DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application filed 3/21/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/07/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Britain on 04/19/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB 2405579.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because figure 3 items 32 and items 34 greyscale is unreadable because the monochrome tone are indistinct in the drawing. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A guidance system for an agricultural machine which cultivates a terrain surface, comprising:
a long-wave infrared camera system for capturing an infrared image at least in front of the agricultural machine; and
a processor for processing the infrared image, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine soil characteristics of different areas of the terrain in front of the agricultural machine;
identify which areas of the terrain in front of the agricultural machine have already recently been cultivated based on the determined characteristics; and
generate an image which represents the already-cultivated regions and the non- cultivated regions.
Step 1: Statutory category- Yes
The claim recites an apparatus including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/ or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of
“determine soil characteristics of different areas of the terrain in front of the agricultural machine;
identify which areas of the terrain in front of the agricultural machine have already recently been cultivated based on the determined characteristics”
The determining and identifying limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, but for the “the processor” language, the claim encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the recitation of “generate an image which represents the already-cultivated regions and the non-cultivated regions” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04( d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “a long-wave infrared camera system for capturing an infrared image at least in front of the agricultural machine [data gathering]; and
generate an image which represents the already-cultivated regions and the non- cultivated regions [data output]” which is merely an insignificant extra solution activity. These claims does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere data gathering and outputting.
Accordingly, even in combination, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Respectively, dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, and 13-15 as a whole, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 9. Claim 9 is the apparatus that uses the guidance system of claim 1; therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12. Claim 12 is the method that is performed by guidance system of claim 1; therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale of claim 1.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in claims 2-8 amount to no more than mere data gathering step, data manipulation, insignificant extra solution activity and/or data output. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., data manipulation and/or data output to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.0S(f).
Thus, these claims are ineligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because is directed to a computer program, i.e. “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed without any structural limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, it does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is ineligible under 35 USC 101. see MPEP 2106.03.
If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, performs: autonomously maneuvering a vehicle during a point-turn”, or equivalent language. see MPEP 2106.03 (I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium would comprise an article of manufacture and thus fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible 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 (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 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 1-3, 5-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikolakakis et al., EP 4734074 hereinafter “Nikolakakis”.
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 15. Nikolakakis a guidance system for an agricultural machine which cultivates a terrain surface, comprising:
a long-wave infrared camera system for capturing an infrared image at least in front of the agricultural machine ([0044] teaches that “The imaging system 300 generally includes a stereoscopic multispectral imaging sensor 302 configured to capture real-time images at a plurality of wavelengths of light (e.g., visible light, near IR, IR, ultraviolet, etc.)…. The stereoscopic multispectral imaging sensor 302 may include one or more sensors, for example, an infrared (IR) sensor, a red light sensor, and/or a sensor of another spectrum of light”); and
a processor for processing the infrared image (at least [0042] along with [0067] teaches—“FIG. 2 illustrates controller 200 includes a processor 220 connected to a computer-readable storage medium or a memory 230. The controller 200 may be used to control and/or execute operations of the imaging system 300…. The imaging system 300 (FIG. 1) acquires a set of images which is processed by the controller 200, in order to detect and identify the field elements 1004 in each image set, as the agricultural equipment moves in the field and applies chemical substances. The controller 200 is configured to track the field elements 1004, for example, in a video and/or multiple images.”),
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine soil characteristics of different areas of the terrain in front of the agricultural machine ([0069]—“ The controller 200 captures information from the imaging sensors of the imaging system 300, the depth map, sensors (such as the accelerometer and/or the gyroscope), GPS, and through computer vision, artificial intelligence, and/or neural network methods, the controller 200 can determine, for example, a distance from all objects within the field of view of the camera system , a location of all field elements within the field of view of the camera system, a field morphology, a field element characteristics such as height, and an identification of field elements (plants, soil, weeds, specific morphologies and/or patterns etc.)”. [0037]—teaches that the imaging system 300 is a front facing, also see fig. 1);
identify which areas of the terrain in front of the agricultural machine have already recently been cultivated based on the determined characteristics ([0017] teaches scenario that read on this element—“In an aspect of the present disclosure, a processor-implemented method of using an imaging sensor apparatus mounted on an agricultural vehicle as the agricultural vehicle moves through a field to eliminate weeds in a till or no-till field in real-time is described.”); and
generate an image which represents the already-cultivated regions and the non-cultivated regions ([0057] teaches “At block 608, the controller 200 determines, in real-time, a field morphology as the agricultural vehicle moves through the field based on the captured real-time images. Here the field morphology includes till or no till field in real-time ).
Furthermore, Nilolakakis teaches that in [0035] teaches “agricultural vehicle 1002” that has “agricultural equipment” to “perform operations in the field like harvesting and tilling”. While [0067] teaches that “the agricultural equipment moves in the field and
applies chemical substances.”
Claim 2. Nilolakakis teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches, comprising a display for displaying the generated image ([0043] teaches a user device such a mobile device. Here it is well known for mobile device to have display.).
Claim 3. Nikolakakis teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a track to be followed taking into account the identified areas ([0035] describes this element as such—“The agricultural vehicle 1002 is configured to perform at least one agricultural operation on the field elements 1004. The agricultural operation may include harvesting, sowing, tilling, fertilizing, etc.” Figs 1 and 4 illustrates the agricultural vehicle traveling on the field).
Claim 5. Nikolakakis teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to process the captured infrared image to implement ambient temperature compensation ([0044]—“The stereoscopic multispectral imaging sensor 302 may include one or more sensors, for example, an infrared (IR) sensor, a red light 45 sensor, and/or a sensor of another spectrum of light. In aspects, the stereoscopic multispectral imaging sensor 302 may include one or more CMOS sensors. In aspects, the imaging system 300 may include a light sensor 310 configured to detect ambient light levels. The controller 50 200 may use the captured ambient light levels to determine an index correction factor for correcting or calibrating the vegetation index.”).
Claim 6. Nikolakakis teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to process the captured infrared image to identify different structures and to process the infrared image taking into account different emissivities of the different structures ([0056] describes scenario that reads on this element as such—“the controller 200 determines, in real-time, characteristics, including a vegetation index, of the identified field elements, by analyzing the captured real-time image as a standalone image or in combination with each other. A vegetation index is a single value calculated by transforming the observations from multi pie spectral band images. The vegetation index can be generated, for example, by using two or more spectral image bands. The vegetation index is used to enhance the presence of green vegetation features and thus help to distinguish them from the other objects present in the image.”).
Claim 7. Nikolakakis teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the long-wave infrared camera system comprises at least first and second cameras for capturing a 3D infrared image ([0052]—the multispectral imaging sensor 302 captures images in 3D. ).
Claim 8. Nikolakakis teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an additional image sensing unit, comprising one or more of: a LIDAR system; a stereo visible light camera system; a global satellite positioning system ([0038]—“stereo camera”).
Claim 10. Nikolakakis teaches the agricultural machine of claim 9 and further teaches , wherein the cultivating implement comprises a tiller or a plough or a tilling and seeding implement ([0035]— agricultural equipment to perform tilling).
Claim 11. Nikolakakis teaches the agricultural machine of claim 9 and further teaches, wherein the processor is configured to determine a track to be followed, and the driven vehicle comprises an automatic steering system for steering the driven vehicle to follow the determined track ([0066] describes this element as such—“Another use of the disclosed technology is to provide the required information related to the perception of the field (such as field morphology and/or obstacles) as well as the field elements (their location and characteristics) that can be used in automating field operations. Such automation can involve calculating and/or modifying field operation parameters based on sensory data and algorithms, as well as automating the entire full operation, including navigation of the agricultural equipment.”).
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 factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolakakis in view of Wu et al., US 2021/0365037 hereinafter “Wu et al”.
Claims 4 and 13. Nikolakakis teaches the system of claim 1; however, Nikolakakis is silent on the term segmentation. Yet Wu et al teaches wherein the processor is configured to: apply segmentation to identify the terrain and the sky, and to identify the cultivated and non-cultivated areas of the terrain (Taken together the following cited sections reads on this element: [0016], [0018] read on this element as such “segmenting the image into a plurality of pixel regions, and identifying the area of the image by an image segmentation identification technology…. segmenting the image by using the image segmentation technology, and identifying and dividing the area of the image into the unworked area, the worked region, and the farmland boundary area. The concept of direction orientation is discussed in [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wu et al invention because such modification would provide navigation information for the grain processing host.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolakakis in view of Agaian et al., US 2015/0244946.
Claims 14. Nikolakakis in view of Wu et al teaches the method of claim 13; however, both Nikolakakis and Wu et al are silent on the term curve. Yet, Agaian teaches further comprising applying an enhancement curve to the thermal image ([0097]-[0111] teaches—“Contrast enhancement is one of the image enhancement techniques to enhance the contrast present in an image based on a contrast curve. Global contrast enhancement is to uniformly adjust the contrast of each pixel of the image according to a global contrast curve. According to the innovated multi threshold system….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Agaian with the teaching of Nikolakakis because such modification would provide image segmentation to locate objects and boundaries (see [0148], Agaian).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights