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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are objected to.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to CN202111466203.6 filed 03 Dec. 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 03 Dec. 2021.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract refers to speculative applications of the invention in the last 4 lines of the abstract, including “The traceability system…provides a set of practical pesticide risk assessment tools for agricultural producers, environmental protection and legislative agencies, agricultural production management departments”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “The traceability system…comprising the following steps;…”, which is a grammatical error and should include a colon “:” after “steps”, rather than a semicolon.
Claim 1 recites 6 steps, ending with “step 5….pesticide use; step 6, predicting….” which is missing an “and” after the penultimate step of the claims. Thus clam 1 should read “…pesticide use; and step 6, predicting…”.
Claim 6 recites “…the measured half-life of pesticide degradation. The transitional soil…”, which includes two sentences. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP 608.01(m). Claim 6 should be amended to use a semicolon, rather than period, and recite “…the measured half-life of pesticide degradation; the transitional soil…”.
Claim 6 recites “the total AFGW is the product of the calculated values of the three soil layers, wherein: the AF value calculation of the surface soil…is calculated….degradation[;] [t]he transitional soil…will be calculated…k=2.98; the remaining soil layer…when AFRZ is calculated….”. To increase readability and clarity an fix a grammatical error, claim 6 should be amended to “the total AFGW is the product of the calculated values of the three soil layers, wherein: the AF value calculation of the surface soil…is calculated….degradation; in the transitional soil…, AFTZ will be calculated…k=2.98; and in the remaining soil layer…when AFRZ is calculated….”.
Claim 7 recites “…the following formula (11), formula (12), formula (13), and formula (14)”, but then defines formulas (13)-(16), which is a typographical error. Claim 7 should be amended to recite “the following formula (13), formula (14), formula (15), and formula (16)”.
Claim 7 recites “Since the degradation of the pesticide in the soil is affected by factors such as temperature, soil moisture, soil adsorption activity and pH, the value of K is predicted…”, which is narrative and does not actually define the invention. To increase clarity and readability the claim should be amended to recite “…the default temperature condition; wherein the value of K is predicted;
Claim 7 recites “…k is predicted by the following formula (15).” which includes a period after (15). Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP 608.01(m). Claim 7 should be amended to recite “the following formula (15):”, with a colon rather than period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2-3 recite “…include but are not limited to the following…”. The phrase is interpreted to be synonymous with the transitional phrase “comprise”. Therefore, claim 2 is interpreted to mean the types of pesticides in step 1 comprise the recited types (but additional types are not precluded). Similarly claim 3 is interpreted to mean the basic property information comprises the recited information.
Claim 6 recites “OC”. The term is interpreted to refer to organic carbon, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of soil.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, are indefinite for recitation of “The traceability system for pesticide residues, comprising the following steps; step 1, collecting…”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p). Here, the claims recite both a system and steps of using the system, thus reciting both a system and a method in the same claim, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of applying prior art, the steps of claim 1 will be treated as a method in the interest of compact prosecution.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations which lack antecedent basis:
“the basic properties” in step 1;
“the degradation properties” in step 2”
“the rainfall, irrigation conditions and other agricultural operation factors” in step 3;
“the risk of pesticide residues…” in step 4;
“…the soil” in step 4;
“the pesticide residues available to leach into groundwater” in step 5;
“the pesticide residues available to leach into surface water” in step 6;
It is unclear which basic properties, degradation properties, and rainfall (e.g. where?), irrigation conditions, and operation factors claim 1 is referring to in steps 2-3. Regarding step 4, it is unclear what risk, “the risk” is referring to, given there a variety of different ways a risk can be predicted, and similarly which soil, “the soil” is referring to given claim 1 previously recited a plurality of different types of soil.. Regarding steps 5-6, because the claim does not previously recite pesticide residues available to leach, it is unclear which pesticide residues the claim is referencing. For example, it is unclear what pesticide residues are being referenced in embodiments in which no pesticides are available to leach and/or there is no risk of pesticide residues on the surface of the soil after use. For purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted to mean “collecting basic properties…”, “collecting degradation properties…”, “collecting rainfall, irrigation conditions…”, “predicting a risk of pesticide residues on the surface of soil after use”, and “predicting an amount of pesticide residues available to leach…” in each of steps 5-6.
Claim 1, and claims 3-7, are indefinite for recitation of “…a variety of pesticides commonly used in crops”. The term “commonly used” in step 1 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “commonly used” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination, claim 1 is interpreted to mean “ a variety of pesticides used in crops”. It is noted that claim 2 requires the commonly used pesticides to comprise the recited pesticides, and thus is not rejected.
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, are indefinite for recitation of “many different types of soils” in step 2. The term “many” in step 1 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “many” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear what number of soil types is considered “many” by the claims. For purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted to mean collecting properties for at least two soil types.
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, are indefinite for recitation of “….step 4, predicting the risk of pesticide residues on the surface of the soil after use…”. It is unclear what was used prior to the predicting the risk of pesticide residues. For example, claim 1 previously recites “collecting…properties of a variety of pesticides” in step 1 and “…collecting the degradation properties of pesticides…” in step 2. Therefore, it is unclear if the predicting the risk of pesticide residues is performed after the use of a pesticide or multiple pesticides. For purpose of examination, claim 1 is interpreted to mean “…step 4, predicting the risk of pesticide residues on the surface of the soil after pesticide use.
Claim 2 is indefinite for recitation of “…the types of pesticides in step 1 include but are not limited to the following types: Methamidophos,…Chlorpyrifos, Atrizine.”, which is missing a conjunction, “and” or “or” after the penultimate member of the list. As a result, it is unclear if the lcaim requires the types of pesticide includes Methamidophos,…Chlorpyrifos, and Atrizine or Methamidophos,…Chlorpyrifos, or Atrizine. For purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted to require that the types of pesticides include at least one of the recited pesticides (e.g. “or Atrizine”). Clarification is requested via claim amendment.
Claim 4 is indefinite for recitation of “wherein the calculation of the loading of the pesticide is performed in step 4, including the loading concentration calculation of the pesticide and the prediction of the original deposition in soil…”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the italicized limitations in the claim, because claim 1 does not previously recite a calculation of the loading, a loading concentration calculation of the pesticide, and the prediction of the original deposition in soil. Furthermore, given claim 1 recites multiple pesticides in steps 1-2 and “pesticide residues” in step 4, it is unclear what pesticide “the pesticide” is referring to. Last, the limiting effect of the “wherein” clause of claim 4 is unclear because claim 1 does not recite any steps of calculating the loading and the prediction of the original deposition in soil. See MPEP 2111.04. For purpose of examination, claim 4 is interpreted to mean that step 4 comprises calculating a loading of the used pesticide, including a loading concentration calculation of the used pesticide and a prediction of a deposition in soil.
Dependent claims 5-7 are also indefinite for recitation of “the pesticide” for the same reasons discussed above for claim 4, given claim 1 recites multiple pesticides and pesticide residues.
Claim 4 is indefinite for recitation of “…Fsoil is the proportion (%) of the pesticide residues sorbed onto soil particles after trial use; Fint is the pesticide residues…after trial use…” after formula (2). It is unclear what embodiments of using pesticides is intended to be encompassed by “after trial use”, and how this differs from simply using pesticides. A review of the specification does not serve to clarify the metes and bounds of the term. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “after use”.
Claim 4 is indefinite for recitation of “the surface of the crop” and “the air release factor” after formula (2). First, given claim 1 recites “crops” in step 4, it is unclear which crop, “the crop” is referring to. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the air release factor” of a pesticide given the claims do not previously recite any air release factor. For purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted to mean “the surface of a crop” and “an air release factor”.
Claim 4 is indefinite for recitation of “…the depth of the soil where the pesticide is deposited (0.05m (spray) or 0.2m (mixed soil))”. It is unclear if the limitations in parenthesis are intended to be exemplary of how the pesticide can be deposited or if the claims intend to define how the pesticide was previously deposited. Clarification is requested via claim amendment. For purpose of examination, the limitations in parentheses are interpreted to be exemplary and thus not required by the claim.
Claim 5 is indefinite for recitation of “the coefficient of pesticide retention in the soil, the calculating of the pesticide retention time in the soil, and the calculation of the coefficient of pesticide degradation…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the coefficient of pesticide retention, the pesticide retention time, and the coefficient of pesticide degradation because claim 1 does not previously recite a coefficient of pesticide retention, a pesticide retention time, or a coefficient of pesticide degradation. Furthermore, it is unclear which soil, “the soil” is referring to, given step 5 of claim 1 does not mention any particular soil or even required the “pesticide use” is on soil, and claim 1 recites different types of soils. For purpose of examination, claim 5 is interpreted to mean that step 5 includes calculating a coefficient of pesticide retention in soil, calculating a pesticide retention time in soil, and calculating a coefficient of pesticide degradation in soil.
Claim 5 is indefinite for recitation of “D refers to the height from the ground surface to the compliance surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the ground surface and the compliant surface because claim 1 does not previously recite a ground or compliance surface. For purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean the height from a ground surface to a compliance surface.
Claim 5 is indefinite for recitation of “q recharge rate of groundwater (mm) is planned to be predicted by osmotic factors… and the prediction method is as follows…”. The phrase "is planned to be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). That is, it is unclear if the limitations following the phrase are merely an intended use (i.e. planned) or if they are required. For purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted to not require predicting the recharge rate of groundwater.
Claim 5 is indefinite for recitation of “qrainfall and q-irrigation refer to the groundwater recharged by rainfall and irrigation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the groundwater recharged…”, and furthermore, it is unclear what measure of groundwater, the coefficients qrainfall and q-irrigation are intended to represent, given “groundwater” itself is not a numerical value. As discussed above, the claim is interpreted to not require predicting the recharge rate of groundwater.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the same reasons discussed above for claim 5, from which it depends.
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “A traceability system…, wherein according to Juryet.al theory, the soil is divided….; ”. First, the metes and bounds of what theories are encompassed by “Juret.al. theory” are unclear. It is unclear if the claim intends to require additional and/or narrower steps other than exactly what is recited based on “Juryet.al theory”, or if the claim simply requires dividing soil into 3 levels, etc. Furthermore, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: “wherein” clauses. Here, it is unclear if claim 6 intends to require the system comprises a step of dividing the soil into levels, or if the wherein clause is reciting an intended use of the system, given the wherein clause does not clearly further limit any steps and/or components of the system. For purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean “A traceability system…, comprising dividing the soil into 3 different levels…, wherein the total number..in the surface soil is fixed...; wherein the total AFGW is the product…”. Although it is noted this is indefinite for reciting a system and method as discussed above for claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are indefinite for recitation of “t1/2 refers to the half-life of the pesticide degradation in soil (d)” after formula (9) in claim 6 and “…t is the evaluation time (d)” after formula 13 in claim 7. It is unclear what variable or value is meant by “(d)” in describing the half-life and evaluation time, respectively. The variable “d” is not present in the formula and furthermore, the claim does not specify what this value is and/or how it relates to the half-life. Clarification is requested via claim amendment. For purpose of examination, the half life will be interpreted to mean the half-life of pesticide degradation in soil and t is interpreted to be the evaluation time.
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “…the AF value calculation of the surface soil (<0.1 m)”. It is unclear if “(<0.1 m)” is requiring that the surface soil refers to soil at least than 0.1m of depth, or if this is merely exemplary of surface soil. If Applicant intends to require the surface soil is 0.1m, then the claim is further indefinite because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “surface soil”, and the claim also recites “the surface soil (<0.1 m)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purpose of examination, the depth in parenthesis is interpreted to be exemplary.
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “The transitional soil (0.1m-1.0m)” and “the remaining soil layer (1.0m-D)”, for the same reasons discussed above regarding “(<0.1m”) regarding the surface soil layer. Furthermore, it is unclear “D” is intended to mean in “(1.0m-D)”. Specifically it is unclear if this is referring to some specific depth or simply means (>1.0m).
