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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of foreign priority to EP18171591.3, filed 05/09/2018. As such, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 05/09/2018. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention is directed to a method and a system. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES]
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 recite the following steps which fall under the mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas:
Claim 1 recites providing a model, wherein the model models thermal control of nematodes in the soil; the limitation providing a model involves mathematical calculations as disclosed in the present specification (p. 8, para. 5 and 6), and as such, falls within mathematical concept groupings of abstract ideas. The recited limitation is also considered as a mental process, since human mind is able to do the recited calculations. Claim 1 further recites linking the temperature values to the measurement time points; the limitation linking temperature values falls within mental process groupings of abstract idea, since human mind is able to link to groups of data. Claim 1 further recites calculating a temperature-dependent control parameter based on the temperature values and the measurement time points; the limitation calculating a temperature-dependent control parameter involves mathematical calculations as claimed in claim 2, and as such, falls within mathematical concept groupings of abstract idea. Claim 1 further recites comparing the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter with a target parameter, wherein the target parameter is a temperature-dependent control parameter which must be reached in order to control nematodes effectively. The limitation comparing the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter with a target parameter is considered a mathematical relationship, and as such, falls within mathematical concept groupings of abstract ideas. Claim 1 further recites generating a progress indicator; the limitation generating a progress indicator involves mathematical calculations, as discloses in specification (pg. 115, last para.), “A progress bar (75) indicates at which percentage the temperature-dependent control parameter has already reached the defined target parameter”, therefore, said limitation falls into mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas. Claim 1 further recites generating a message in response to the calculated parameter; the limitation generating a message encompasses determining a message and writing the message via pen and paper, and as such, is considered a mental process.
Claim 2 recite that the temperature- dependent control parameter is a sum of the time periods during which a minimum temperature is exceeded (mathematical concept).
Claim 3 recite that the temperature- dependent control parameter is a heat sum above a minimum temperature (mathematical concept).
Claims 5 recites modelling the thermal control of nematodes based on the temperature values, the measurement time points and one or more of the location-dependent parameters (the limitation modeling the thermal control involves mathematical calculations, and as such, falls within mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas).
Claims 6 and 18 recites linking the location of the sensor unit to the unique identifier (mental process); linking the user data to the unique identifier of the sensor unit (mental process of linking/corresponding data).
Claims 7 and 19 recites linking the user data to the unique identifier of the sensor unit (mental process of linking/corresponding data).
Claim 8 recites calculating, with reference to the model, a temperature-dependent control parameter based on the received temperature values and the measurement time points (mathematical calculation, also a mental process); compare the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter with a target parameter, wherein the target parameter is a temperature-dependent control parameter which must be reached in order to control nematodes effectively (mathematical relationship, also a mental process); claim 8 further recites generating a message; the limitation generating a message encompasses determining a message and writing the message via pen and paper, and as such, is considered a mental process. Claim 8 further recites generating a progress indicator; the limitation generating a progress indicator involves mathematical calculations, as discloses in specification (pg. 115, last para.), “A progress bar (75) indicates at which percentage the temperature-dependent control parameter has already reached the defined target parameter”, therefore, said limitation falls into mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites that the temperature- dependent control parameter is a sum of the time periods during which a minimum temperature is exceeded (mathematical calculation, also a mental process).
Claim 10 recites that the temperature- dependent control parameter is a heat sum above a minimum temperature (mathematical concept).
Claim 11 recites calculating the temperature-dependent control parameter (mathematical calculation, also a mental process); compare the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter with the target parameter (mathematical relationship, also a mental process); generating a message (mental process).
Claim 14 recites linking the temperature values to the measurement time points (mental process of correlating to values); calculating, with reference to a model configured to model thermal control of nematodes in the soil, a temperature-dependent control parameter based on the received temperature values and the measurement time points (mathematical calculation, also a mental process); comparing the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter with a target parameter, wherein the target parameter is a temperature-dependent control parameter which must be reached in order to control nematodes effectively (mathematical relationship, also a mental process since human mind is able to compare two values); generating a message when the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter reaches the target parameter (mental process, encompasses determining a message and writing the message via pen and paper). Claim 14 further recites further recites generating a progress indicator; the limitation generating a progress indicator involves mathematical calculations, as discloses in specification (pg. 115, last para.), “A progress bar (75) indicates at which percentage the temperature-dependent control parameter has already reached the defined target parameter”, therefore, said limitation falls into mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites modelling the thermal control of nematodes based on the temperature values, the measurement time points and one or more of the location-dependent parameters (the limitation modeling based on values and measurements involves mathematical calculations and as such falls within mathematical concept groupings of abstract idea).
Claim 18 recites linking the location of the sensor unit to the unique identifier (mental process of correlating two values); linking the user data to the unique identifier of the sensor unit (mental process of correlating two values);
Claim 19 recites linking the user data to the unique identifier of the sensor unit (mental process of correlating two values);
The identified claim limitations fall into one of the groups of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity for the reasons set forth above. Therefore, claims 1-14 and 16-20 recite an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
The additional elements of claim(s) 1-14 and 16-20 include the following.
Claim 1 recites installing a temperature sensor in the soil, measuring temperature values in the soil at measurement time points, outputting a message indicating treatment of the soil to control nematodes in the soil; a screen display; and providing a real-time visual presentation of a status.
Claim 4 recites thermally treating the soil by means of solarization.
Claim 5, 6, and 7 recite a sensor unit comprising the temperature sensor, introducing the sensor into the soil, installing the temperature sensor, starting the sensor, ascertaining/obtaining a location of the sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining location-dependent parameter.
Claim 8 recites a system comprising a sensor unit having a temperature sensor, a transmitting unit, a computer system, a memory, a receiving unit, receiving temperature values and measurement time points, a solarization film.
Claim 11 recites a first computer system and a second computer system, receiving temperature values and measurement time points, transmitting the message, receiving the message, displaying the message via interface.
Claim 12 recites means for linking the sensor unit to a user (mobile), displaying temperature values.
Claim 13 recites means for determining a location of the sensor unit (mobile), means for linking the location of the sensor unit to the unique identifier (mobile).
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, a processor, receiving temperature values.
Claim 16 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a plastic film for solarization, a sensor unit, and a transmitting unit.
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, a processor, step of starting a sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining a location of sensor unit.
Claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, a processor, step of starting the sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining a location of sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining an identifier for the sensor unit, and displaying the location of the sensor on user screen.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, a processor, step of starting the sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining a location of sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining an identifier for the sensor unit, and displaying the location of the sensor on user screen and/or temperature values and/or result of the modeling. displaying, on a screen of the user, a location of the sensor unit and/or temperature values which are captured using the sensor unit and/or a result of the modelling of the thermal control of nematodes.
Claim 20 recites displaying on the user screen the result of modeling based on temperature values.
The additional elements of first and second computer system, memory, receiving unit, transmitting unit, means for linking the location of sensor (mobile device), means for linking the location of a sensor to identifier (mobile device), a non-transitory computer readable medium, program code, a display, and a processor are generic computer components and/or processes. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of treating the soil by means of solarization and a solarization film is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the temperature-dependent control parameter were performed and therefore, do not integrate the judicial elements into a practical application, but is a field of use of said additional elements. See MPEP 2106.04(d); 2106.05(h).
Furthermore, the additional elements of a temperature sensor/ a sensor unit, measuring temperature, outputting a message, ascertaining a location of the sensor, introducing the sensor into the soil, installing the temperature sensor, starting the sensor, ascertaining location-dependent parameter, receiving values and time points, receiving and transmitting message serve to collect the information for use by the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional element of “generating a screen display comprising a progress indicator” generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which the courts have identified as limitations that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) I.
Therefore, these additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, claims 1-14 and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
As a whole, though, the pending claims are not directed to any of these concepts.
Instead, as a whole, the pending claims are directed to treating soil for nematodes and, in doing so, to also tracking/monitoring a status of the treatment in real time so that the soil is treated only as long as needed to effectively kill the nematodes (and so the soil can then be used as soon as possible for planting, etc.). This aspect of the claims is made clear by way of the amendments herein, where, in connection with such treatment of the soil, a screen display is generated with a progress indicator providing a real-time visual presentation of a status of the control of the nematodes in the soil, and a notification/message is then provided once the treatment of the soil to control the nematodes is complete This is clearly not a mathematical concept, a mental process, or an organization of human activity.
It is respectfully submitted that the above statement is not persuasive. Instant claims are directed to monitoring temperature values and displaying the results on a screen. Instant claims do not have any active steps relating to treatment of soil. With regards to recitation of “providing a real-time visual presentation of a status of the control of the nematodes in the soil”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A. states that a claim to "collecting information (e.g., collecting temperature measurements), analyzing it (e.g., calculating a parameter and comparing to a target value), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., real-time visual presentation of a status)," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, claims 1-14 and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further states:
Even if the pending claims could be understood to be directed to an abstract idea, they recite additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (under Prong Two of Step 2A). In particular, the pending claims apply the alleged idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment. See, MPEP § 2106.04(d).
For instance, independent Claim 1 (as amended) recites the additional element of, while the soil is being treated for nematodes, generating a screen display comprising a progress indicator for the temperature-dependent control parameter relative to the target parameter, thereby providing a real-time visual presentation of a status of the control of the nematodes in the soil.
It is respectfully submitted that the above statement is not persuasive. As stated above, the step of “generating … a progress indicator “is an abstract idea, and the limitation of a screen display and the step of “providing a visual presentation …” amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claims do not include any additional steps appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of claim(s) 1-14 and 16-20 include the following.
Claim 1 recites installing a temperature sensor in the soil, measuring temperature values in the soil at measurement time points, outputting a message indicating treatment of the soil to control nematodes in the soil; a screen display; and providing a real-time visual presentation of a status.
Claim 4 recites thermally treating the soil by means of solarization.
Claim 5, 6, and 7 recite a sensor unit comprising the temperature sensor, introducing the sensor into the soil, installing the temperature sensor, starting the sensor, ascertaining/obtaining a location of the sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining location-dependent parameter.
Claim 8 recites a system comprising a sensor unit having a temperature sensor, a transmitting unit, a computer system, a memory, a receiving unit, receiving temperature values and measurement time points, a solarization film.
Claim 11 recites a first computer system and a second computer system, receiving temperature values and measurement time points, transmitting the message, receiving the message, displaying the message via interface.
Claim 12 recites means for linking the sensor unit to a user (mobile), displaying temperature values.
Claim 13 recites means for determining a location of the sensor unit (mobile), means for linking the location of the sensor unit to the unique identifier (mobile).
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, a processor, receiving temperature values.
Claim 16 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a plastic film for solarization, a sensor unit, and a transmitting unit.
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, a processor, step of starting a sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining a location of sensor unit.
Claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, a processor, step of starting the sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining a location of sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining an identifier for the sensor unit, and displaying the location of the sensor on user screen.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, a processor, step of starting the sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining a location of sensor unit, ascertaining/obtaining an identifier for the sensor unit, and displaying the location of the sensor on user screen and/or temperature values and/or result of the modeling. displaying, on a screen of the user, a location of the sensor unit and/or temperature values which are captured using the sensor unit and/or a result of the modelling of the thermal control of nematodes.
Claim 20 recites displaying on the user screen the result of modeling based on temperature values.
The additional elements of first and second computer system, memory, receiving unit, transmitting unit, means for linking the location of sensor (mobile device), means for linking the location of a sensor to identifier (mobile device), a non-transitory computer readable medium, program code, and a processor, are conventional computer components and/or processes. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607,613,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Furthermore, the additional element of a temperature sensor/ a sensor unit, amounts to conventional methods and system to obtain temperature data and soil solarization, respectively. This position is supported by Wang et al. (CN 106444581 A) Wang et al. discloses the traditional manual thermometer for temperature measurement or a handheld sensor for measuring, and then temperature recording (p. 2, para. 1) and setting 18 sensors for temperature acquisition (p. 6, para. 4).
Furthermore, the additional element of plastic film amounts to conventional methods and system to achieve soil solarization as disclosed by Alvear et al. (EcoSensor: Monitoring environmental pollution using mobile sensors, Department of Computer Engineering Universitat Politecnica de Val ` encia, IEEE, 2016) in abstract.
Furthermore, the additional element of means for determining a location amounts to conventional methods and system to obtain sensor location as disclosed by Alvear et al. (EcoSensor: Monitoring environmental pollution using mobile sensors, Department of Computer Engineering Universitat Politecnica de Val ` encia, IEEE, 2016) in abstract.
Furthermore, the additional element of a kit amounts to conventional methods and system to control nematodes. This position is supported by Li et al. (publication of CN102213672B). Li et al. discloses a kit that can be applied in the drug screening being index with nematode survival rate, pesticide screening test, environmental evaluation, water quality assessment (Abstract). Additionally, Gill et al. (US20060191023A1) discloses a kit for screening for the activity of one or more agents on a nematode (claim 43) and subjecting nematodes to a nematocide (claim 18). Gill further discloses that the kit can include instructional materials containing directions teaching the use of one or more components of the kit in high throughput screening assays. Gill further discloses a medium capable of storing such instructions and communicating them to an end user is contemplated by this invention. Such media include, but are not limited to electronic storage media [0048]. Furthermore, the additional element of providing a real-time visual presentation of a status amounts to conventional methods and system to visualize data acquired from sensors. This position is supported by Suciu et al. (M2M Remote Telemetry and Cloud IoT Big Data Processing in Viticulture, IEEE, 2015, pages 1117-1121). Suciu discloses describes a viticulture application using M2M communication and cloud-based IoT for remote monitoring and disease management where the system predicts diseases and sends alerts (abstract). Suciu further discloses how cloud computing is applicable to these real-time data in agriculture (pg. 1117, col. 1, last para.). Suciu further describes using different types of RTUs (Remote Telemetry Units) and sensors that monitor and transmit important information such as temperature, precipitation, wind speed and leaf wetness from selected locations. Suciu further describes that IoT enables the collection, enrichment and distribution of a wide variety of data over heterogeneous networks and protocols to an IP cloud platform, as the RTUs will transmit sensor data over GSM/GPRS using M2M communication, but also over UHF radio bridges from locations where GSM signal is not available [8]. On the cloud IoT platform, Big Data from sensors can be conveniently processed and visualized as web applications and the platform can provide detailed forecasts, alerts and notifications of diseases (for example, nematodes), as well as treatment recommendations (for example, solarization) (pg. 1117, col. 2, para.2; see also, Fig 5 and 6 for visualization of heat and time, as well as, disease management progress). Suciu further discloses collecting data from one or several Adcon Telemetry Gateways (receivers) and makes it available for viewing or for specialized analysis (pg. 1118, col. 1). Additionally, Luvisi et al. (RFID temperature sensors for monitoring soil solarization with biodegradable films, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 123, April 2016, Pages 135-141) discloses control of soil-borne pathogen by soil solarization where RFID sensors are buried in the soil and are used for real-time temperature monitoring during solarization. Luvisi further discloses that data, expressed as thermal addition and temperature classes, collected continuously by sensors permitted to design real-time graphs that help the farmer to understand the thermal effect caused by treatment (abstract; see also, figs. 2-4).
Therefore, the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. [Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea (and/or natural correlation) without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
Amended independent Claim 1 additionally recites, while the soil is being treated for nematodes, generating a screen display comprising a progress indicator for the temperature-dependent control parameter relative to the target parameter, thereby providing a real-time visual presentation of a status of the control of the nematodes in the soil. Thus, the particular status of the treatment of soil (as represented by the unique temperature-dependent control parameter) is immediately and continuously available to a user, for example, so that the soil, again, is treated only as long as needed and may be used as soon as possible following completion of such treatment. Such additional features relating to use of the specific display of real-time treatment status of the field, based on the unique temperature-dependent control parameter, surely result in an inventive concept.
It is respectfully submitted that the above statement is not persuasive. As stated above, Suciu and Luvisi disclose additional element of providing a real-time visual presentation of a status. As such, the recited additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Therefore, claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106444581 A) in view of Luvisi et al. (RFID temperature sensors for monitoring soil solarization with biodegradable films, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 123, April 2016, Pages 135-141).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14, Wang discloses a method for controlling nematodes in soil (Abstract: remote monitoring method …comprising obtaining temperature parameter; pest remote monitoring S101, p. 3, para. 7-8), the method comprising: installing a temperature sensor in the soil (p. 6, para. 4; setting 18 sensors for temperature acquisition … each group of sensors collecting soil upper, middle and lower temperature); providing a model, wherein the model models thermal control of nematodes in the soil (p. 6, para. 5-6; also the calculating unit 302, figure 3); in connection with treatment of the soil to control nematodes in the soil: measuring temperature values (obtaining temperature parameter) in the soil at measurement time points; linking the temperature values to the measurement time points (p. 3, S101; the temperature parameter of every day can be obtained for 4 times; p. 4, para. 1: taking preventive measures for pests as the result of the calculation and comparison to a threshold); calculating a temperature-dependent control parameter based on the temperature values and the measurement time points (p. 3, S101; obtaining each greenhouse temperature parameter of every day); comparing the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter with a target parameter, wherein the target parameter is a temperature-dependent control parameter which must be reached in order to control nematodes effectively (p. 2, last para.; remote monitoring method and server, since it can obtain each greenhouse temperature parameter of every day, and calculates the corresponding insect pest by pest accumulated temperature compared with the corresponding accumulated threshold value); in response to the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter reaching the target parameter, generating and outputting a message indicating treatment of the soil to control the nematodes in the soil (p. 2, last para; pre-warning information of pest; see also, pest-temperature of each chamber specifically, greenhouse pest remote monitoring server according to the obtained the certain pest accumulated temperature of certain pests in greenhouse corresponding to the accumulated threshold value, if temperature of the insect pest greater than the corresponding accumulated threshold value, sending out the pre-warning information in the pests of greenhouse memory. It can be understood that, by setting the accumulated threshold value, can advance the occurrence of plant diseases and insect pests, to take prevention measures for corresponding pests. (pg. 3 last para. - pg. 4 first para.).
Further regarding claim 8, Wang et al. discloses a transmitting unit (p. 2, first para., the temperature data collected by a sensor and transmitted to the client, to temperature recording. the multi-point sensor for collecting and uploading data in a manner that, between the sensor transmission is wire transmission, to ensure reliable connection). Wang et al. discloses a receiving unit (p. 2, para. 9; receiving unit used for starting from the greenhouse crop planting, obtaining each greenhouse temperature parameter of every day). Wang et al. further discloses a memory including a thermal control of nematodes model (p. 9, para. 9; computer software product can be stored in a computer readable storage medium). Wang et al. further discloses a computer system (p. 9, para. 9; a computer device).
Further regrading claim 14, Wang et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code for controlling nematodes in soil, which when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the steps of claim 1. (p. 9, para. 9; (the computer software product can be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as ROM/RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk, etc., including several instructions to enable a computer device (may be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) to perform the method embodiments or examples of some part.
Further regarding claims 1, 8, and 14 Wang does not expressly disclose generating a screen display comprising a progress indicator for the temperature-dependent control parameter relative to the target parameter, thereby providing a real-time visual presentation of a status of the control of the nematodes in the soil.
Luvisi discloses a soil-borne pathogen and weed control method by means of soil solarization. Luvisi further discloses implementing monitoring tools to minimize the time of solarization treatment, thereby managing solarization. Luvisi further discloses inserting RFID temperature sensor, solarization treatment, and continuously receiving temperature measurements and designing real-time graphs (inherently disclosing a screen display) that help the farmer to understand the thermal effect caused by treatment (abstract). Luvisi further discloses linking temperature measurements with time and comparing the calculated measurements to a control/environmental data (p. 136, col. 2, subsection 2.2; see also fig. 2). Luvisi further discloses shows the workflow of operations necessary to perform a comparison between real-time data collected from sensors and farm historical data (Fig. 4: activity diagrams for solarization management via digital sensors). Activity diagram of the function ‘forecast’ show the interaction of the software with the user through user interface (p. 137-138, subsection 3.2).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Wang et al. discloses that the temperature- dependent control parameter is a sum of the time periods during which a minimum temperature is exceeded (p. 2, para 11-12; calculating unit, used for according to each greenhouse accumulated acquired temperature parameter of every day, respectively calculating temperature indoor and more accumulated temperature preset for insect pest; judging unit, for judging whether a certain pests in a greenhouse pest accumulated temperature is greater than the accumulated threshold corresponding to the pest).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Wang et al. discloses that the temperature- dependent control parameter is a heat sum above a minimum temperature (p. 4, last two paragraphs; the daily average temperature of S201; p. 5, the daily average temperature greater than zero).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
Initially, Wang fails to disclose that the soil in the greenhouses is treated in any manner for pests. Instead, Wang describes that temperature in the greenhouses is tracked and accumulated, and that the accumulated temperature values are used to determine presence of certain pests in the greenhouses (which then triggers a warning). What' s more, Wang provides no disclosure of any screen display relating to a status of pest treatment, let alone one that specifically includes a progress indicator illustrating progress of a temperature-dependent control parameter relative to a target parameter to thereby provide a real-time visual presentation of a status of treatment of soil. Finally, Wang provides no disclosure of generating a message indicating that treatment of soil to control nematodes is complete.
It is respectfully submitted that the above statement is not persuasive. Applicant amendments necessitated a new round of rejection. As such, the combination of Wang and Luvisi discloses limitations of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14. With regards to applicant stating that “Wang fails to disclose that the soil in the greenhouses is treated in any manner for pests”, examiner states the claim 1 as drafted does not involve any active steps regarding treatment of soil and Wang discloses that preventive measures can be taken for corresponding pests and diseases.
In KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, and motivation test by the Federal Circuit, indicated that “The principles underlying [earlier] cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
Applying the KSR standard to Wang and Luvisi, the examiner concludes that the combination of Fischer and Dash represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Both Wang and Luvisi are directed to control of soil-borne pathogens. Wang only disclosed installing a temperature sensor and measuring and linking temperature values, calculating a parameter and comparing the parameter to a threshold, and warning users to take preventative measures. In the same field of research, Luvisi provided a progress indicator/graph and providing a real-time visual presentation of the result of comparison to a threshold while solarization is in progress. Combining the temperature calculation and computer system of Wang with treatment choice and real-time data analysis of Luvisi would have allowed for more effective control of soil-borne pathogens such as nematodes. One ordinary skilled in the art before he effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Wang and Luvisi. This combination would have been expected to have provided a more effective control of nematodes and other soil pathogens maximizing crop cultivations. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106444581 A) in view of Luvisi et al. (RFID temperature sensors for monitoring soil solarization with biodegradable films, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 123, April 2016, Pages 135-141), as applied to claim 1-3, 8-10, and 14 above, in view of Robin et al. (Solarization for Nematode Disinfestation of Small Volumes of Soil, Annals of Applied Nematology 9-:41-45. 1988. © The Society of Nematologists 1988).
Regarding claims 4, Wang et al. discloses obtaining each greenhouse temperature parameter of every day (P. 3, para. 8-9, S101) Wang et al. does not expressly disclose the treatment of the soil to control the nematodes includes a thermal treatment of the soil; and wherein the method further comprises thermally treating the soil by means of solarization. However, Robin et al. discloses thermally treating the soil by means of solarization (p. 1, col. 1, para. 2; Soil solarization (heating) is being used with variable success for the control of certain soil inhabiting nematodes and pathogens in field conditions, also, as evidenced by Katan et al.).
Further regarding claim 16, Wang et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 14 (p. 9, para. 9; (the computer software product can be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as ROM/RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk, etc., including several instructions to enable a computer device (may be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.); Wang et al. further discloses a sensor unit with a temperature sensor (p. 6, para. 4; setting 18 sensors for temperature acquisition) and a transmitting unit (p.6, para. 5, the temperature data after Obtaining average sensor area number and node number is added after the temperature data is transmitted to the gathering device). Wang et al. does not disclose a plastic film for solarization. However, Robin et al. discloses thermally treating the soil by means of solarization using plastic film (Abstract, polyethylene plastics were evaluated as potential materials for disinfesting soil containing nematodes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wang et al. to have used solarization to control nematodes, as shown by Robin et al. (p. 1, col. 1, para. 2) to control nematodes. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the technique of Robin et al. to the method of Wang et al. because both use Solarization to control nematodes.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
Claim 4 depends from independent Claim 1 and Claim 16 depends from independent Claim 14, each of which is patentable over Wang for the reasons stated above. In addressing the features of Claims 4 and 16, the Office cites to Robin as supplementing Wang. However, Robin at least fails to remedy the shortcomings of Wang, with reference to Claims 1 and 14. As such, even assuming, arguendo, that the suggested combination of Wang and Robin is proper and that Robin discloses the subject matter asserted by the Office, claims 4 and 16 are still patentable over the suggested combination of Wang and Robin, at least, based on their dependence from one of Claim 1 and Claim 14.
Reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection of Claims 4 and 16 are respectfully requested.
It is respectfully submitted that the above statement is not persuasive. Applicant amendments necessitated a new round of rejection. As such, the combination of Wang and Luvisi discloses limitations of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14 and dependent claim rejections are proper.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106444581 A) in view of Luvisi et al. (RFID temperature sensors for monitoring soil solarization with biodegradable films, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 123, April 2016, Pages 135-141), as applied to claim 1-3, 8-10, and 14 above, in view of Van der Wurff et al. (Biological control of root knot nematodes in organic vegetable and flower greenhouse cultivation, State of Science, Wageningenur for quality of life, A study over the period 2005-2010).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Wang et al. discloses providing a sensor unit comprising the temperature sensor; introducing the temperature sensor into the soil, thereby installing the temperature sensor in the soil; starting the sensor unit; ascertaining a location of the sensor unit (p. 6, para. 4, the green house is divided into four areas; p. 6, para. 5, obtaining sensor area number and node number); Wang et al. does not disclose ascertaining location-dependent parameters including nematode species present, information on soil type, information on soil moisture, and information on a species of a cultivated crop plant in the soil; however, Van der Wurff et al. discloses a combination of methods, depending on species identity, crop type, and soil is a sustainable option to control nematodes (p. 3, last paragraph). Van der Wurff et al. further disclose the effect of soil temperature and moisture on nematode control (p. 49, para. 1). Van der Wurff et al. further discloses alternatives soil disinfestation by solarization (p. 48, last paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wang et al. to have used location-dependent parameters, as shown by Van der Wurff et al. (p. 3, 48-49) to model the thermal control of nematodes. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the technique of Van der Wurff et al. et al. to the method of Wang et al. because they are both use biological methods to control nematodes.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
Claim 5 depends from independent Claim 1 and Claim 17 depends from independent Claim 14, each of which is patentable over Wang for the reasons stated above. In addressing the features of Claims 5 and 14, the Office additionally cites to Van der Wurff as supplementing Wang.
However, Van der Wurff at least fails to remedy the shortcomings of Wang, with reference to Claims 1 and 14. As such, even assuming, arguendo, that the suggested combination of Wang and Van der Wurff is proper and that Van der Wurff discloses the subject matter asserted by the Office, claims 5 and 17 are still patentable over the suggested combination of Wang and Van der Wurff, at least, based on their dependence from one of Claim 1 and Claim 14.
It is respectfully submitted that the above statement is not persuasive. Applicant amendments necessitated a new round of rejection. As such, the combination of Wang and Luvisi discloses limitations of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14 and dependent claim rejections are proper.
Claims 6, 7, 11, 13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106444581 A) in view of Luvisi et al. (RFID temperature sensors for monitoring soil solarization with biodegradable films, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 123, April 2016, Pages 135-141), as applied to claim 1-3, 8-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Alvear et al. (EcoSensor: Monitoring environmental pollution using mobile sensors, Department of Computer Engineering Universitat Politecnica de Val ` encia, IEEE, 2016).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 13, 18 and 19, Wang et al. discloses providing a sensor unit comprising the temperature sensor; introducing the temperature sensor into the soil, thereby installing the temperature sensor in the soil (p. 6, para.5; setting 18 temperature sensors to measure soil temperature in upper, middle, and lower soil); starting the sensor unit; ascertaining a location of the sensor unit; ascertaining a unique identifier of the sensor unit; linking the location of the sensor unit to the unique identifier (p. 6, para. 4, the green house is divided into four areas; p. 6, para. 5, obtaining sensor area number and node number after the temperature data is transmitted to the gathering device); linking the user data to the unique identifier of the sensor unit (p. 4, para. 4; the alarm information can be sent in the form of short message to the greenhouse manager, or separate the alarm information in the form of short message to the greenhouse manager, for example, can be through the 3G communication module sending warning short message to greenhouse manager to know condition of greenhouse, prompting to process the pest; p. 6, last para., worker can check the temperature parameter and insect pest early warning data of each temperature chamber greenhouse pest remote monitoring server through to achieve monitoring of each greenhouse). Wang et al. does not expressly disclose displaying the location of the sensor unit on a screen of a user. Luvisi discloses inserting RFID temperature sensor, solarization treatment, and continuously receiving temperature measurements and designing real-time graphs (inherently disclosing a screen display) that help the farmer to understand the thermal effect caused by treatment (abstract). Alvear et al. discloses the Waspmote sensor that is based on android platform and measures environmental changes such as temperature that is equipped with a GPS that allows determining the exact location of each measurement. The android-based device shows measurements at certain locations in real-time (p. 2, col. 2, subsection III. EcoSensors).
Further regarding claim 13, Wang et al. discloses that the sensor unit is associated with a unique identifier that identifies the sensor unit; means for linking the location of the sensor unit to the unique identifier (p. 6, para. 5; the temperature data after Obtaining average sensor area number and node number is added after the temperature data is transmitted to the gathering device). Wang et al. does not disclose means for determining a location. However, Alvear discloses means for determining a location of the sensor unit (p. 2, col. 2, subsection III. ECOSENSOR; a GPS interface that allows determining the exact location of each measurement).
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. discloses a first computer system (p. 9, para.1, a server) and a second computer system (p. 9, para9; a computer device to perform the method embodiments); wherein the first computer system is configured to: receive the temperature values and the measurement time points from the sensor units calculate the temperature-dependent control parameter; compare the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter with the target parameter; and then transmit the message to the second computer system when the calculated temperature-dependent control parameter reaches the target parameter (p. 9, para1-7, a server that obtain each greenhouse temperature parameter of every day, and calculates the corresponding insect pest by pest accumulated temperature compared with the corresponding accumulated threshold value); wherein the second computer system is configured to receive the message and to display the message, via an interface, to a user, and wherein the interface further includes a location of the sensor unit and the temperature values which are captured using the sensor unit. (a computer device to perform the method embodiments or examples of some part; p. 4, para. 4; the alarm information can be sent in the form of short message to the greenhouse manager, or separate the alarm information in the form of short message to the greenhouse manager, for example, can be through the 3G communication module sending warning short message to greenhouse manager to know condition of greenhouse, prompting to process the pest).
Further regarding claim 11, Wang does not expressly disclose that the interface further includes a location of the sensor unit and the temperature values which are captured using the sensor unit. However, Alvear discloses means for determining a location of the sensor unit (p. 2, col. 2, sunsection III. ECOSENSOR; a GPS interface that allows determining the exact location of each measurement).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wang et al. to have displayed the location of sensor, as shown by Alvear et al. (p. 2, col. 2, subsection III. EcoSensors). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the technique of Wang et al. to the method of Alvear et al. because they both collect environmental data via sensors.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
Claims 6-7 depend from independent Claim 1, Claims 11 and 13 depend from independent Claim 8, and Claims 18-19 depend from independent Claim 14, each of which is patentable over Wang for the reasons stated above. In addressing the features of Claims 6-7, 11, 13, and 18-19, the Office additionally cites to Alvear as supplementing Wang. However, Alvear at least fails to remedy the shortcomings of Wang, with reference to Claims 1, 8 and 14. As such, even assuming, arguendo, that the suggested combination of Wang and Alvear is proper and that Alvear discloses the subject matter asserted by the Office, claims 6-7, 11, 13, and 18-19 are still patentable over the suggested combination of Wang and Alvear, at least, based on their dependence from one of Claim 1, Claim 8 and Claim 14.
It is respectfully submitted that the above statement is not persuasive. Applicant amendments necessitated a new round of rejection. As such, the combination of Wang and Luvisi discloses limitations of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14 and dependent claim rejections are proper.
Claims 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106444581 A) in view of Luvisi et al. (RFID temperature sensors for monitoring soil solarization with biodegradable films, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 123, April 2016, Pages 135-141), as applied to claim 1-3, 8-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Kook et al. (KR 20030051123 A).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Wang et al. discloses means for linking the sensor unit to a user; wherein the computer system is configured to display to the user only that information (a computer device to perform the method embodiments or examples of some part; p. 4, para. 4; the alarm information can be sent in the form of short message to the greenhouse manager, or separate the alarm information in the form of short message to the greenhouse manager, for example, can be through the 3G communication module sending warning short message to greenhouse manager to know condition of greenhouse, prompting to process the pest). Wang et al. further discloses information based on temperature values which are captured using the sensor unit linked to the user (p. 6, last para., worker can check the temperature parameter and insect pest early warning data of each temperature chamber greenhouse pest remote monitoring server through to achieve monitoring of each greenhouse). Wang et al. does not expressly disclose displaying the said information. However, Kook discloses a display device that provides the function of visually recognizing all operation information such as action contents, elapsed time of operation, soil temperature state and failure state, etc., … a function to enable the user to recognize the operation by controlling the output means based on the data received from the input means and the basic stored data, and transfer the information of its input and output status to the operation display means (p. 10, para. 5-7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wang et al. to have displayed the soil temperature values, as shown by Kook (p. 10, para. 5-7). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the technique of Kook et al. to the method of Wang et al. because they both use farming methods/devices that direct solar energy into the soil.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
Claim 12 depends from independent Claim 8, which is patentable over Wang for the reasons stated above. In addressing the features of Claim 12, the Office additionally cites to Kook as supplementing Wang. However, Kook at least fails to remedy the shortcomings of Wang, with reference to Claim 8. As such, even assuming, arguendo, that the suggested combination of Wang and Kook is proper and that Kook discloses the subject matter asserted by the Office, claim 12 is still patentable over the suggested combination of Wang and Kook, at least, based on its dependence from Claim 8.
It is respectfully submitted that the above statement is not persuasive. Applicant amendments necessitated a new round of rejection. As such, the combination of Wang and Luvisi discloses limitations of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14 and dependent claim rejections are proper.
.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL SABOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686