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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-19, and 23 state “one or more computer-readable storage media” and claims 20-22 state “computer-readable storage media.” Claims 20-22 are objected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Basso (US 2019/0335674).
Regarding claim 1, Basso teaches a system comprising:
data storage configured to store one or more of: one or more images corresponding to a crop area (see figure 6A, Basso discusses receiving time series images of crop regions); one or more videos corresponding to the crop area; or sensor data corresponding to the crop area; and a computing system configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtaining, from the data storage, crop data related to the crop area (see figure 2C), the crop data being based on one or more of: the one or more images, the one or more videos, or the sensor data (see figure 4A, figure 6A, Basso discusses receiving time series images of crop regions);
determining a plurality of sets of metrics corresponding to a first crop of a plurality of crops included in the crop area based on the obtained crop data, respective sets of metrics corresponding to individual plants of the first crop (see figure 2C, figure 4A, figure 6A, Basso discusses receiving time series images of different crops; see para. 0057-0058, 0072-0082, Basso discusses determining various crop metrics);
determining an overall crop health metric for the first crop as a whole based on the plurality of sets of metrics in which different metrics respectively included in the sets of metrics are weighted differently in the determining of the overall crop health metric (see figure 8, para. 0096, Basso discusses weighting properties based on importance level; see para. 0022, Basso discusses a sustainability index as a weighted combination, low sustainability score represents undesirable value of the crop system parameter and a high sustainability score represents desirable value of the crop system parameter; see para. 0129, Basso discusses different parameters; see para. 0104, Basso discusses canopy content chlorophyll index (CCCI), and Canopy Nitrogen Index (NDNI) is a remote sensing-based index designed to estimate the relative nitrogen concentration in vegetation canopies. It is particularly useful for monitoring plant health, growth stages, and nutrient status in agriculture; see para. 0150, Basso discusses color classification map);
and determining an overall crop care action for the first crop as a whole based on the overall crop health metric, wherein a crop care system performs the overall crop care action as determined (see para. 0007, Basso discusses implementing a management action plan based on crop measurement).
Regarding claim 2, Basso teaches wherein one or more individual metrics of one or more of the sets of metrics are determined based on one or more statuses of the corresponding individual plants (see para. 0005, Basso discuses using visual analytics to determine the crop health status of an individual type of plant such as soybean or corn)).
Regarding claim 6, Basso teaches wherein the determining of the one or more metrics included in the plurality of sets of metrics is based on a comparison between crop data captured at different points in time (see para. 0080, Basso discusses Soil Organic Carbon Change "SOC" or "C % change" is the change of SOC e.g., in percent organic carbon over time).
Regarding claim 7, Basso teaches wherein the determining of the one or more metrics included in the plurality of sets of metrics includes predicting a future metric based on the crop data (see para. 0083, Basso discusses predicting the quality or crop yield).
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding computer-readable storage media.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding computer-readable storage media.
Regarding claim 21, Basso teaches wherein the one or more individual metrics include a plurality of individual metrics and wherein the operations further comprise determining an aggregated individual crop health metric for the individual plant based on the plurality of individual metrics (see figure 2A, figure 6A, para. 0091-0092, Basso discusses outputting the total final field state properties that provide a final crop yield).
Regarding claim 24, Basso teaches wherein each respective different metric is weighted based on at least one of: an importance level corresponding to the respective different metric; or user input associated with the respective different metric (see figure 8, para. 0096, Basso discusses weighting properties based on importance level).
Regarding claim 25, Basso teaches wherein the different metrics are weighted based on the importance level of the different metrics, wherein metrics having a higher importance are assigned a higher weight than metrics with a comparatively lower importance (see figure 8, para. 0096, Basso discusses weighting properties based on importance level).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 19, 20, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso (US 2019/0335674) in view of Weldemariam et al. (US 2020/0273172).
Regarding claim 3, Basso teaches calculating the NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index for crops that is based on color of plants, Bright green to red/yellow in pseudocolors — dense, healthy vegetation. Medium NDVI (0.2–0.7): Yellow to green — moderate vegetation cover. Low NDVI (<0.2): Blue to dark green — sparse vegetation, bare soil, or water. Healthy vegetation appears bright green, while bare soil or water appears blue or dark (see para. 00017, 0107).
Basso does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more statuses include one or more of: a number of bugs present on the corresponding individual plants; a type of bugs present on the corresponding individual plants; conditions of blossoms of the corresponding individual plants; a ripeness amount of fruit of the corresponding individual plants; a color of the corresponding individual plants; a color of leaves of the corresponding individual plants; an amount of growth of the corresponding individual plants; a size of the corresponding individual plants; or a presence of crop diseases on the corresponding individual plants.
However, Weldemariam teaches wherein the one or more statuses include one or more of: a number of bugs present on the corresponding individual plants; a type of bugs present on the corresponding individual plants; conditions of blossoms of the corresponding individual plants; a ripeness amount of fruit of the corresponding individual plants; a color of the corresponding individual plants; a color of leaves of the corresponding individual plants; an amount of growth of the corresponding individual plants; a size of the corresponding individual plants; or a presence of crop diseases on the corresponding individual plants (see para. 0059, 0066, Weldemariam discusses feature analyzer detects and extracts a shape of the crop, identifies the rate of change of crop color, detects one or more spots on the crop and their patterns, and disease).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Weldemariam to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Basso in this manner in order to improve agricultural crop analysis and management by extracting crop features from image data and analyzing the crop changes to properly perform take care of the crop. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Basso, while the teaching of Weldemariam continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the crop data over time periods to adequately perform crop care based on the extracted crop values. The Basso and Weldemariam systems perform agricultural crop analysis, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 4, Basso does not expressly disclose wherein one or more individual crop care actions are determined for a particular individual plant based on one or more metrics of a particular set of metrics corresponding to the particular individual plant. However, Weldemariam teaches wherein one or more individual crop care actions are determined for a particular individual plant based on one or more metrics of a particular set of metrics corresponding to the particular individual plant (see para. 0059, 0066, 0073, Weldemariam discusses feature analyzer detects and extracts a shape of the crop, identifies the rate of change of crop color, detects one or more spots on the crop and their patterns, and disease; see para. 0069, Weldemariam discusses actions recommended, triggered, and performed based on crop analysis).
The same motivation of claim 3 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Weldemariam to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
Regarding claim 9, Basso does not expressly disclose wherein the operations further comprise causing an autonomous system to automatically perform the overall crop care action. However, Weldemariam teaches wherein the operations further comprise causing an autonomous system to automatically perform the overall crop care action (see para. 0123, Weldemariam discusses generating instructions for controlling agricultural equipment to apply chemicals or fertilizers, harvesting the crop, and irrigating with the irrigation system, actions can be controlled or triggered via network adapter and/or I/0 interfaces).
The same motivation of claim 3 is applied to claim 9. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Weldemariam to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding computer-readable storage media.
Regarding claim 20, Basso does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more metrics include one or more of: an irrigation rate; a water absorption rate; an amount of water being delivered; a broken irrigation line; a broken irrigation emitter; a broken irrigation sprinkler, a number of bugs present on the individual plant; a type of bugs present on the individual plant; conditions of blossoms of the individual plant; a ripeness amount of fruit of the individual plant; a color of fruit of the individual plant; a color of leaves of the individual plant; an amount of growth of the individual plant; a size of the individual plant; or a presence of crop diseases on the individual plant.
However, Weldemariam teaches wherein the one or more metrics include one or more of: an irrigation rate; a water absorption rate; an amount of water being delivered; a broken irrigation line; a broken irrigation emitter; a broken irrigation sprinkler, a number of bugs present on the individual plant; a type of bugs present on the individual plant; conditions of blossoms of the individual plant; a ripeness amount of fruit of the individual plant; a color of fruit of the individual plant; a color of leaves of the individual plant; an amount of growth of the individual plant; a size of the individual plant; or a presence of crop diseases on the individual plant (see para. 0059, 0066, 0073, Weldemariam discusses feature analyzer detects and extracts a shape of the crop, identifies the rate of change of crop color, detects one or more spots on the crop and their patterns, and disease; see para. 0069, Weldemariam discusses actions recommended, triggered, and performed based on crop analysis).
The same motivation of claim 3 is applied to claim 20. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Weldemariam to derive at the invention of claim 20. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
Regarding claim 22, Basso does not expressly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: determining an overall crop health metric for the first crop as a whole based on the one or more individual metrics corresponding to the individual plant and based on one or more of: one or more other individual metrics corresponding to one or more other individual plants of the first crop; or one or more metrics corresponding to the crop area as a whole; and determining an overall crop care action for the first crop as a whole based on the overall crop health metric. However, Weldemariam teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining an overall crop health metric for the first crop as a whole based on the one or more individual metrics corresponding to the individual plant and based on one or more of: one or more other individual metrics corresponding to one or more other individual plants of the crop; or one or more metrics corresponding to the crop area as a whole; and determining an overall crop care action for the first crop as a whole based on the overall crop health metric (see para. 0059, 0066, 0073, Weldemariam discusses feature analyzer detects and extracts a shape of the crop, identifies the rate of change of crop color, detects one or more spots on the crop and their patterns, and disease; see para. 0069, Weldemariam discusses actions recommended, triggered, performed based on crop analysis).
The same motivation of claim 3 is applied to claim 22. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Weldemariam to derive at the invention of claim 22. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
Regarding claim 23, Basso teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more individual statuses is weighted based on at least one of: an importance level; or user input provided to the computing system (see figure 8, para. 0096, Basso discusses weighting properties based on importance level).
The same motivation of claim 3 is applied to claim 23. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Weldemariam to derive at the invention of claim 23. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso (US 2019/0335674) in view of Shriver (US 2016/0239709); “Shriver II”.
Regarding claim 5, Basso does not expressly disclose wherein one or more of the one or more images, the one or more videos, or the sensor data is obtained using one or more sensors disposed on a machine that operates in the crop area. However, Shriver II teaches wherein one or more of the one or more images, the one or more videos, or the sensor data is obtained using one or more sensors disposed on a machine that operates in the crop area (see para. 0022, Shriver II discusses camera attached to a tractor operating on the crop field).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Shriver II to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Basso in this manner in order to improve agricultural crop analysis and management by extracting crop features from image data using a machine’s installed camera, and analyzing the crop changes to properly perform take care of the crop. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Basso, while the teaching of Shriver II continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the crop data from image data using a machine’s installed camera to adequately perform crop care based on the extracted crop values. The Basso and Shriver II systems perform agricultural crop analysis, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso (US 2019/0335674) in view of Shriver et al. (US 9,652,840).
Regarding claim 8, Basso does not expressly disclose wherein the operations further comprise generating a heat map with respect to the first crop, the heat map indicating levels of one or more metrics included in the plurality of sets of metrics across the crop area. However, Shriver teaches wherein the operations further comprise generating a heat map with respect to the first crop, the heat map indicating levels of one or more metrics included in the plurality of sets of metrics across the crop area (see col. 12 lines 42-47, Shriver discusses management zone module can output: analysis zones e.g., boundaries, coordinates, pixel identifiers, etc.; proxy maps e.g., yield proxy maps, vegetative performance value proxy maps, etc.; an expected crop parameter value for a given reference time).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Shriver to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Basso in this manner in order to improve agricultural crop analysis and management by extracting crop features from image data using a machine’s installed camera, and analyzing the crop changes to properly perform take care of the crop. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Basso, while the teaching of Shriver continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the crop data from image data using a machine’s installed camera to adequately perform crop care based on the extracted crop values. The Basso and Shriver systems perform agricultural crop analysis, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso (US 2019/0335674) in view of Saito (US 11,481,525).
Regarding claim 26, Basso does not expressly disclose wherein the different metrics are weighted based on the user input provided to the computing system. However, Saito teaches wherein the different metrics are weighted based on the user input provided to the computing system (see col. 17 lines 17-25, Saito discusses user-specified condition that has a high priority).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Saito to derive at the invention of claim 26. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Basso in this manner in order to improve agricultural crop analysis and management by extracting crop features from image data using a machine’s installed camera, and analyzing the crop changes to properly perform take care of the crop. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Basso, while the teaching of Saito continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the crop data from image data using a machine’s installed camera to adequately perform crop care based on the extracted crop values. The Basso and Saito systems perform agricultural crop analysis, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso (US 2019/0335674) in view of Bruns et al. (US 2017/0089742).
Regarding claim 27, Basso does not expressly disclose wherein the crop data includes aggregated crop data that corresponds to the plurality of crops included in the crop area. However, Bruns teaches wherein the crop data includes aggregated crop data that corresponds to the plurality of crops included in the crop area (see figure 23, para. 0042, Bruns discusses an aggregate yield is the aggregation or total combined yield from each of portions; see para. 0068, Bruns discusses allocating aggregate crop yield that applies different allocation weightings to different regions).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Basso with Bruns to derive at the invention of claim 27. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform agricultural crop analysis and management.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Basso in this manner in order to improve agricultural crop analysis and management by extracting crop features from image data using a machine’s installed camera, and analyzing the crop changes to properly perform take care of the crop. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Basso, while the teaching of Bruns continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the crop data from image data using a machine’s installed camera to adequately perform crop care based on the extracted crop values. The Basso and Bruns systems perform agricultural crop analysis, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