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “The transitional soil…., AFTZ will be calculated and predicted tentatively based on the…”. The phrase "will be calculated and predicted tentatively" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). That is, it is unclear if the limitations following the phrase are merely an intended use or result (i.e. will occur) or if they are required. Furthermore, it is unclear what embodiments of “predicting” are intended to be encompassed by “predicted tentatively”, and how predicting tentatively is intended to differ from simply “predicting”. For purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted to further limit the calculation of the total AFGW to require calculating and predicting the AF-TZ as claimed.
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “the soil layer of 0.4m in the formula (9)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the soil layer of 0.4m” in the claims because the claim does not previously recite a soil layer of 0.4m. Claim 6 previously referred to a range of soil levels (0.1m-1.0m), which are also indefinite as discussed above given it was unclear if this is intended to define the transitional soil layer or merely be exemplary. As discussed above, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “(0.1m-1.0m)”, and the claim also recites “the soil layer of 0.4m” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purpose of examination, the depth of 0.4m is not required.
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “The transitional soil (0.1m-1.0m), AFTZ will be calculated…dfoc/dz =…”. The metes and bounds of the equation, formula (10), are unclear because “foc” is not defined by the claims. While “OC” is understood to refer to organic content, it is still unclear what “f” means with respect to the OC. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “the seepage soil layer” in the 4th from bottom line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the clam because the claims do not previously recite a seepage soil layer, and instead recite a surface level, transitional soil, and remaining area, in addition to soil types generally. For purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean “the total coefficient of pesticide degradation in the soil is…”.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “wherein…are used to predict the pesticide residues in the surface soil in step 6” and later recites “the surface soil” in the description of formula 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pesticide residues in the surface soil in step 6” and similarly “the surface soil” because step 6 only recites “the pesticide residues available to leach into surface water”, but does not refer to residues in the surface soil. It is noted that step 4 does involve predicting the risk of “pesticide residues on the surface of the soil”. Therefore it is unclear if “the surface soil” is referring to the same surface of the soil of claim 1, or a different surface soil relating to step 6. Clarification is requested via claim amendment. For purpose of examination, claim 7 will be interpreted to mean step 6 comprises predicting pesticide residues in surface soil using the recited formula.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “the default temperature condition” after formula 14 and also “the default temperature (20 C) after formula (16). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claims do not previously recite a default temperate condition. Furthermore it is unclear if the default temperature after formula 16 is intended to be the same default temperature condition as after formula 14 or if these are different default temperatures. Clarification is requested. For purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted to mean “a default temperature condition” in each instance, such that these may be the same or different temperatures.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “Q10 is a default parameter (2.2)”. It is unclear if the claims intend to require Q10 = 2.2, or if 2.2. is merely exemplary. Clarification is requested via claim amendment. For purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean Q10 is a default parameter.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “ΔT is the temperature variable, that is ambient temperature—default temperature”. The phrase "that is" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if claim 7 requires that the temperature variable is an ambient temperature, and similarly if the “—” is defining the temperature variable and/or ambient temperature to be a default temperature. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the temperature variable” in the claim. Clarification is requested. For purpose of examination, claim 7 is interpreted to mean ΔT is a temperature variable of ambient temperature, which is later defined to be 20C later in the claim.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “the influence factor of ambient moisture”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 7 does not previously recite an influence factor of ambient temperature. The limitation is interpreted to mean “an influence factor…”.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “wherein, in the formula…the default moisture is…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the default moisture” in the claim, and therefore it is unclear which variable this is referring to. It is noted that claim 7 does recite “ambient moisture”, and therefore, it is unclear if claim 7 is intending to define the ambient moisture to be 50% of the maximum water holding capacity of the soil. Clarification is requested via claim amendment. For purpose of examination, claim 7 is interpreted to mean “the ambient moisture is 50%...”.
Claim 7 recites “RT/RT0” in formula (16). The metes and bounds of the equation are unclear because RT and RT0 are not defined by the claim. Furthermore, a review of the specification does not serve to clarify the metes and bounds of the claim. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “the value of k is predicted by the following formula (15) K= Kref*(Q10)….”, but the claim previously recites “K = ln2/t1/2”. As a result, it is unclear if K is simply calculated by ln2/t1/2, or if K is calculated, pr predicted by, the recited equations using Kref, Q10, and f0. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, recite a “system” that merely comprises a series of steps, or information, and does not have tangible form.. As such, an embodiment of the claims read on non-statutory subject matter (In re Nuijten 84 USPQ2d 1495 (2007)).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (claim 1 being representative) is not directed to a statutory category as discussed above. [Step 1: NO] However, the interest of compact prosecution, the claims are analyzed with respect to step 2A and step 2B below.
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 1 recites the following steps which fall under the mathematical concepts and/or mental processes groupings of abstract ideas:
collecting the basic properties of a variety of pesticides commonly used in crops;
step 2, collecting the degradation properties of pesticides in many different types of soils;
step 3, collecting the rainfall, irrigation conditions and other agricultural operation factors;
step 4, predicting the risk of pesticide residues on the surface of the soil after use, and speculating on the transfer pollution of pesticides to crops;
step 5, predicting the pesticide residues available to leach into groundwater after pesticide use;
step 6, predicting the pesticide residues available to leach into surface water after pesticide use.
The identified claim limitations falls into the groups of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and mental processes for the following reasons. First, the steps of collecting basic properties of pesticides, collecting degradation properties of pesticides, and collecting rainfall, irrigation conditions, and agricultural operation factors amount to merely collecting information mentally, which is a mental process. Furthermore, the steps of predicting the risk of pesticide residues, the pesticide residues available to leach into groundwater, and the pesticide residues available to leach into surface water can be practically performed in the mind, because they encompass making the various predictions using mathematical operations including multiplication, addition, subtraction, and division, as described throughout dependent claims 4-7. Overall, the limitations in claim 1 of collecting and predicting are broadly recited, and thus are similar to those in a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.
Furthermore, steps 4-6 further recite a mathematical concept because they encompass performing mathematical calculations to make the various predictions as the only disclosed embodiments described in dependent claims 4-7 and the specification. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.
Dependent claims 2-7 further recite an abstract idea and/or are part of the abstract idea defined above. Dependent claims 2-3 further limit the information collected in steps 1-2 of claim 1, and thus are part of the abstract idea. Dependent claim 4 further recites a mental process and mathematical process of calculating the loading of the pesticide according to formula (1) and predicting the original deposition in soil according to formulas (2)-(3). Dependent claim 4 also recites mathematical formulas in formulas (1)-(3). Dependent claim 5 further limits the abstract idea of predicting the pesticide residues available to leach into ground water to include various mathematical calculations according to formulas (4)-(9). These calculations can be practically performed in the human mind aided with pen and paper, and furthermore recite mathematical formulas. Dependent claim 6 further recites the mental process of dividing soil into 3 different layers in a model, fixing certain variables in layers of the soil, calculating AF values for each of the different layers according to formulas (10)-(11), and then calculating a total AF as a product of the AF for each soil layer. Thus claim 6 recites a mental process and mathematical formulas. Dependent claim 7 further recites the mental process and mathematical concept of predicting pesticide residues in surface soil using the mathematical formulas in (13)-(16). Therefore, claims 1-7 recite an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
The claims do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims as a whole do no integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Thus, claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claims do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. [Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tiktak (2003).
Cited reference: Tiktak et al., The GeoPEARL model, 2003, RIVM report 716601007, pg. 1-79.
Regarding claim 1, Tiktak discloses the GeoPEARL model (i.e. a system) for modeling the fact of pesticides in the soil-plant system (Abstract).
Tiktak discloses, step 1, collecting different properties of different pesticides used for protecting crops, including molar mass, vapour pressure, and solubility in water (Abstract; Figure 6, pg. 27, para. 1 to pg. 28, para. 1).
Tiktak discloses, step 2, collecting half-lives (i.e. degradation properties) of pesticides that depend on organic matter content, clay content, and pH (i.e. in different types of soils) (pg. 21, para. 1; Figure 6).
Tiktak discloses, step 3, collecting daily rainfall fluxes, irrigation, land use type, crop types, and harvest dates (i.e. agriculture operation factors) (pg. 19, para. 1; pg. 23, para 1, e.g. land use type input; Figure 1, e.g. precipitation, irrigation; Figure 6 and 10).
Tiktak discloses, step 4, predicting the mass flux of pesticide residues on the soil surface after 15 years (frsur) after pesticide use and predicting (i.e. speculating) the percentage of pesticide taken up by plants (frupt) (Table 5; pg. 36, para. 1). Given the prediction of mass flux is a future prediction, the prediction is considered a risk of pesticide residues on the surface of soil.
Tiktak discloses, step 5, predicting the percentage of pesticide residues leached into regional groundwater (frlea) after 15 years (i.e. pesticide residues available to leach into groundwater) after pesticide use (Table 5; pg. 15, para. 3; pg. 36, para. 1; pg. 44, para. 3)
Tiktak discloses, step 6, predicting the percentage of pesticide residues discharged through the saturated part of the soil into surface water after 15 years (i.e. pesticide residues available to leach into surface water) after pesticide use (Table 5; pg. 36, para. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Tiktak discloses the types include Aldicarb (pg. 62, see “Substance specific substance properties” at bottom of page).
Regarding claim 3, Tiktak discloses the property information of the pesticides include the pesticide dosage (i.e. maximum use amount), pesticide application frequency (i.e. number of applications), half-life in soil, coefficient of sorption on organic matter (pg. 62-63, see example of substance properties for Aldicarb, including half-life dependent on soil type; pg. 63, para. 2-3, e.g. pesticide frequency and dosage).
Therefore, Tikak anticipates the claimed invention.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gassman, Modelling the Fate of Pesticide Transformation Products From Plot to Catchment Scale- State of Knowledge and Future Challenges, 29 July 2021, pg. 1-12; and
Tiktak et al. (hereinafter, Van den Berg), Manual of FOCUS PEARL version 1.1.1., 2000, pg. 1-144
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Regarding claim 7, the scope of the claims are unclear as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Specifically, the claims recite various equations and parameters which are not clearly defined, and thus the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertained. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06 II. However, it is noted that Van den Berg further discloses the degradation rate is equal to ln(2)/DT5-,r (pg. 39, eqn. 56), as recited in claim 7.
Furthermore, claims 4-6 appear free of the prior art. It is noted these claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and thus the following statements are with respect to any claim interpretations made therein.
The closest prior art of record, Tiktak, discussed above, discloses the steps of claims 1-3 as applied above. However, Tiktak does not disclose the recited equations in claims 4-6, and generally discloses the PEARL model is used in GeoPEARL (Abstract).
Van den Berg discloses the PEARL model used in Tiktak, and discloses calculating the pesticide dosage introduced into the soil system (pg. 33, para. 2), and that the net load is introduced into the soil system directly (pg. 31, para. 2). Van den Berg discloses calculating the nominal dosage distributed over a canopy and soil surface based on one minus the fraction of the soil surface covered by the crop (i.e. the percentage of the area where pesticide is applied to the soil) multiplied by the areic mass of pesticide applied to the field (i.e. the amount of pesticide used) (pg. 31, eqns. 22-23). Van den Berg does not calculate a load that takes into account an effective ingredient concentration, frequency of application, does not calculate coil concentration based on the recited equations using Fsoil, and does not calculate the claimed retention coefficient and pesticide degradation coefficients (claims 4-6). Van den Berg further does not disclose eqns 15-16. Van den Berg further discloses a depth dependence on degradation (pg. 119, para. 1), but does not disclose the specific equations for the degradation based on soil layer in claim 6, formulas 10-14.
Last, Gassman reviews models for the fate of pesticide transformation products discussing 8 various leaching models and two catchment scale models (Abstract; Table 1). Gassman discloses catchment models consider vertical and lateral transport in soil and at the land surface toward groundwater or surface waters, as performed in claim1, while leaching models consider vertical transport toward tile drains or groundwater, and some consider horizontal transport to the river (pg. 4, col. 1, para. 3). A review of the various field and catchment models further did not disclose the recited equations in claims 4-6.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN L MINCHELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6485. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:00 M-Th.
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.
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685