No. 10,255,670) (hereinafter Wu et al.), in view of Shore et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0217830) (hereinafter Shore et al.), and further in view of AJ Hewitt et al. (Investigating land-air carbon fluxes using a Lagrangian model and satellite retrieved carbon dioxide) - 2011 - figshare.le.ac.uk (hereinafter Hewitt et al.).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu discloses a crop management system according to claim 12 and wherein said at least one crop monitoring payload, as set forth above with claim 12.
Wu et al. and Shore et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose an azimuthal scanner. While Shore et al. discloses an azimuthal (see Shore, para [0121]), however, Shore et al. fails to explicitly disclose an azimuthal scanner.
Analogous art Hewitt discloses an azimuthal scanner (see Hewitt, page 45, wherein the two scanner modules, the Elevation Scanner Module (ESM) and the Azimuthal Scanner module (ASM)).
Wu directed to a system for determining yield of agricultural fields by controlling agricultural vehicles. Hewitt directed to tracking satellite observed atmospheric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wu, regarding the System for Module for Agricultural Crop Improvement, to have included an azimuthal scanner because both inventions teach improving the land-atmosphere exchange. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pub No. 10,255,670) (hereinafter Wu et al.), in view of Shore et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0217830) (hereinafter Shore et al.), and further in view of A Kelly, A Stentz, O Amidi, M Bode et al. (Toward reliable off road autonomous vehicles operating in challenging environments) - … Journal of Robotics …, 2006 - journals.sagepub.com (hereinafter Bode et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 12 and wherein said at least one crop monitoring payload is operative to monitor crops, as set forth with claim 12.
Wu et al. and Shore et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose within a radial distance of 400 meters of said platform.
Analogous art Bode discloses within a radial distance of 400 meters of said platform (see Bode, page 45, wherein Fig. 3 shows a crop monitoring payload; page 474, wherein multiple operator interventions and occasional ESTOPs, while covering a greater distance (typically 400–500 meters)).
Wu directed to a system for determining yield of agricultural fields by controlling agricultural vehicles. Bode directed to tracking satellite observed atmospheric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wu, regarding the System for Module for Agricultural Crop Improvement, to have included within a radial distance of 400 meters of said platform because both inventions teach improving accuracy in precision agriculture. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pub No. 10,255,670) (hereinafter Wu et al.), in view of Shore et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0217830) (hereinafter Shore et al.), and further in view of Kennedy et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0313240) (hereinafter Kennedy et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses a crop management system according to claim 17 and wherein said drone is operative to position said at least partially automated anomaly ameliorating subsystem (see Wu, column 22, lines 33-35, wherein controlling fungus includes identifying the existence of fungus on the leaves and then spraying that area to prevent the spread of the fungus; column 15, lines 19-22, wherein weed, fungus or disease identification to detect anomalies (e.g. difference in expected color, height, size, shape) in otherwise-expected patterns of soil; column 1, lines 56-59, wherein per plant monitoring, control, correlation analysis is performed to determine best practices to improve crop yield, preserve the land, save water, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals in each crop field area; and column 9, lines 41-45, wherein fungus monitoring and control to detect fungus and spray select areas to contain the fungus using fogging nozzles. Similarly to kill pests (e.g. aphids) underneath the leaves, a fogging spray nozzle or a drop nozzle (with nozzle tips pointing upwards))
Wu et al. and Shore et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose for providing treatment to said crops at said at least one location for ameliorating at least one condition giving rise to said at least one anomaly.
Analogous art Kennedy discloses for providing treatment to said crops at said at least one location for ameliorating at least one condition giving rise to said at least one anomaly (see Kennedy, para [0018], wherein "controlling" as used herein refers to any indication of success in prevention, elimination, reduction or amelioration of an invasive grass weed population or an invasive grass weed problem; para [0090], wherein evaluate the bacterial treatment, root or shoot dry weight of the annual grass weed plants is compared with the root or shoot dry weight of the control annual grass weed plants. Bacterial strains that cause the treated annual grass weed seedlings to have reduced root growth ( reduced root dry weight when compared to the control) of at least 30% or that cause the treated annual grass weed seedlings to have reduced shoot growth (reduced shoot dry weight when compared to the control) of at least 30% are considered inhibitory to annual grass weed in this test).
Wu directed to a system for determining yield of agricultural fields by controlling agricultural vehicles. Kennedy directed to ameliorating weed-suppressive activity and benign soil survival traits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wu, regarding the System for Module for Agricultural Crop Improvement, to have included treatment to said crops at said at least one location for ameliorating at least one condition giving rise to said at least one anomaly because both inventions teach improving accuracy in precision agriculture. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US Pub No. 2013/0247655; US Pub No. 2018/0211156; US Pub No. 2014/0035752; US Pub No. 2014/0058881; US Pat No. 5,143,539; US Pub No. 2007/0042803; US Pat No. 9,945,828; US Pub No. 2017/0038749; US Pub No. 2020/0272971; US Pat No. 8,019,513; and H Zhu et al. (Development of UAV-based lidar crop height mapping system) · 2017 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign https://www.ideals.illinois.edu.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 06/08/2026
Prosecution Insights