DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response, filed 08/28/2025, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. Herein, "the previous Office action" refers to the Non-Final Rejection of 05/28/2025.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are examined; claims 11-12 are canceled.
Priority
This US Application No. 17/487,743 claims priority from Foreign Application No. DE102020125422.9 (09/29/2020) as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on April 12, 2022. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged and the effective filing date of claims 1-10 and 13-20 is 09/29/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Sep. 28, 2021 and May 23, 2021 were considered by the examiner.
Withdrawal / Revision of Objections and/or Rejections
In view of the amendment and remarks from 08/28/2025, the rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 USC § 112(a) is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments, rendering the ground of rejection moot. In view of the amendment and remarks from 08/28/2025, the rejection of claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10 and13-15 under 35 USC § 112(b) is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments, rendering the ground of rejection moot. In view of the amendment and remarks from 08/28/2025, the rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 USC § 101 is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments, rendering the ground of rejection moot. In view of the amendment and remarks from 08/28/2025, the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC § 102(a) by Soler is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments, rendering the ground of rejection moot. In view of the amendment and remarks from 08/28/2025, the rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC § 103 over Soler and Cabelguenne is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments, rendering the ground of rejection moot.
The following rejections and/or objections are either maintained or newly applied for claims 1-10 and 13-20. They constitute the complete set applied to the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites “special crop type”. The instant specification does not provide a definition for this term. However, this appears to be a well-known term of the prior art (USDA, “What is a Specialty Crop?”, pgs. 1-7 https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/scbgp/specialty-crop). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited term based on the USDA guidelines is that specialty crops include certain fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, culinary herbs, spices, etc..
Claim 13 recites “extended spectrum of contents” and “expanded calibration model”. In light of this instant specification, the recited terms are being interpreted as a calibration model that “enables the NIR sensor system to determine an expanded or extended spectrum of properties of the flow of substance” [0044]; wherein the flow of substance comprises “the composition of a flow of liquid manure” [0025].
112f
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step” or the generic placeholder) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step” or the generic placeholder) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step” or the generic placeholder) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step” or the generic placeholder) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations that use the term "evaluation unit " being interpreted under 112(f) are:
An evaluation unit configured to derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances in real time from the raw data (claim 16).
Regarding the recited “evaluation unit”, the instant specification at [0034] and [0037] indicated that the recited evaluation unit comprises a processor but does not clarify the algorithm responsible for the function to derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances in real time from the raw data.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification must disclose structural components – computer/processor and algorithm – responsible for the performance of the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (MPEP 2181 (II)(B )).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. This is a new matter rejection.
The recited “an evaluation unit configured to derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances in real time from the raw data” (claim 16) is interpreted as computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. The specification does not disclose all the components (the algorithm and computer/processor) responsible for the performance of the claimed specific computer function of the automated process data interpretation module and the evaluation unit. Rather, the specification merely restates the function of the automated process data interpretation module and the evaluation unit. MPEP § 2181.IV sets forth that mere restatement of function in the specification without description of the means to accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Therefore, the claim 16 does not meet the written description requirement for means-plus-function limitations. Claims 17-19 are similarly rejected because they are dependent on claim 16 and do not resolve the lack of written description introduced by claim 16.
Response to applicant's remarks in regards of Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 112(a)
The Remarks of 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully contends that the present application provides sufficient support for one of skill in the art to practice the invention. The present application discloses the following (non-exhaustive) examples” reference to disclosure [0034] and [0037] “Applicant further respectfully contends that there is a requirement for disclosure of a specific algorithm for performing the recited limitation in order to comply with 35 USC § l 12(a). Applicant respectfully disagrees. Moreover, Applicant has stated in the application that the functions of the evaluation unit are in "a manner known per se". In this regard, Applicant respectfully contends that the specification, as filed, provides proper support for the limitation” – pg. 7 para. 3. The recited “an evaluation unit configured to derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances in real time from the raw data” (claim 16) is interpreted as computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. The instant specification at [0034] and [0037] indicated that the recited evaluation unit comprises a processor; however the described "a manner known per se" does not clarify the algorithm responsible for the function because a bare statement that known methods can be used is insufficient structure in the context of a mean-plus-function limitation. MPEP 2181.II.A states "However, "[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation." Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ~ 112(a) for the reasons described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 is 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 2 recites “an optimized calibration model” and it is unclear the difference between the optimized calibration model and the user-specific calibration models, since both are generated in the same way as claimed.
112f related
Claim limitations “an evaluation unit configured to derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances in real time from the raw data” (claim 16) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as explained in the claim interpretation above. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 17-19 are similarly rejected because they are dependent on claim 16 and do not resolve the lack of clarity introduced by claim 16.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Response to applicant's remarks in regards of Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 112(b)
The Remarks of 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts “Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l 12(b) as being indefinite. Applicant amends claims 2-10 and 13-15 where believed appropriate” – pg. 8 para. 2. The 112b rejection for claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10 and13-15 are withdrawn due to sufficient changes in the recited limitations. However, claims 3, 6, 8 and 16-20 stand rejected for the reasons described above. Particularly for claims 16-19, the recited “an evaluation unit configured to derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances in real time from the raw data” (claim 16) is interpreted as computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. The instant specification at [0034] and [0037] indicated that the recited evaluation unit comprises a processor; however the described "a manner known per se" does not clarify the algorithm responsible for the function. MPEP 2181.II.A states "However, "[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation."
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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 § I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
The instant claims are directed to a method (claims 1-10, 13-15 and 20) and a system (claims 16-19), which falls within one of the categories of statutory subject matter. [Step 1: Yes]
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
• mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships
and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or
• mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Mathematical concepts recited in claims 16-19, include the term “evaluation unit” (claims 16-19). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the recited “evaluating unit” corresponds to deriving a parameter from data which involves mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). A mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Mental processes, defined as concepts or steps practically performed in the human mind such as steps of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, include “comparing the raw data from different operating times” (claim 9); “considering stationarily determined sample analysis values” (claim 14); and “determining whether a fee has been paid” (claim 15). Under the BRI, the recited limitations are mental processes because a human mind is sufficiently capable of identifying and evaluating information, which includes recognizing/comparing/considering data and ensuring a fee has been paid.
Claims directed to “generating a calibration model from raw data” (claims 1-8 and 15-16) and “converting a calibration model” (claim 13) are both mental processes and mathematical concepts. Dependent claim 9 recites further details about the comparing data step; dependent claim 10 recites further details about “processing the raw data regarding operating times and incorrect entries”; and dependent claim 14 recites further details about the generating a model step; not reciting any additional non-abstract elements; all reciting further aspects of the information being analyzed, the manner in which that analysis is performed. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas. The instant claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). [Step 2A Prong One: Yes]
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Instant claims 1-8, 13, and 15-19 recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas: “automatically controlling/accessing” (claims 1 and 16); “transmitting the … calibration model(s) to a user” (claims 1-5, and 16); “receive a calibration model” (claim 2); “receive an indication” (claim 3, and 6-8); “receive a request from the user” (claim 5); “receive the raw data” (claim 16); receive the one or more user-specific calibration models” (claim 16); “detect NIR spectra of one or both of plant material or other substances” (claim 16); “output them [NIR spectra] as raw data” (claim 16); “derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances” (claim 16); “generate the raw data” (claim 17); and “transmitting the raw data” (claims 17-19).
Claims directed to “receive a calibration model” (claim 2); “receive an indication” (claim 3, and 6-8); “receive a request from the user” (claim 5); “receive the raw data” (claim 16); receive the one or more user-specific calibration models” (claim 16); “detect NIR spectra of one or both of plant material or other substances” (claim 16) are interpreted to read on data gathering activity.
Claims directed to “transmitting the … calibration model(s) to a user” (claims 1-5, and 16); “output them [NIR spectra] as raw data” (claim 16); “derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances” (claim 16); “generate the raw data” (claim 17); and “transmitting the raw data” (claims 17-19) read on data outputting activity.
Claims directed to “automatically controlling” data reads on mere instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic way (i.e. the idea of a solution) because they don’t provide any technical details of how the model is being used to control the agricultural work machine.
Claims directed to “receive an indication” (claim 3, and 6-8) are considered as using a computer to perform a mental task, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); since steps that can be performed mentally and merely performing the mental process in a computer environment do not negate the fact that something that can be carried out in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C. Dependent claim 20 recites further details about the agricultural applications; reading on mere data gathering activity because the raw data collected from the NIR sensors is used to generate the calibration models for a chosen application and cannot integrate a judicial exception as mere data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims directed to “receiving”; “output” and “transmitting” data read on receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321. The instant claims state nothing more than that a generic computer performs the functions that constitute the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore the claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; 2106.05(f); and 2106.05(g)). None of the dependent claims recite any additional non-abstract elements; they are all directed to further aspects of the information being analyzed, the manner in which that analysis is performed, or the mathematical operations performed on the information. [Step 2A Prong Two: No]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Step 2B of the 35 USC § 101 analysis determines whether the claims contain additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, and an inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1-8, 13, and 15-19 recite a computer or computer functions, interpreted as instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, where the computer does not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions; which can be performed without the use of a computer (MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims directed to “receiving”; “output” and “transmitting” data read on performing a standard computer task, which the courts have identified as a conventional computer function in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Instant claims recite computer or computer functions and are interpreted as instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, which can be performed without the use of a computer; where the computer does not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.04(d) § I and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
It is known in the art that the use of NIR sensor systems for automatically controlling an agricultural work machine is well-understood, routine and conventional (Agelet L. et. al. “A Tutorial on Near Infrared Spectroscopy and Its Calibration” Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry 40(4):246–260 (2010) – pg. 249 col. 1para. 2; and pg. 249 col. 1 para. 4). Thus, the recited additional elements, alone or in combination with the judicial exceptions, do not appear to provide an inventive concept. [Step 2B: No]
Conclusion: Instant claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter
For these reasons, the claims in this instant application, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so instant claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to applicant's remarks in regards of Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 101
The Remarks of 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts “Applicant amends claim 1 to recite: "automatically controlling, using the one or more user-specific calibration models, the agricultural work machine". See also claim 16. In this regard, claim 1 does not simply recite a data structure. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific method in order to tailor the generation of the user-specific calibration model(s), and thereafter to automatically control the agricultural work machine accordingly using the user-specific calibration model(s). In this regard, Applicant respectfully contends that the present claims recite a non-abstract idea that is embedded in a particular application, namely the automatic control of an agricultural work machine using the user-specific calibration model(s)” – pg. 8 para. 3. The argument is unpersuasive because the recited steps regarding "automatically controlling, using the one or more user-specific calibration models, the agricultural work machine" appears to be an idea of a solution and is therefore an “apply it” type limitation because they don’t provide any details on how the models are used to control the agricultural work machine. Instead, it covers any solution to the problem with no description of how it’s accomplished.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Soler et. al. “Validation and Calibration of a High Resolution Sensor in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Producing Images in the IR Range Utilizable in Precision Agriculture” AIA A Infotech@ Aerospace - AIA A SciTech Forum – p. 0988 (2015) – referred to in the action as Soler in view of Agelet L. et. al. “A Tutorial on Near Infrared Spectroscopy and Its Calibration” Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry 40(4):246–260 (2010) – referred to in the action as Agelet.
Independent claim 1 recites “method for using a database structure system for creating one or more calibration models for a near-infrared (NIR) sensor system of an agricultural work machine and using the one or more calibration models for automatically controlling the agricultural work machine, the method comprising: storing: raw data of NIR spectra of one or both of plant material or flow of material, the raw data being generated by one or more NIR sensor systems assigned to an agricultural work machine; and the one or more calibration models”. Independent claim 16 recites “; the at least one data processing unit comprising: a database structure system configured to create one or more calibration models for the NIR sensor system resident on the agricultural work machine; wherein the database structure system comprises: at least one memory configured to store: the raw data of the NIR spectra of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances, the raw data being generated by the NIR sensor system assigned to the agricultural work machine; and the one or more calibration models”. Soler teaches the development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for precision agriculture (i.e., reading on “agricultural work machine”), calibration of a high resolution sensor and the implementation of automatic control systems, telemetry devices and sensors payload to interpret data for precision agriculture (pg. 1 para. 1) in the form of images captured by two different sensors (a conventional camera and a customized near infrared camera) to determine geographical conditions (pg. 2 para. 2); wherein the telemetry system collects desired data and stores information in a plain text (i.e., reading on “database structure” and “memory configured to store raw data generated by the sensor”) (pg. 2 para. 6); wherein the operation management being is performed by a software that allows monitoring UAV data telemetry and images indexing (i.e., reading on “data processing unit”) (pg. 3 para. 1); anticipating the recited limitations in claims 1 and 16.
Independent claim 1 recites “automatically generating one or more user-specific calibration models by using one or both the raw data or the one or more calibration models; transmitting the one or more user-specific calibration models to a user.” Dependent claim 4 recites “the one or more user-specific calibration models are generated by using the raw data generated by an NIR sensor system from a particular agricultural work machine; and further comprising transmitting the one or more user-specific calibration models that are generated to the particular agricultural work machine for use by the NIR sensor system resident on the particular agricultural work machine”. Independent claim 16 recites “at least one processor in communication with the memory, the at least one processor configured to: receive the raw data for storage in the at least one memory; generate one or more user-specific calibration models by using one or both the raw data or the one or more calibration models; and transmit the one or more user-specific calibration models to a user and wherein the agricultural work machine is further configured to: receive the one or more user-specific calibration models; and automatically control the agricultural work machine using the one or more user- specific calibration models.”. Soler teaches the ground control station as an interface between the operator (i.e., reading on “user-specific model”) and the vehicle (pg. 2 para. 6); composed by a radio transmitter to perform manual and automatic maneuvers (i.e., communication between user and machine) (pg. 3 para. 2); wherein the operation management being is performed by a software that allows monitoring UAV data telemetry and images indexing for post-processing (i.e., reading on “processor communication with memory to receive/store data”) (pg. 3 para. 1); wherein image spatial resolution is computed in order to identify desired indexes for each picture (pg. 13 para. 3); and wherein a digital surface model was used to validate and calibrate (i.e., reading on “calibration model”) the sensors in the UAVs (pg. 16 para. 1) and spatial resolution was calibrated according to each ground control point in series of flights developed in the study site (i.e., reading on “user-specific calibration models by using the raw data”) (pg. 16 para. 1); wherein the UAV is equipped with automatic exposure modes and high sensitivity settings that produce clear photos (pg. 6 para. 4) and automatic control systems, telemetry devices and sensors payload to interpret data for precision agriculture (pg. 1 para. 1); anticipating the recited limitations in claims 1, 4 and 16.
Dependent claim 3 recites ”an indication of a respective agricultural application, from a plurality of potential agricultural applications, for the one or more NIR sensor systems is received; wherein a newly-created calibration model is generated using both of the raw data and the one or more calibration models, and tailored to the respective agricultural application; and further comprising transmitting the newly-created calibration model for use in a specific agricultural work machine in performing the respective agricultural application”. Dependent claim 5 recites ” further comprising receiving a request from the user for the one or more user-specific calibration models; and responsive to the request: generating the one or more user-specific calibration models; and transmitting the one or more user-specific calibration models to the NIR sensor system assigned to a particular agricultural work machine”. Soler teaches the grounds control station as an interface between the operator and the vehicle and it includes the software mission planner that allow configuring and monitoring the flight data settings (i.e., reading on “receiving a request from the user” for the calibration parameters to be adjusted and “responsive to the request” by sending adjustments to the sensors) (pg. 2 para. 6); composed by a radio transmitter to perform manual and automatic maneuvers (i.e., communication between user and machine) (pg. 3 para. 2); which data is in the form of images captured by two different sensors - a conventional camera and a customized near infrared camera (pg. 2 para. 2) captured from UAVs for precision agriculture (i.e. agricultural work machine) (pg. 1 para. 1); anticipating the recited limitations in claims 3 and 5.
Dependent claim 9 recites ” further comprising comparing the raw data from different operating times with each other so that a same calibration model is considered for each of the different operating times”. Dependent claim 10 recites ” wherein the different operating times comprises a campaign; and further comprising using the comparison of the raw data from different operating times to correct derived field maps”. Soler teaches the development of UAVs for precision agriculture (pg. 1 para. 1); wherein every time the trigger is activated (i.e., reading on “different operating times”), the onboard control system records the GPS coordinates of the airplane, flight altitude and aircraft attitude (pitch, yaw and roll) (pg. 6 para. 3); such information will be valuable during images ortho correction and mosaic generation (pg. 6 para. 3); wherein mosaic generation outputs field maps (pg. 8 Fig. 11); anticipating the recited limitations in claims 9-10.
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein one or more user-specific calibration models are generated by considering stationarily determined sample analysis value”. Soler teaches the ground control station (i.e., reading on “stationarily determined sample analysis values”) as an interface between the operator and the vehicle (pg. 2 para. 6); wherein the operation management being is performed by a software that allows monitoring UAV data telemetry and images indexing for post-processing (pg. 3 para. 1); anticipating the recited limitation in claim 14.
Dependent claim 16 recites “an agricultural work machine system comprising: an agricultural work machine comprising: a near-infrared (NIR) sensor system configured to detect NIR spectra of one or both of plant material or other substances and to output them as raw data; an evaluation unit configured to derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances in real time from the raw data; an interface for communicating with at least one data processing unit external to the agricultural work machine”. Soler teaches UAVs for precision agriculture (pg. 1 para. 1) (i.e., reading on “agricultural work machine); wherein the ground control station is an interface between the operator and the vehicle and it includes the software mission planner that allow configuring and monitoring the flight data settings (i.e., reading on “evaluation unit”) (pg. 2 para. 6); to quantify crop properties such as water stress, nutrients concentrations, earth shape, weeds and pest presence, among others (i.e., reading on “derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances”) (pg. 4 para. 1) via remote sensing (pg. 4 para. 2) (“reading on “data processing unit external to the agricultural work machine”) in the form of images captured by two different sensors (a conventional camera and a customized near infrared camera) to determine geographical conditions (pg. 2 para. 2); wherein near-infrared sensors were used (pg. 2 para. 1) to obtain real-time high definition images (pg. 2 para. 2); and spatial resolution was calibrated according to each ground control point in series of flights developed in the study site (i.e., reading on “user-specific calibration models by using the raw data”) (pg. 16 para. 1) to calibrate the spectral and spatial data (i.e., reading on “a near-infrared (NIR) sensor system configured to detect NIR spectra”) (pg. 7 para. 4); anticipating the recited limitation in claim 16.
Dependent claim 17 recites “wherein the NIR sensor system is configured to generate the raw data; wherein the interface is configured to transmit the raw data to the database structure system; wherein the NIR sensor system comprises one or more sensor heads; wherein a common evaluation unit is assigned to each sensor of the one or more sensor heads separately or to all of the one or more sensor heads; wherein the common evaluation unit comprises sensor software; and wherein the sensor software and one or more calibration models assigned to the sensor software are configured to process the NIR spectra generated by the one or more sensor heads for use internally in the agricultural work machine or for generating the raw data”. Soler teaches UAVs for precision agriculture (pg. 1 para. 1) built to capture images (i.e., “generating raw data”) by two different sensors - a conventional camera and a customized near infrared camera (i.e., reading on “sensor heads”) (pg. 2 para. 1); wherein an ortho corrected mosaic and a digital surfaces model are created with the software Pix4D and post processed with ArcMap (i.e., reading on “sensor software to process the NIR spectra”) (pg. 10 para. 1); wherein the ground control station is an interface between the operator and the vehicle and it includes the software mission planner that allow configuring and monitoring the flight data settings (i.e., reading on “evaluation unit”) (pg. 2 para. 6); wherein the spatial resolution created by the digital surfaces model is calibrated according to each ground control point in series of flights developed in the study site (i.e., reading on “calibration models assigned to the sensor software”) (pg. 16 para. 1); wherein the ground control unit of the UAV is composed by a radio transmitter to perform manual and automatic maneuvers (i.e., communication between user and machine) (pg. 3 para. 2); anticipating the recited limitation in claim 17.
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the plurality of potential agricultural applications comprise harvesting or fertilizing”. Soler teaches UAVs for precision agriculture (pg. 1 para. 1) to determine geographical conditions and harvest greenness in a soya crop (pg. 2 para. 1); reading on claim 20.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 1; Soler does not teach “automatically accessing, by the agricultural work machine, the one or more user-specific calibration models; and automatically controlling, using the one or more user-specific calibration models, the agricultural work machine”. However, Agelet teaches the application of Near infrared spectroscopy in grain industry (pg. 246 para. 1); wherein systems include automatic wavelength selection functions (pg. 249 col. 1 para. 2) and an integrated adjustable sample compartment with automatic flushing is used for whole grain analyzers (pg. 248 col. 1 para. 4); wherein calibrations approaches as described using a practical, user-oriented approach (pg. 247 col. 1 para. 3); reading on the recited claim 1.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings by Agelet to the development of UAVs for precision agriculture, calibration of a NIR sensor and the implementation of control systems to manage data as taught by Soler to implement automatically accessing, by the agricultural work machine, the one or more user-specific calibration models; and automatically controlling, using the one or more user-specific calibration models, the agricultural work machine by Agelet to the method by Soler to incorporate near infrared technologies for fast solutions for organic compound discrimination and quantification in instrumental applications (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for improvements to agricultural management.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soler and Agelet as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Cisty, M. (Cisty, M. "Automated calibration of the simulation model of irrigation projects by harmony search optimization." Journal of Water and Land Development 12:3-13 (2008) – referred to in the action as Cisty).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the one or more calibration models are received from the agricultural work machine; wherein an optimized calibration model is generated using one or both of the raw data or the one or more calibration models; and further comprising transmitting the optimized calibration model to the agricultural work machine for use by the agricultural work machine.”
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 2, Soler and Agelet do not explicitly teach the recited limitation above. Cisty teaches a methodology for calibration of the simulation models to be used in hydraulic part of an irrigation project; wherein calibration is based on the adjustment of the input data for the model to improve agreement between observed and predicted values while optimizing procedures using the harmony search approach (pg. 3 para. 1) to produce a mathematical model whose predictions agree closely with the field observations (pg. 12 para. 1); reading on the recited limitation in claim 2.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 2; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings by Cisty to the development of UAVs for precision agriculture, calibration of a NIR sensor and the implementation of control systems to manage data as taught by Soler and Agelet to generate an optimized calibration model using raw data and transmit the optimized calibration model to the agricultural work machine. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Cisty to the method by Soler and Agelet to achieve a calibration much more efficiently and consistently using an optimization technique (pg. 12 para. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for improvements to agricultural management.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soler and Agelet as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Abbaspour K. et. al. (Abbaspour K. et. al. “A Guideline for Successful Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis for Soil and Water Assessment: A Review of Papers from the 2016 International SWAT Conference” Water 10(6):1-18 (2018) – referred to in the action as Abbaspour).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Dependent claim 7 recites ”further comprising receiving from the user an indication of one or more modified environmental conditions and the one or more calibration models; and wherein the one or more user-specific calibration models are generated by modifying the one or more calibration models based on the one or more modified environmental conditions so that the one or more user-specific calibration model accounts for and is tailored to the one or more modified environmental conditions”. Dependent claim 8 recites ” further comprising receiving from the user an indication of one or more changing crop type properties from a plurality of potential properties and one or more calibration models; and wherein the one or more user-specific calibration models are generated by modifying the one or more calibration models based on the one or more changing crop type properties so the one or more user-specific calibration model accounts for and is tailored to the one or more changing crop type properties”.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 7-8, Soler and Agelet do not explicitly teach the recited limitations above. Abbaspour teaches the latest research using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) as the modeling tool; wherein a protocol for calibration is used to guide the users to obtain better modeling results (pg. 1 para. 1); wherein rainfall and snow-melt parameters (“reading on “modified environmental conditions”) are calibrated separately to avoid identifiability problems (pg. 6 para. 4); wherein a parameter is defined as a model input representing a process in the watershed (Table 1); wherein the SWAT modeling tool was used to analyze different crop types - such as maize, wheat and para-rubber - for important processes (i.e., reading on “changing crop type properties”) (Table A1); reading on the recited limitation in claims 7-8.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 7-8; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings by Abbaspour to the development of UAVs for precision agriculture, calibration of a NIR sensor and the implementation of control systems to manage data as taught by Soler and Agelet so the calibration model could account for one or more changing crop type properties and one or more modified environmental conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Abbaspour to the method by Soler and Agelet to guide the users to obtain better modeling results (pg. 1 para. 1 Abbaspour). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for improvements to agricultural management.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soler and Agelet as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Cabelguenne et. al. (Cabelguenne et. al. “Calibration and Validation of EPIC for Crop Rotations in Southern France” Agricultural Systems 33:153-171 (1990) – referred to in the action as Cabelguenne).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Dependent claim 6 recites “further comprising receiving from the user an indication of a special crop type from a plurality of potential crop types and the one or more calibration models; and wherein the one or more user-specific calibration models are generated by modifying the one or more calibration models based on the special crop type so that the one or more user-specific calibration models is derived for and tailored to the special crop type”.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 6, Soler and Agelet do not explicitly teach the recited limitations above. Cabelguenne teaches the Erosion-Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) Cropping Systems model to simulates the effects of weather, soil characteristics, tillage, fertilization, irrigation and other management practices on crops grown in complex rotations (pg. 153 para. 1); wherein there are many reasons why simulated yields may not be similar to measured yields, including inappropriate model algorithms, incorrect model inputs, poor model calibration and large experimental error (pg. 169 para. 2); where input entries include crop types (i.e., reading on “incorrect entry comprising the wrong crop type”) (pg. 156 Table 1); wherein some crop types are special crop types such as pea and bean; reading on the recited limitation in claim 6.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 6; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings by Cabelguenne to the development of UAVs for precision agriculture, calibration of a NIR sensor and the implementation of control systems to manage data as taught by Soler and Agelet so the calibration model could be derived for a special crop type and account for incorrect entries related to the wrong crop type. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Cabelguenne to the method by Soler and Agelet to obtain a more accurate simulation of crop phenology and obtain improved model accuracy (pg. 169 para. 3 Cabelguenne). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for improvements to agricultural management.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soler and Agelet as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Saeys W. (Saeys W. "Technical Tools for the Optimal Use of Animal Manure as a Fertiliser: On-line composition measurement and manure injection control" Dissertation - Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Faculteit Bio-ingenieurswetenschappen (2006) – referred to in the action as Saeys).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Dependent claim 13 recites “further comprising converting a basic calibration model into an expanded calibration model; and wherein the expanded calibration model comprises one or more model components configured to enable a particular NIR sensor system to determine an extended spectrum of contents”.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 13; Soler and Agelet do not explicitly teach the recited limitations above. Saeys teaches the development of an on-line manure composition sensor based on VIS/NIR spectroscopy (pg. 18 para. 4); wherein a list of properties of manure flow content are considered (pg. xiv section Part 2) to build calibration models for the different manure components (pg. 200 para. 2); reading on the recited limitation in claim 13.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 13; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings by Saeys to the development of UAVs for precision agriculture, calibration of a NIR sensor and the implementation of control systems to manage data as taught by Soler and Agelet so the calibration model could be converted into an expanded calibration model; and enable a particular NIR sensor system to determine an extended spectrum of contents. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Saeys to the method by Soler and Agelet to obtain a composition-dependent and precise manure application so flow content through the injector into the ground can be controlled accurately and reasonably fast (pg. ix para. 5 Saeys). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for improvements to agricultural management.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soler and Agelet as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Sengupta T. et. al. Sengupta T. et. al. ("Sharing app for farm mechanization: Gold Farm’s digitized access based solution for financially constrained farmers." Computers in Industry 109:195-203 (2019) – referred to in the action as Sengupta).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Dependent claim 15 recites “further comprising determining whether a fee has been paid depending on a scope of creating a particular user-specific calibration model; and responsive to determining that the fee has been paid, generating the particular user-specific calibration model”.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 15; Soler and Agelet do not explicitly teach the recited limitations above. Sengupta teaches a digitized sharing mobile app that can enable farmers to adopt farm mechanization by sharing agricultural work machinery in the way of pay per usage (pg. 195 para. 1); wherein access is available in return of a usage fee payment, which is much lesser than the ownership price (pg. 196 col. 2 para. 1); reading on the recited limitation in claim 15.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 15; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings by Sengupta to the development of UAVs for precision agriculture, calibration of a NIR sensor and the implementation of control systems to manage data as taught by Soler and Agelet to incorporate a fee base user-specific calibration model. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Sengupta to the method by Soler and Agelet to enable financially constrained people to consume livelihood-improving products and farm mechanization without owning (pg. 196 col. 2 para. 1 Sengupta). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for improvements to agricultural management.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soler and Agelet as applied to claims 16-17 above further in view of Kim et. al. “IoT-Based Strawberry Disease Prediction System for Smart Farming” Sensors 18(4051):1-17 (2018) – referred to in the action as Kim).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Dependent claim 18 recites “wherein the interface is configured to transmit the raw data generated by the evaluation unit; wherein one or more data transmission paths between the agricultural work machine and the database structure system comprise one or both of satellite system or a radio system; and wherein the database structure system comprises a data cloud”. Dependent claim 19 recites “wherein the interface is configured to transmit the raw data generated by the evaluation unit; wherein one or more data transmission paths between the agricultural work machine and the database structure system comprise one or both of satellite system or a radio system; and wherein the database structure system comprises a stationary server”. Soler teaches UAVs for precision agriculture (pg. 1 para. 1) wherein the ground control station is an interface between the operator and the vehicle and it includes the software mission planner that allow configuring and monitoring the flight data settings (i.e., reading on “evaluation unit”) (pg. 2 para. 6); via remote sensing (pg. 4 para. 2); wherein the ground control unit of the UAV is composed by a radio transmitter to perform manual and automatic maneuvers (i.e., communication between user and machine) (pg. 3 para. 2); reading on the recited limitation in claims 18-19.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 18-19; Soler and Agelet do not explicitly teach “wherein the database structure system comprises a data cloud” and “wherein the database structure system comprises a stationary server”. Kim teaches a cloud-based technology capable of handling the collection, analysis, and prediction of agricultural environment information in one common platform (pg. 1 para. 1); using Internet of Things network, cloud computing, big data, and mobile technology (pg. 15 para. 1); wherein the cloud-based technology shares information technology infrastructure resources, such as servers, storage, middleware, and networks, through a network (pg. 2 para. 2); reading on the recited limitation in claims 18-19.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 18-19; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings by Kim to the development of UAVs for precision agriculture, calibration of a NIR sensor and the implementation of control systems to manage data as taught by Soler and Agelet to incorporate data stored based on cloud technology and sever infrastructure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Kim to the method by Soler and Agelet to enable technology that can use rapid information sharing (pg. 15 para. 3 Kim). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for improvements to agricultural management.
Response to applicant's remarks in regards of Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 102/103
The Remarks of 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts “As a general matter, the raw data generated by an NIR sensor (that is specific to the agricultural work machine at issue) is used to tailor the user-specific calibration model(s). This is in addition to other tailoring of the calibration model (as discussed above). For example, the present application discloses that the tailoring based on the raw data may improve the user specific calibration models generated. This is separate from the generic distinctions in attempting to interpret the data from the NIR sensor. See paragraph [0013]. Such tailoring is not taught or suggested by the art of record. As one example, Soler teaches away from using the data specifically from a respective agricultural work machine in order to tailor the calibration models to be user specific. In particular, Soler teaches that obtaining a sufficient amount of data to meaningfully analyze may actually be a problem. See Soler, Introduction. In this regard, Soler teaches that a UA V may be configured to generate the data needed to perform its analysis. See Soler, Section II.A As such, Applicant respectfully contends that Soler actually teaches away from amended claim 1, which specifically relies on the raw data generated by a respective agricultural work machine in order to generate the user-specific calibration model(s) for use in the same respective agricultural work machine. For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully contends that amended claim 1 is patentable over the cited art” – pg. 10 para. 2-3. The argument is unpersuasive because obviousness was established. The teachings by Soler do read on “raw data generated by a respective agricultural work machine in order to generate the user-specific calibration model(s) for use in the same respective agricultural work machine”; and does not teach away from the invention. In fact Soler teaches data generation by cameras acting in the same manner sensors do, capturing different levels of energy in order to generate images (pg. 4 para. 2).; wherein a digital surface model was used to validate and calibrate (i.e., reading on “calibration model”) the sensors in the UAVs (pg. 16 para. 1). Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In the instant application, the recited functions performed by the various components are descriptions of what the components do, not required structures that the components must have
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US Patent No. 11959861 in view of Soler. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of the reference patent, as set forth in the following table.
Instant application
US Patent No. 11959861
Claim
Limitation
Claim
Limitation
16
a near-infrared (NIR) sensor system configured to detect NIR spectra of one or both of plant material or other substances and to output them as raw data;
13
an NIR sensor configured to detect one or more NIR spectra of plant material and output the detected one or more NIR spectra as raw data;
16
an evaluation unit configured to derive at least one parameter of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances in real time from the raw data;
13
an evaluation unit configured to receive the raw data and to derive, using at least one calibration model, at least one parameter of the plant material in real time from the raw data; wherein data processing unit is configured to generate the at least one calibration model configured to derive the at least one parameter of the plant material by using the raw data.
16
an interface for communicating with at least one data processing unit external to the agricultural work machine;
13
and an interface for communication with the at least one data processing unit external to the agricultural machine, wherein the interface is configured to transmit the raw data to the at least one data processing unit;
Regarding claim 16, the US Patent No. 11959861 does not teach the recited limitation “the at least one data processing unit comprising: a database structure system configured to create one or more calibration models for the NIR sensor system resident on the agricultural work machine; wherein the database structure system comprises: at least one memory configured to store: the raw data of the NIR spectra of the one or both of the plant material or the other substances, the raw data being generated by the NIR sensor system assigned to the agricultural work machine; and the one or more calibration models; at least one processor in communication with the memory, the at least one processor configured to: receive the raw data for storage in the at least one memory; generate one or more user-specific calibration models by using one or both the raw data or the one or more calibration models; and transmit the one or more user-specific calibration models to a user and wherein the agricultural work machine is further configured to: receive the one or more user-specific calibration models; and automatically control the agricultural work machine using the one or more user- specific calibration models”.
Regarding claim 17, the US Patent No. 11959861 does not teach the recited limitation “wherein the NIR sensor system is configured to generate the raw data; wherein the interface is configured to transmit the raw data to the database structure system; wherein the NIR sensor system comprises one or more sensor heads; wherein a common evaluation unit is assigned to each sensor of the one or more sensor heads separately or to all of the one or more sensor heads; wherein the common evaluation unit comprises sensor software; and wherein the sensor software and one or more calibration models assigned to the sensor software are configured to process the NIR spectra generated by the one or more sensor heads for use internally in the agricultural work machine or for generating the raw data”.
However, Soler teaches the recited limitations in the 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejection section above. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Soler to the method by US Patent No. 11959861 to implement automatic control systems, telemetry devices and sensors payload to interpret data for precision agriculture that will be used to increase production (pg. 1 para. 1 Soler). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for improvements to agricultural management.
Response to applicant's remarks in regards of Double Patenting
The Remarks of 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts “Claims 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US Patent No. 11,959,861 in view of Soler. Applicant respectfully contends that amended claims 16 and 17 are not obvious over US Patent No. 11,959,861 or Soler, either alone or in combination” – pg. 10 para. 5. The argument is unpersuasive because obviousness was established. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, the teachings by US Patent No. 11959861 and Soler do read on the recited claimed invention. "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In the instant application, the recited functions performed by the various components are descriptions of what the components do, not required structures that the components must have.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCINI A FONSECA LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM ET.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/F.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights