DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objection
2. Claims 42 and 67 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42, the phrase “providing a crop treatment scheme for respective crop locations for respective crop locations based at least in part on said first and second parameters corresponding to said respective crop locations” is vague. It is advised to change it to -- providing a crop treatment scheme for respective crop locations
Claim 67 recites the limitation “said environmental data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 24, 31-32, 34-35, 40-42, 44, 46-49, 56, 62-63, 67, 71-73, 75-76 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 24, 31-32, 34-35, 40-42, 44, 46-49, 56, 62-63, 67, 71-73, 75-76 and 79 are directed to an abstract idea of monitoring water usage within a structure.
Specifically, representative claim 47 recites:
A system for monitoring a crop phenology, the system comprising:
a crop sensor operable to acquire crop size data of a crop in a crop location over time;
a digital data processor operable on said crop size data to calculate a first parameter based at least in part on one or more of to a periodic recovery value or a periodic shrinkage value and a second parameter at least in part based on a periodic growth value, wherein one or more of said first parameter and said second parameter are indicative of a crop characteristic; and
an indicator system configured to provide an indication related to said crop characteristic in response to one or more of said first parameter and said second parameter.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitation of “a digital data processor operable on said crop size data to calculate a first parameter based at least in part on one or more of to a periodic recovery value or a periodic shrinkage value and a second parameter at least in part based on a periodic growth value, wherein one or more of said first parameter and said second parameter are indicative of a crop characteristic” encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Although it does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely indicates that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps.
The phrase “a digital data processor operable on said crop size data” covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a digital data processor operable on said crop size data” nothing in the claimed limitation precludes the math calculation from practically being performed in the mind or with pen/paper. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 47 falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under its BRI, the limitation of “a crop sensor operable to acquire crop size data of a crop in a crop location over time” reads on merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the identified abstract. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. As such, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The “crop sensor” is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not require any particular device or sensor in a particular location to acquire the crop size data. Thus claim 47 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
The limitation of “an indicator system configured to provide an indication related to said crop characteristic in response to one or more of said first parameter and said second parameter.
” reads on an insignificant post-solution activity of outputting, e.g., displaying the results of the identified abstract idea, which is not qualified for meaningful limitations to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
As to the particulars of the first parameter and the second parameter, under the BRI, they encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
The claim does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 48-49, 56, 62-63 and 67 inherit attributes of the independent claim 47, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, claim 63 recites: a crop treatment system operable to apply a crop treatment based on said crop treatment recommendation. Under its BRI, this limitation encompasses merely an insignificant extra-solution activity generally attached to the identified judicial exception. It does not amount to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” because applying a crop treatment based on a crop treatment recommendation is considered "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Claims 24, 31-32, 34-35, 40-42, 44, 46, 71-73, 75-76 and 79 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as for claims 47-49, 56, 62-63 and 67 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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; or
(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.
6. Claims 24, 31-32, 34-35, 40-42, 44, 46-49, 56, 62-63, 67, 71-73, 75-76 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weldemariam et al. (US 20200273172 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Weldemariam discloses a method of monitoring a crop phenology (Abstract; para. 0023, 0048, 0065), the method comprising: acquiring a size measurement of a crop in a crop location over time (para. 0049, 0057: “Photographic images may be submitted at regular time intervals, at regular intervals of the crop growth stage”); monitoring a first parameter (e.g., the mean spectral reflectance, the mean spectral reflectance curves of healthy, or the rate of change of crop color) calculated based at least in part on one or more of a periodic shrinkage value of said size measurement or a periodic recovery value of said size measurement (para. 0050, 0054: “Reflectance of healthy samples was higher …. The mean spectral reflectance curves of healthy, early blight and late blight diseased leaves illustrate the potential for image analytic techniques to provide early warning of diseases or other environmental conditions that may impact the crop grade at harvest. … photographic images of the crop (such as leaves and tomatoes on the plant) can be analyzed to assess insect infestation, tomato size, symmetry, and other attributes”; see also para. 0057, 0059), and a second parameter (e.g., cohort history of crop health and quality or crop grading) calculated at least in part based on a periodic growth value of said size measurement (para. 0009, 0050), wherein one or more of said first parameter and said second parameter are indicative of a crop characteristic (para. 0054, 0050, 0059); and providing an indication related to said crop characteristic in response to one or more of said first parameter and said second parameter (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 31, Weldemariam discloses: calculating, based at least in part on a phenological model, a predicted crop ripeness parameter for a future time (see block 316 of Fig. 3B and/or block 420 of Fig. 4), wherein said predicted crop ripeness parameter is related to said crop characteristic and said indication is provided in response to at least one of said first parameter, said second parameter, or said predicted crop ripeness parameter (para. 0065: “Various known time series techniques can be used, from simple statistical models (for time-series forecasting) to more complex models or approaches such as …”; see also para. 0062, 0075, 0084).
Regarding claim 32, Weldemariam discloses: updating said phenological model (see discussion of block 316 of Fig. 3B and blocks 404 to 420 of Fig. 4) based at least in part on a current crop ripeness parameter measured in accordance with a designated time associated with one or more of said first parameter or said second parameter (para. 0073: by inherency, the health/quality assessor 316 must use the current or updated crop related features, environmental context, plant status, visual evidence, crop stress levels, etc. to determines the current crop health status including a decision tree induction technique to generate new classification rules based on an analysis of the crop features; see also para. 0079-0084).
Regarding claim 34, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said indication relates to one or more of a yield estimation, a harvest time, an irrigation recommendation, or a crop ripeness (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 35, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said first parameter is calculated as a function of the product (i.e., a thing that is the result of an action or process) of a designated number of one or more of said periodic shrinkage value or said periodic recovery value (para. 0054, 0057, 0059).
Regarding claim 40, Weldemariam discloses: generating a crop treatment recommendation based at least in part on one or more of said first or second parameter (see discussion of the actions in para. 0085).
Regarding claim 41, Weldemariam discloses: operating a crop treatment system based at least in part on said first or second parameter (see discussion of the actions in para. 0085).
Regarding claim 42, Weldemariam discloses: providing a crop treatment scheme for respective crop locations based at least in part on said first and second parameters corresponding to said respective crop locations (para. 0085: “The actions include, but are not limited to …. recommending a switch to a different crop for the following growing season, recommending the application of chemicals (such as pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and the like), recommending obtaining and ingesting more photographic images of crops, recommending to harvest the crop … The actions are based, for example, on the local weather, plant status, human evaluators, farmer profile, and the like. In one example embodiment, an action is recommended using a stored knowledge base, historic events of the crop, and the like”).
Regarding claim 44, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said monitoring further comprises monitoring an environmental parameter (e.g., local weather), and wherein said indication is provided at least in part based on said environmental parameter (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 46, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said crop characteristic comprises one or more of a predicted crop yield or a crop grade (para. 0063, 0070, 0085).
Regarding claim 47, Weldemariam discloses a system for monitoring a crop phenology (Abstract; para. 0023, 0048, 0065), the system comprising: a crop sensor (e.g., a fixed camera/sensor) operable to acquire crop size data of a crop in a crop location over time (para. 0049, 0057: “Photographic images may be submitted at regular time intervals, at regular intervals of the crop growth stage”); a digital data processor (see discussion of Fig. 2 and/or Fig. 6) operable on said crop size data to calculate a first parameter (e.g., the mean spectral reflectance, the mean spectral reflectance curves of healthy, or the rate of change of crop color) based at least in part on one or more of to a periodic recovery value or a periodic shrinkage value (para. 0050, 0054: “Reflectance of healthy samples was higher …. The mean spectral reflectance curves of healthy, early blight and late blight diseased leaves illustrate the potential for image analytic techniques to provide early warning of diseases or other environmental conditions that may impact the crop grade at harvest. … photographic images of the crop (such as leaves and tomatoes on the plant) can be analyzed to assess insect infestation, tomato size, symmetry, and other attributes”; see also para. 0057, 0059) and a second parameter (e.g., cohort history of crop health and quality or crop grading) at least in part based on a periodic growth value (para. 0009, 0050), wherein one or more of said first parameter and said second parameter are indicative of a crop characteristic (para. 0054, 0050, 0059); and an indicator system configured to provide an indication related to said crop characteristic in response to one or more of said first parameter and said second parameter (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 48, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said crop characteristic is related to a phenological crop growth stage (para. 0050, 0054, 0059).
Regarding claim 49, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said phenological crop growth stage is related to a crop lag phase (para. 0065, 0069: “a recommendation may be issued recommending a delay in the ripening of a crop based, for example, on …”).
Regarding claim 56, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said digital data processor is further operable to calculate a third parameter (e.g., a maximum entropy) related to an extremum of said crop size data over said at least a portion of a growth season, wherein said third parameter is indicative of said crop characteristic, and wherein said indication is provided in response to one or more of said first, second, or third parameter (para. 0072).
Regarding claim 62, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said digital data processor is further operable to generate a crop treatment recommendation based at least in part on one or more of said first or second parameter (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 63, Weldemariam discloses: a crop treatment system operable to apply a crop treatment based on said crop treatment recommendation (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 67, Weldemariam discloses: wherein one or more of said first parameter or said second parameter is calculated based at least in part on environmental data acquired by an environmental sensor (para. 0048: by inherency, local environmental context such as weather and soil conditions must be derived at least in part from environmental data acquired by an environmental sensor; see also para. 0057: a sensing device mounted on … a satellite…).
Regarding claim 71, Weldemariam discloses a method of monitoring a crop phenology (Abstract; para. 0023, 0048, 0065), the method comprising: acquiring a size measurement of a crop in a crop location over time (para. 0049, 0057: “Photographic images may be submitted at regular time intervals, at regular intervals of the crop growth stage”); monitoring a first parameter (e.g., the mean spectral reflectance, the mean spectral reflectance curves of healthy, or the rate of change of crop color) periodically calculated based at least in part on a periodic maximum value (e.g., the rate of change of crop color when the leaves or crops are changing color rapidly) and a plurality of previously acquired periodic maximum values of said size measurement acquired within a designated time window (para. 0057: “For example, there may be no need to take photographs every third day when the leave color is not changing. When the leaves or crops are changing color rapidly (e.g., from green-to-brown), then it may be an early indication of disease, insect infestation, and the like, and photographs should be taken more closely together (e.g., once every four to six hours) to ensure the efficacy of pesticide application, changes in watering patterns, and the like. Once the rate of color change has stabilized, then the photographic images can be taken at the previous rate (e.g., at regular intervals)”; see also para. 0058-0059), and a second parameter (e.g., cohort history of crop health and quality or crop grading) calculated at least in part based on said first parameter and a periodic minimal value (e.g., the rate of color change that is stabilized) of said size measurement, said second parameter being indicative of a crop characteristic (para. 0009, 0050, 0057); and providing an indication related to said crop characteristic in response to said second parameter (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 72, Weldemariam discloses: calculating, using a digital data processor configured to receive as input said size measurement acquired over time, a crop growth parameter (e.g., a size, a shape, a color, visual spots, virus/insects, and the like, or the grade of a crop) corresponding at least in part to a characteristic periodic value of said size measurement, wherein said second parameter is calculated at least in part based on said crop growth parameter (para. 0049-0050, 0054, 0063, 0074).
Regarding claim 73, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said first parameter is calculated at least in part based on said crop growth parameter (para. 0049, 0057-0059).
Regarding claim 75, Weldemariam discloses: wherein said crop growth parameter is calculated at least in part based on a plurality of previously calculated crop growth parameters corresponding to a designated historical crop growth time window (para. 0058-0059, 0063, 0074).
Regarding claim 76, Weldemariam discloses: digitally adjusting one or more of said first or second parameter by a designated adjustment value (e.g., the rate of sampling the photographic images at non-regular intervals) corresponding at least in part to said crop growth parameter (para. 0057).
Regarding claim 79, Weldemariam discloses: digitally performing, using a digital data processor (see discussion of Fig. 2 and/or Fig. 6)), a comparison (e.g., change of the crop color, or a comparison to a crop without imperfections) of a current value of said first parameter with a previous value of said first parameter calculated over a designated seasonal time window, and, based at least in part on a result of said comparison, digitally updating said first parameter as said current value of said first parameter (para. 0073: by inherency, the health/quality assessor 316 must use the current or updated crop related features, environmental context, plant status, visual evidence, crop stress levels, etc. to determines the current crop health status including a decision tree induction technique to generate new classification rules based on an analysis of the crop features; see also para. 0079-0084, 0088).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Song et al. (US 20200344965 A1) -- Automated systems and gardening apparatus for plant growth and cultivation
Yuan et al. (US 20220156917 A1) -- NORMALIZING COUNTS OF PLANT-PARTS-OF-INTEREST
BARTEN et al. (US 20220039320 A1) -- DELAYED HARVEST OF SHORT STATURE CORN PLANTS
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857