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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 2/26/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2025 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 4, 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4, in line 4, claims recite ‘NVDI’ and should recite ‘NDVI’. Appropriate correction is required for claims 4, 12 and 19.
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 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: “computing device” in claims 9-16.
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.
Computing device may be hard-wired to perform the techniques…, such as one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs)…, may include one or more general purpose hardware processors [Applicant’s Specification: par 0118]
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braswell et al. (US-2022/0180526) in view of Jacob (US-2022/0343645).
As to Claim 9, Braswell teaches ‘A system for processing images related to boundaries, the system comprising at least one computing device configured to: access an image data set, which includes multiple images of an agricultural field [Braswell: Figs 2, 8, 9, par 0018, 0026, 0032, 0056-0057 – computer system retrieves a plurality of sensing data including images of agricultural fields to identify boundaries]; calculate one or more composites from the image data set [Figs 2, 8, par 0032, 0035, 0056-0057 – performing a temporal linear interpolation to reduce potential bias for compositing index images]; generate, using a model, a segmentation of each of the one or more composites, based on the one or more composites [Figs 1, 3, 8, par 0034, 0036-0038, 0043, 0056 – performing segmentation on the composite index raster images]; and combine the segmentation(s) for the one or more composites into a field boundary for the agricultural field [Fig 8, par 0056 – generating a plurality of polygons from the plurality of spatially compact regions of the segments composite index raster images]’.
Braswell does not disclose expressly ‘mask the image data set based on one or more criteria’.
Jacob teaches ‘mask the image data set based on one or more criteria [par 0055 – generating a binary mask on the set of pixels by defining the pixels and performing a median filtering or median blur to remove noise and/or smooth edges in the binary mask].’
Braswell and Jacob are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a binary mask, as taught by Jacob. The motivation for doing so would have been to removing noise and smoothing edges when detecting growth areas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jacob with Braswell to obtain the invention, as specified in claim 9.
Further, in regards to claim 1, the system of claim 9 performs the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 17, the method of claim 1 is fully embodied in the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17.
As to Claims 2 and 10, Braswell teaches ‘wherein the multiple images include multiple images over a time of interest (TOI), which includes multiple seasons of a calendar year [par 0004, 0006, 0033-0034 – time series of surface reflectance rasters comprises satellite data corresponding to early, mid-, and late phases of a growing season for a given crop including April-September]’.
As to Claims 3 and 11, Jacob in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the one or more criteria includes a pixel validation and a blur effective metric, relative to at least one threshold [par 0055 – generating a binary mask on the set of pixels by defining the pixels and performing a median filtering or median blur to remove noise and/or smooth edges in the binary mask]’.
Braswell and Jacob are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a median filtering or median blur, as taught by Jacob. The motivation for doing so would have been to removing noise and smoothing edges when detecting growth areas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jacob with Braswell to obtain the invention, as specified in claims 3 and 11.
As to Claims 5 and 13, Braswell teaches ‘wherein the model includes a segment anything model [par 0037, 0043 – any part of the image (i.e., anything model) may be segmented using segmentation algorithms]’.
As to Claims 6 and 14, Braswell in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to define one or more prompts for the image data set; and wherein the at least one computing device is configured, in order to generate the segments for each of the one or more composites, to generate the segments further based on the defined one or more prompts [par 0024, 0034, 0036-0038, 0043, 0056 – user input to the number of time windows for the image set to be composited and segmented]’.
As to Claims 8 and 16, Braswell teaches ‘wherein the at least one computing device is configured, in order to combine the segmentation(s), to combine the segmentation(s) based on one or more rules related to under-segmentation, over-segmentation, and/or consistency of boundary demarcations across the one or more composites [par 0024, 0037, 0043, 0045, 0056 – the segmentation is combined to maintain accuracy of the boundaries (i.e., consistency of boundary demarcations]’.
As to Claim 18, Braswell in view of Jacob teaches ‘wherein the multiple images include multiple images over a time of interest (TOI), which includes multiple seasons of a calendar year [Braswell: par 0004, 0006, 0033-0034 – time series of surface reflectance rasters comprises satellite data corresponding to early, mid-, and late phases of a growing season for a given crop including April-September]; and wherein the one or more criteria includes a pixel validation and a blur effective metric, relative to at least one threshold [Jacob: par 0055 – generating a binary mask on the set of pixels by defining the pixels and performing a median filtering or median blur to remove noise and/or smooth edges in the binary mask]’.
Braswell and Jacob are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a binary mask, as taught by Jacob. The motivation for doing so would have been to removing noise and smoothing edges when detecting growth areas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jacob with Braswell to obtain the invention, as specified in claim 18.
Claim(s) 4, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braswell et al. in view of Jacob and further in view of Leordneau et al. (EP-3872707 A1).
As to Claims 4, 12 and 19, Braswell in view of Jacob teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 17, respectively. Braswell in view of Jacob does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the one or more composites include an RGB mean composite, a RGB median composite, and/or RGB standard deviation composite; and/or wherein the one or more composites include an NVDI in the 5th percentile composite, an NDVI in the 95% percentile composite, and/or a delta composite between the 5th percentile and in the 95th percentile’.
Leordneau teaches ‘wherein the one or more composites include an RGB mean composite, a RGB median composite, and/or RGB standard deviation composite; and/or wherein the one or more composites include an NVDI in the 5th percentile composite, an NDVI in the 95% percentile composite, and/or a delta composite between the 5th percentile and in the 95th percentile [par 0044 – comparing the LAB color space mean values of the bounding boxes and compares the RGB mean values, with the boxes being merged if the difference is less than the corresponding threshold]’.
Braswell in view of Jacob are analogous art with Leordneau because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include comparing RGB mean values, as taught by Leordneau. The motivation for doing so would have been to providing improvements in computer vision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Leordneau with Braswell in view of Jacob to obtain the invention, as specified in claims 4, 12 and 19.
Claim(s) 7, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braswell et al. in view of Jacob and further in view of Webb et al. (US-2023/0252791).
As to Claims 7 and 15, Braswell teaches ‘wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to access crop-specific land cover data for the image data set [par 0020-0021, 0053-0054 – a USGS Crop Data Layer can be used with the image data]’.
Braswell in view of Jacob does not teach nor disclose expressly ‘wherein the one or more prompts includes a bounding-box prompt’.
Webb in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the one or more prompts includes a bounding-box prompt [par 0012, 0051-0052, 0061 – user can interact with the user interface and draw the correct bounding box]’.
Braswell in view of Jacob are analogous art with Webb because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include user interaction of bounding boxes, as taught by Webb. The motivation for doing so would have been to detecting and controlling growth of undesirable vegetation in a field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Webb with Braswell in view of Jacob to obtain the invention, as specified in claims 7 and 15.
As to Claim 20, Braswell in the proposed combination of Reference and Webb teaches ‘wherein the model includes a segment anything model; and wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processer to: access crop-specific land cover data for the image data set; define one or more bounding-box prompts for the image data set; and generate the segments further based on the defined one or more bounding-box prompts [Braswell: par 0020-0021, 0024, 0034, 0036-0038, 0043, 0053-0054, 0056 – user input to the number of time windows for the image set to be composited and segmented while using a USGS Crop Data Layer with the image data; Webb: par 0012, 0051-0052, 0061 – user can interact with the user interface and draw the correct bounding box]’.
Braswell in view of Jacob analogous art with Webb because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include user interaction of bounding boxes, as taught by Webb. The motivation for doing so would have been to detecting and controlling growth of undesirable vegetation in a field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Webb with Braswell in view of Jacob to obtain the invention, as specified in claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2022/0180526
b. US Publication No. 2022/0343645
c. EP Publication No. 3872707 A1
d. US Publication No. 2023/0252791
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
e. US Publication No. 2025/0285404
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights