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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-10, drawn to a system comprising a boom, nozzles, at least one camera, and a processor.
Group II, claim(s) 11-20, drawn to a computer-implemented method with a software application.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. The claims of Group I are directed to a system comprising a boom, nozzles, at least one camera and processor, whereas the claims of Group II are directed to a computer-implemented method with a software application, and thus the groups do not share a technical feature.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Michael Morgan on September 23, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are being withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “a threshold weed density”. It should be changed to -the threshold weed density- Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5, 9 and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “a second weed density” and “a third weed density” without defining the relationship between the first, second, and third weed densities. For example, it is unclear whether the second weed density is greater than the first weed density and whether the third weed density is greater than the second weed density. It is also unclear whether each recited weed density corresponds to a discrete density value or a respective range of weed densities. Additionally, the claim recites “a first fluid rate,” “a second fluid rate,” and “a third fluid rate,” but does not specify the relationship between each fluid rate and its corresponding weed density. The claim therefore does not clearly establish the conditions under which each fluid rate is determined or applied.
Claim 9 recites that the processor is configured to “determine a weed confidence metric for weed density and a weed detection confidence map for detection of individual weeds in real time as the boom travels through a field” and Claim 10 recites that the processor is configured to “display a weed confidence metric and weed detection confidence map.” The term “weed confidence metric” and the phrase “weed detection confidence map” are indefinite because the claim does not identify what the confidence represents, how the confidence is determined, or what parameters establish the confidence and the specification lacks to provide details to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what the scope of the term is.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glasbrenner et al. (US 2022/0287290 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Glasbrenner discloses a system (10) comprising: a boom (14); a plurality of nozzles (16) disposed along the boom to apply a fluid application as the boom travels through an agricultural field (Fig. 1); at least one camera (18, Fig. 1) disposed on the boom to capture images of the agricultural field including a target region (Fig. 2); and a processor communicatively coupled to the at least one camera, the processor is configured to determine a weed density for the target region and whether one or more weeds are located at an evaluation point within the target region based on one or more images of the target region, and to determine a spray actuation plan on a per nozzle basis for the target region based on whether the weed density for the target region equals or exceeds a threshold weed density and whether one or more weeds are located at the evaluation point within the target region (Par. [0034, 0073, 0074, 0077, and 0081] and Figs. 2-5).
With regard to claim 2, the system of Glasbrenner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Glasbrenner further discloses that the processor is further configured to perform the spray actuation plan if the weed density equals or exceeds the threshold weed density for the target region or if one or more weeds are located at the evaluation point (Par. [0031-0034]).
With regard to claim 3, the system of Glasbrenner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Glasbrenner further discloses that the processor is further configured to perform the spray actuation plan by applying fluid with the nozzles that pass over the target region when the weed density reaches a threshold weed density for the target region (Par. [0031-0034]).
With regard to claim 4, the system of Glasbrenner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Glasbrenner further discloses that the processor is further configured to perform the spray actuation plan and determine a number of nozzles to apply fluid when passing over the target region based on the determined weed density (as shown in Fig. 4A/B, operation of nozzles in section A, B, C, D are determined based on the detection of plants 22).
With regard to claim 6, the system of Glasbrenner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Glasbrenner further discloses that the processor is further configured to perform the spray actuation plan when the weed density is below the threshold weed density and detection of one or more weeds at an evaluation point (claim 21).
With regard to claim 7, the system of Glasbrenner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6 above. Glasbrenner further discloses that the spray actuation plan to cause application of the fluid with a nozzle that passes over the evaluation point plus additional adjacent nozzles to provide a spray pattern for a configurable lateral width that is laterally spaced from the one or more weeds within the evaluation point (Par. [0031-0034] and Figs. 3A-4B).
With regard to claim 8, the system of Glasbrenner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Glasbrenner further discloses that a number of nozzles that are activated to apply fluid when passing over the evaluation point is based on one or more of a number a weeds, a type of weed, and a weed size within the evaluation point (Par. [0031-0034] and Figs. 3A-4B).
With regard to claim 9, the system of Glasbrenner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Glasbrenner further discloses that the processor is further configured to determine a weed confidence metric for weed density and a weed detection confidence map for detection of individual weeds in real time as the boom travels through a field (Par. [0031-0034] and Figs. 2-4B).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tempel (US 2022/0167546 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Tempel discloses a system (10) comprising: a boom (claim 16); a plurality of nozzles (claim 17) disposed along the boom to apply a fluid application as the boom travels through an agricultural field (claim 18); at least one camera disposed on the boom to capture images of the agricultural field including a target region (claims 17 and 18); and a processor communicatively coupled to the at least one camera, the processor is configured to determine a weed density (Par. [0022 and 0091-0095]) for the target region and whether one or more weeds are located at an evaluation point within the target region based on one or more images of the target region, and to determine a spray actuation plan on a per nozzle basis for the target region based on whether the weed density for the target region equals or exceeds a threshold weed density and whether one or more weeds are located at the evaluation point within the target region (Par. [0030, 0047, 0090, 0104, 0105, 0112-0114, 0139-0142]).
With regard to claim 2, the system of Tempel discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Tempel further discloses that the processor is further configured to perform the spray actuation plan if the weed density equals or exceeds the threshold weed density for the target region or if one or more weeds are located at the evaluation point (Par. [0030, 0047, 0090, 0104, 0105, 0112-0114, 0139-0142]).
With regard to claim 3, the system of Tempel discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Tempel further discloses that the processor is further configured to perform the spray actuation plan by applying fluid with the nozzles that pass over the target region when the weed density reaches a threshold weed density for the target region (Par. [0030, 0047, 0090, 0104, 0105, 0112-0114, and 0139-0142]).
With regard to claim 4, the system of Tempel discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Tempel further discloses that the processor is further configured to perform the spray actuation plan and determine a number of nozzles to apply fluid when passing over the target region based on the determined weed density (Par. [0030, 0047, 0090, 0104, 0105, 0112-0114, and 0139-0142]).
With regard to claim 5, the system of Tempel discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Tempel further discloses that the processor is further configured to perform the spray actuation plan and determine a first fluid rate for a minimum first weed density, a second fluid rate for a second weed density, and a third fluid rate for a third weed density (Par. [0095]).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasbrenner in view of Garner et al. (US 2022/0248656 A1).
With regard to claim 10, the system of Glasbrenner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Glasbrenner does not disclose that a display device coupled to the processor, the display device is configured to display a weed confidence metric and weed detection confidence map.
Garner teaches a system comprising a display device coupled to the processor, the display device is configured to display a weed confidence metric and weed detection confidence map (Par. [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Glasbrenner, by incorporating the display device as taught by Garner, doing it would allow the user to visually understand a variety of information, data, logs, predictions, histories, or other information related to each object (Par. 0123]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tempel in view of Garner et al. (US 2022/0248656 A1).
With regard to claim 10, the system of Tempel discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Tempe does not disclose that a display device coupled to the processor, the display device is configured to display a weed confidence metric and weed detection confidence map.
Garner teaches a system comprising a display device coupled to the processor, the display device is configured to display a weed confidence metric and weed detection confidence map (Par. [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tempel, by incorporating the display device as taught by Garner, doing it would allow the user to visually understand a variety of information, data, logs, predictions, histories, or other information related to each object (Par. 0123]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
