DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: There are two instance in which the quotation marks are utilized and as such should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The last instance of “a deteriorated state” appears to by a typo as the limitation ought to read as “the deteriorated state” per the Applicant’s claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim states “a preserved state” appears to by a typo as the limitation ought to read as “the preserved state” as this limitation was previously stated in Claim 2 per the Applicant’s claimed invention. The same objection applies to “a deteriorated state” per the Applicant’s claimed invention. 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 1-7, 10-12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 1:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a system which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1, A system for protecting a plot of crops, comprising a protection device adapted to be mounted on an agricultural vehicle including at least one tool for treating crops, said vehicle comprising forward movement means allowing it to move forward in a direction "of forward movement" within a plot of crops, said crops being called upstream when they are located upstream of the at least one treatment tool before the passage of the at least one treatment tool over the crops with respect to the direction of forward movement, and said crops being called being treated when they are located at the at least one treatment tool during the passage of the at least one treatment tool over the crops;
said protection device being characterized in that it is configured to:
- measure at least one characteristic value of crops being treated, in particular the size or the position in space of a crop;
said system further comprising a control unit configured to:
- receive a measurement of the at least one characteristic value coming from the protection device.
- identify a state of said crop being treated, wherein said state can be a "deteriorated" state or a "preserved" state;
- transmit a signal for protecting the plot of crops to the agricultural vehicle or to a remote terminal when the crop being treated is in a deteriorated state.
The limitations bolded in claim 1 above are a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and utilizing pen and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consists of measure a characteristic of the crop and then receive the measurement information. After which, identify if the crop is deteriorated or preserved state. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1, A system for protecting a plot of crops, comprising a protection device adapted to be mounted on an agricultural vehicle including at least one tool for treating crops, said vehicle comprising forward movement means allowing it to move forward in a direction "of forward movement" within a plot of crops, said crops being called upstream when they are located upstream of the at least one treatment tool before the passage of the at least one treatment tool over the crops with respect to the direction of forward movement, and said crops being called being treated when they are located at the at least one treatment tool during the passage of the at least one treatment tool over the crops;
said protection device being characterized in that it is configured to:
- measure at least one characteristic value of crops being treated, in particular the size or the position in space of a crop;
said system further comprising a control unit configured to:
- receive a measurement of the at least one characteristic value coming from the protection device.
- identify a state of said crop being treated, wherein said state can be a "deteriorated" state or a "preserved" state;
- transmit a signal for protecting the plot of crops to the agricultural vehicle or to a remote terminal when the crop being treated is in a deteriorated state.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The device and then transmit the signal are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere apply it which is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Measure, receive, and identify are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by the vehicle in claim 1.
Claim 17 has the corresponding limitations of Claim 1 and as such the analysis of Claim 17 also utilizes the same as Claim 1. As such, Claim 17 recites the protection device and remote terminal, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 and 17 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 and 17 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of Claims 2-7, 10-12, 14 and 18-20
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-12, 14 and 18-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. More specifically, the limitations of claims 2-7, 10-12, 14 and 18-20are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can be performed in the human mind using a similar analysis as applied to claims 1 and 17 above.
As such, claims 2-7, 10-12, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
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 1-3 and 7-12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeb US 20200356096 A1 (herein, Leeb) and in view of Johnson et al., US20150278640A1 (herein, Johnson).
Regarding Claim 1, Leeb discloses, a system for protecting a plot of crops (¶[0005] – “…A sensor system with which, for example, even a lying person can be “safely” detected in a crop which is 3 metres high or dense,…”), comprising a protection device adapted to be mounted on an agricultural vehicle including at least one tool for treating crops (FIG. 1 and ¶[0046] – “FIG. 1 shows an autonomous agricultural work machine 10 in the form of a self-propelled autonomous field sprayer. The field sprayer can distribute fluid media, for example fertilizer, crop protection agents or the like, by means of a treatment device (implement) 12 in the form of a distributor boom (spray boom) on a piece of agricultural land.”), said vehicle comprising forward movement means (FIG. 1 illustrates the wheel) allowing it to move forward in a direction "of forward movement" (FIG. 2 illustrates 10 moving forward movement) within a plot of crops (¶[0006] – “… large agricultural areas which additionally can have a wide variety of boundaries (e.g. adjoining a road or adjoining a field path or adjoining other crops or the like)…”), said crops being called upstream (FIG. 4 illustrates crops upstream) when they are located upstream of the at least one treatment tool before the passage of the at least one treatment tool over the crops with respect to the direction of forward movement (FIG. 4 illustrates the passage of vehicle 10 with the treatment tool 12 going over the crops), and said crops being called being treated (¶[0013] – “… a treatment (of crops or soil) by the work machine can be improved,…”) when they are located at the at least one treatment tool during the passage of the at least one treatment tool over the crops (FIG. 6);
said protection device being characterized in that it is configured to:
- measure at least one characteristic value of crops being treated, in particular the size or the position in space of a crop (¶[0005] – “…maize plants can grow up to 3 metres or more. In addition…”);
said system further comprising a control unit (FIG. 1, #14 – “control unit”) configured to:
- receive a measurement of the at least one characteristic value coming from the protection device (¶[0005] – “…Sensor systems such as is known, for example, from the field of automobiles can be used…a crop which is 3 metres high or dense, over a working width of up to 36 metres”).
Leeb discloses crops and agricultural vehicle, but does not disclose,
- identify a state of said crop being treated, wherein said state can be a "deteriorated" state or a "preserved" state;
- transmit a signal for protecting the plot of crops to the agricultural vehicle or to a remote terminal when the crop being treated is in a deteriorated state.
However, Johnson teaches,
- identify a state of said crop being treated, wherein said state can be a "deteriorated" state (FIG. 5 and ¶[0096] – “…can be important to identify stand issues as soon as possible such that corrective action can be taken and the deficiency rectified so that crop deterioration…”) or a "preserved" state;
- transmit a signal for protecting the plot of crops to the agricultural vehicle or to a remote terminal when the crop being treated is in a deteriorated state (FIGS. 1 and 7 AND ¶[0102] – “… an alert message that can be output in response to a determined stand deficiency. This example message alerts the user that a stand deficiency has been determined by the Stand Analyzer and Alert Generator 110 and in this embodiment the user is advised that he or she may want to personally investigate/inspect the location of the deficiency…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Leeb to include transmitting the deteriorated state of crops to the remote terminal as taught by Johnson. Doing so, provides the capability of transmitting the state of crops to different devices and this in turn provides the user with real time information relating to the status of the crops.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Leeb further discloses, wherein the at least one characteristic value measured by the protection device is chosen from an image of the crop, the width of the crop, the height of the crop, the angle that the crop forms with the ground, the position of the crop, a spacing between the crop and another crop of the plot (FIGS. 4-5 and ¶[0065] – “… arranged at least partially within or outside the working area A. The height, size and number of the posts or landmarks 24 can be adapted to the working area A (size, shape, unevenness, plant stock etc.)…” – illustrates image, width, height, and angle from the ground of the crop).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Leeb further discloses, wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the signal for protecting the plot of crops to the at least one treatment tool of the agricultural vehicle, so that the at least one treatment tool of the agricultural vehicle is positioned in a rest position, out of a working position and a rest position that it can adopt (¶[0078] – “…the work machine 10 can autonomously stop, be deactivated or be transferred into a safe state, for example by additionally stopping a treatment by the treatment device 12. It is also possible that, for example, a current velocity, or a maximum permissible velocity, of the work machine 10 is reduced…”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Leeb further discloses, wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the signal for protecting the plot of crops to the forward movement means to make the agricultural vehicle stop (¶[0078] – “…the work machine 10 can autonomously stop, be deactivated or be transferred into a safe state, for example by additionally stopping a treatment by the treatment device 12..”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Leeb further discloses, wherein the protection device comprises an image sensor and/or a laser sensor (¶[0023] – “…The surroundings-sensing sensor system preferably has a radar device, a laser scanner device, a Lidar device, a camera device and/or an unmanned aircraft.”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Leeb further discloses, comprising a location device, wherein the control unit is configured to associate the measurement of the at least one characteristic value of the crop being treated with a position of the crop being treated estimated by the location device (¶[0032] – “…a soil and/or crop treatment process which is assigned to the autonomous agricultural work machine…”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Leeb further discloses, wherein the control unit is remote from the agricultural vehicle, and wherein the protection device comprises wireless communication means adapted to transmit data from the control device to the control unit, and vice versa (FIGS. 4 and 6 illustrate wireless communications).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Leeb further discloses, an agricultural vehicle (FIG. 1 and #10 – agricultural work machine) configured to receive an assembly, the assembly comprising a crop treatment tool and a crop protection system (FIG. 1 illustrates the compilation of the assembly that consists of crop treatment and protection tools) according to claim 1 (FIG. 1 and ¶[0046] – “…crop protection agents or the like,…”), wherein the protection device and the control unit of said system are disposed on said treatment tool, and said treatment tool being is mechanically connected to said agricultural vehicle (FIG. 1 illustrates the mechanical connection of treatment tools to the agricultural vehicle).
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations correspond to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations correspond to Claims 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations correspond to Claims 1 and 2 and modified Leeb further discloses an upstream crop (FIG. 4 illustrates an upstream crop).
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations correspond to Claims 1 and 11.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeb US 20200356096 A1 (herein, Leeb) in view of Johnson et al., US20150278640A1 (herein, Johnson), in further view of Perry et al., US 20190050948 A1 (herein, Perry).
Regarding Claim 2, discloses the control unit and further discloses, wherein, to identify the state of said crop being treated (¶[0013] – “…a treatment (of crops or soil) by the work machine can be improved…”), but does not disclose, the control unit is further configured to:
-carry out a prediction of the state of said crop being treated via a machine learning algorithm previously trained on a set of data representative of the at least one characteristic value of the crop being treated, the state of said crop being treated being called deteriorated if said prediction exceeds a predefined threshold, and the state of said crop being treated being called preserved if said prediction does not exceed said predefined threshold.
However, Perry teaches,
-carry out a prediction of the state of said crop being treated via a machine learning algorithm previously trained on a set of data representative of the at least one characteristic value of the crop being treated (¶[00054] – “The sensor data sources 114 are one or more sources of data taken from sensors describing past or current measurements associated with crop production that can be used by machine learning processes of the crop prediction system 125 to train crop prediction models, to apply crop prediction models to predict future crop production, and to identify farming operations that optimize future crop production….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by modified Leeb to include the machine learning algorithm as taught by Perry. Doing so, provides the capability of predicting the state of crops based on previous data and this in turn provides the user with real time information relating to the status of the crops.
Modified Leeb does not disclose, the state of said crop being treated (52) being called deteriorated if said prediction exceeds a predefined threshold, and the state of said crop being treated(52) being called preserved if said prediction does not exceed said predefined threshold.
However, Johnston teaches, the state of said crop being treated being called deteriorated if said prediction exceeds a predefined threshold (¶[0121] – “…A runt category can correspond to plants that satisfy threshold low-yield criteria, such as plants with very delayed or deficient growth. In some examples, those plants that satisfy neither high-yield criteria nor medium-yield criteria can be categorized as runts., and the state of said crop being treated being called preserved if said prediction does not exceed said predefined threshold (¶[0121] – “…a plant that meets (or exceeds) a threshold size within a threshold time of emergence can be categorized as a boss plant…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by modified Leeb to include the deteriorated and preserved thresholds as taught by Johnson. Doing so, provides the capability of predicting the state of crops, such as deteriorated or preserved, and this in turn provides the user with real time information relating to the status of the crops.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Leeb teaches the machine learning language, data set, crop, and preserved and deteriorated state but does not disclose, wherein said machine learning algorithm is a neural network trained by supervised learning on said set of data representative of the at least one characteristic value of the crop being treated, in which the data is identified as corresponding to a deteriorated state, or as corresponding to a preserved state.
However, Perry teaches, wherein said machine learning algorithm is a neural network trained by supervised learning on said set of data representative of the at least one characteristic value of the crop being treated, in which the data is identified as corresponding to a deteriorated state, or as corresponding to a preserved state (¶[0141] – “… a crop prediction model can be a neural network trained on geographic and agricultural data, including for instance, land characteristics, crop types planted, farming operations performed, and resulting crop productions. The resulting neural network can map combinations of geographic and agricultural inputs to resulting crop productions,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by modified Leeb to include the neural network as taught by Perry. Doing so, enhances the learning of the algorithm by employing a neural network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights