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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30-33 are pending, independent claims 1 and 31 and dependent claims 3, 5, 6, and 32 are amended, claims 2 and 32 are cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments on page 6, filed 3/12/2026, with respect to U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 31 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-9, filed 3/12/2023 with respect to U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30-33 have been fully considered but they are not considered persuasive.
Applicant argues that Guy does not teach selecting a sub-seasonal time-window and a growth threshold, based on said fruit quality threshold.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Guy teaches that to maintain a plant status function (i.e., quality threshold) that a sub-seasonal window and a growth threshold (i.e., baseline) in [0067] “selected so as to maintain a value of the plant status function and/or plant stress score and/or some proxy thereof at a predetermined relation ( e.g., at or above or below) the plant status baseline or some proxy thereof, for at least a portion of the season ( e.g., at least 50% or at least 60% or at least 70% or at least 80% or at least 90% or at least 99% of the season's length).” Where the plant status threshold is a fruit quality threshold because is further explained to be [0094] “the plant status function of the present embodiments correlates well to many observables pertaining to the quality of the plant in a future time. These observables include, but are not limited to, plant height, fruit size (weight and/or diameter), fruit maturity time, yield.”). For these reasons, Applicants argument is no persuasive.
Applicant argues that Guy does not teach the specific conditional decision criterion: if growth stays below the threshold for at least 80% of the window, then a quality prediction is made.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Guy teaches in Fig. 12 the growth of a cotton plant and the predicting factors. At least 80% of the height of the cotton plant is below the baseline, Applicant has agreed with this in the arguments. Fig 12 is further explained in Guy [0184] “FIG. 12 shows cotton height prediction based on plant status, cotton height measurements (diamonds), and two reference baselines (denoted baseline1 and baseline2) as defined based on the height prediction. These reference baselines can be converted to plant status baselines for crop management practice, leading to improved yield as explained above.” In [0182] it is further stated that “Cotton plant height is known as an indicator for successful yield. The ability to predict the plant height based on the plant status function of the present embodiments allows defining a plant status baseline.” Examiner believes that Guy teaches the broader statement of if any growth is measured during a window of time, then a quality prediction is made. Thus, Examiner believes one of ordinary skill in the art, would apply the if growth is measured, then a quality prediction is made to apply to any and all specific growth measurement conditions, in which one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed range of growth stays below the threshold for at least 80% of the window discussed by the applicant through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II A.) and thus with the teachings of Guy be able to make a quality prediction. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Geary does not teach “a first percentage of the crop”. Specifically, Applicant argues FIG. 4 of Geary is simply a map showing a spatial arrangement of numbered field blocks. Geary provides no teaching that these blocks represent any particular percentage of the crop, that the blocks are defined by reference to crop quality, or that the blocks are used to express any prediction about what fraction of a crop will meet a quality standard.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Geary is not used by the Examiner to teach that the blocks are defined by reference to crop quality, or that the blocks are used to express any prediction about what fraction of a crop will meet a quality standard, and the Applicant is right that Geary lacks in said sections. However, Applicant is wrong that Geary does not teach the blocks (section of labeled fields) represent any particular percentage of the crop. In Fig. 4 Geary splits their field into sections, as the Applicant agrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would agree, that if the entire field, see Fig 3, contained a number of crops, and you sectioned off a piece of the field, say 5A for example. The amount of crops in 5A would be a smaller number of crops than the total number of crops for the whole field. A percentage is a way of expressing a number as a part of a whole, specifically as a fraction of 100. To continue with the example if a full field had 100 crops, and 5A had 10, then the percentage would be 10%. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Guy does not teach claim 3 which recites the feature of terminating the restraining of growth when the monitored growth is below the growth threshold. Specifically, Applicant is arguing the passaged used in Guy teaches that irrigation is varied until the plant status function crosses the baseline from below, meaning that according to the Examiner's rationale, restraining terminates only when the function is above the threshold.
Examiner respectfully, disagrees. Guy teaches in [0070] that when the plant status is below the threshold, action is taken to remove the restraining factor causing the growth to be below threshold. Guy does say they add water in varying amounts until plant is back over the baseline, however, that is not to say that restraining only terminates when the function is above the threshold. Examiner understands the from the moment the irrigation/watering has been adjusted or altered from the schedule that was restraining growth, the restraint has been removed. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that if you are bringing a plant back from near water starvation, one would slowly increase the amount of water (i.e., vary the amount of water) presented to the plant until it could withstand normal amounts of watering (i.e., above the baseline). For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that with regards to Claim 10 a skilled person would not have any basis to understand that there exists a correlation between this specific growth and the level of total soluble solids.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant agrees there is no dispute that Kinhal discloses that total soluble solids (TSS) can be used to evaluate fruit quality. In fact, Kinhal states “Since TSS levels are sensitive to the growing conditions of crops, it is one of the indicators used to judge the quality of fields.” Therefore, the Examiner believes the opposite of the Applicant and that, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that there exists a correlation between this specific growth and the level of total soluble solids. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 28, 30, 31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy et al. (US 2016/0309659 A1) hereinafter Guy in view of Geary (WO 2019/043356 A1), and further in view of Haas (WO 2012/130924 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Guy teaches receiving a fruit quality threshold for the crop ([0095] “plant status function is below a predetermined threshold (i.e., fruit quality threshold),” where [0094] “the plant status function of the present embodiments correlates well to many observables pertaining to the quality of the plant in a future time. These observables include, but are not limited to, plant height, fruit size (weight and/or diameter), fruit maturity time, yield.”); selecting a sub-seasonal time-window and a growth threshold, based on said fruit quality threshold ([0067] “selected so as to maintain a value of the plant status function (i.e., quality threshold) and/or plant stress score and/or some proxy thereof at a predetermined relation ( e.g., at or above or below) the plant status baseline (i.e., can be plant growth threshold) or some proxy thereof, for at least a portion of the season ( e.g., at least 50% or at least 60% or at least 70% or at least 80% or at least 90% or at least 99% of the season's length) (i.e., sub-season time window, because, the portion of the season is less than 100 percent).” Where [0094] “the plant status function of the present embodiments correlates well to many observables pertaining to the quality of the plant in a future time. These observables include, but are not limited to, plant height, fruit size (weight and/or diameter), fruit maturity time, yield.”); monitoring growth of the crop before a beginning of said time-window (Fig. 12 shows the monitoring of the height (i.e., growth) of the crop starts before the flowering stages [0104] “the plant status function is specific to the stage within the growth cycle of the crop (e.g., vegetative stage, reproductive stage, pre-flowering stage, onset of flowering stage, flowering stage, fructification stage, etc.).” where these stages of growths are sub-seasonal periods of time (i.e., time-windows)) and continuing said monitoring throughout said time-window (Fig. 12 shows the monitoring of the height (i.e., growth) through the flowering growth stage [0104] “the plant status function is specific to the stage within the growth cycle of the crop (e.g., vegetative stage, reproductive stage, pre-flowering stage, onset of flowering stage, flowering stage, fructification stage, etc.).” where these stages of growths are sub-seasonal periods of time (i.e., time-windows)); if said monitored growth is below said growth threshold during at least 80% of said time-window (Fig 12 where approximately 80% of the measured data points (diamonds) are below the height (i.e., growth) prediction), then predicting a fruit quality which is above said fruit quality threshold for the crop (Fig. 12 the height of the plant (i.e., a type of fruit quality that can be measured according to [0094]) prediction line is above baseline 1, where the baseline is calculated by [0071] “For example, a test crop can be grown under controlled conditions so as to ensure a generally fixed level (e.g., within about 20% or within about 10%) of the plant status function during the growth period or during a season of interest. The yield of the test crop can then be measured, and the level of the plant status function can then be defined as the baseline (i.e., threshold) for the measured yield of the test crop.”); monitored growth is not below said growth threshold ([0067] “in some embodiments at least one operational parameter of the crop treatment system is varied when a difference between the calculated plant status function and the plant status baseline, in absolute value, is above a predetermined threshold (or within a predetermined range of thresholds),” where plant growth is a plant status function as discussed in [0094]).
Guy does not teach at least a first percentage of the crop.
Geary teaches at least a first percentage of the crop, (see fig 4 where shows a map of the group of fields of Figure 3, which has been divided into an alternative arrangement of numbered blocks, each block contains a percentage of the crops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use crop percentages as discussed in Geary to the fruit quality yield discussed in Guy for the purpose of being able to analyze smaller groups of the whole yield. This is advantageous because each crop zone will have its own set of crop growth parameters (e.g., Geary, pg. 7 paragraph 2).
Guy and Geary do not teach restraining the growth of the crop based on the monitored growth of the crop.
Haas teaches restraining the growth of the crop (pg. 1 lines 6-11 “Plant growth regulators are often used to regulate the growth and development of crop plants. For example, plant growth regulators are used to slow the development of a crор (such as oil seed rape) (i.e., restrain the growth) so that it flowers at a desired time, reduce the height of a crop (such as in cereals) so that it is less susceptible to lodging, increase nitrogen efficiency, regulate flowering and fruit set of a crop (such as fruit trees), and slow turfgrass growth rate to reduce mowing frequency.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the restraining of the growth of the crop as discussed in Haas to the fruit quality predicting method discussed in Guy and Geary for the purpose of controlling the time the plant flowers. This is advantageous because agriculturally, the product created by the crop to be consumed can be collected and stored within one time period.
3. (Original) The method according to claim 2, comprising terminating said restraining of said growth of said crop when said monitored growth is below said growth threshold ([0070] “In an
embodiment of the invention, when the calculated plant status function is reduced to a level which is below the baseline, the irrigation schedule and amount is varied until
the value of the plant status function crosses the baseline.” Where the lack of water would be the restraining factor, and adding irrigation would terminate the restraining factor).
Regarding Claim 31, Guy teaches a sensor system deployed and configured for measuring and transmitting data pertaining to a growth the crop ([0149] “System 30 comprises a sensor system deployed and configured for measuring and transmitting data pertaining to a first parameter describing a daily shrinkage of a plant part of crop 32, and a second parameter describing daily growth rate of a plant part of crop 32.”); and a data processor configured for receiving a fruit quality threshold for the crop ([0154] “System 30 also comprises a data processor 40 which is configured to receive the data from the sensor system,”) , for selecting a sub-seasonal time-window and a growth threshold, based on said fruit quality threshold ([0067] “selected so as to maintain a value of the plant status function (i.e., quality threshold) and/or plant stress score and/or some proxy thereof at a predetermined relation ( e.g., at or above or below) the plant status baseline (i.e., can be plant growth threshold) or some proxy thereof, for at least a portion of the season ( e.g., at least 50% or at least 60% or at least 70% or at least 80% or at least 90% or at least 99% of the season's length) (i.e., sub-season time window, because, the portion of the season is less than 100 percent).” Where [0094] “the plant status function of the present embodiments correlates well to many observables pertaining to the quality of the plant in a future time. These observables include, but are not limited to, plant height, fruit size (weight and/or diameter), fruit maturity time, yield.”), and for predicting a fruit quality which is above said fruit quality threshold for the crop (Fig. 12 the height of the plant (i.e., a type of fruit quality that can be measured according to [0094]) prediction line is above baseline 1, where the baseline is calculated by [0071] “For example, a test crop can be grown under controlled conditions so as to ensure a generally fixed level ( e.g., within about 20% or within about 10%) of the plant status function during the growth period or during a season of interest. The yield of the test crop can then be measured, and the level of the plant status function can then be defined as the baseline for the measured yield of the test crop.”), if said monitored growth is below said growth threshold during at least 80% of said time-window (Fig 12 where approximately 80% of the measured data points (diamonds) are below the height (i.e., growth) prediction); wherein said data processor is configured for generating output instructing said monitored growth is not below said growth threshold ([0067] “in some embodiments at least one operational parameter of the crop treatment system is varied when a difference between the calculated plant status function and the plant status baseline, in absolute value, is above a predetermined threshold (or within a predetermined range of thresholds),” where plant growth is a plant status function as discussed in [0094]; and [0154] “Optionally, system 30 also comprises a controller 42 which communicates with data processor 40 and is configured for operating a crop treatment system 44” where [0134] “The crop treatment system can be, for example, a controllable irrigation system, in which case the amount and/or schedule of the irrigation can be set based on the plant status function.”).
Guy does not teach at least a first percentage of the crop, restraining the growth of the crop.
Geary teaches at least a first percentage of the crop, (see fig 4 where shows a map of the group of fields of Figure 3, which has been divided into an alternative arrangement of numbered blocks, each block contains a percentage of the crops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use crop percentages as discussed in Geary to the fruit quality yield discussed in Guy for the purpose of being able to analyze smaller groups of the whole yield. This is advantageous because each crop zone will have its own set of crop growth parameters (e.g., Geary, pg. 7 paragraph 2).
Guy and Geary does not teach restraining the growth of the crop.
Haas teaches restraining the growth of the crop (pg. 1 lines 6-11 “Plant growth regulators are often used to regulate the growth and development of crop plants. For example, plant growth regulators are used to slow the development of a crор (such as oil seed rape) (i.e., restrain the growth) so that it flowers at a desired time, reduce the height of a crop (such as in cereals) so that it is less susceptible to lodging, increase nitrogen efficiency, regulate flowering and fruit set of a crop (such as fruit trees), and slow turfgrass growth rate to reduce mowing frequency.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the restraining of the growth of the crop as discussed in Haas to the fruit quality predicting method discussed in Guy and Geary for the purpose of controlling the time the plant flowers. This is advantageous because agriculturally, the product created by the crop to be consumed can be collected and stored within one time period.
Regarding Claim 3, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitation of Claim 1.
Guy further teaches terminating said restraining of said growth of said crop when said monitored growth is below said growth threshold ([0070] “In an embodiment of the invention, when the calculated plant status function is reduced to a level which is below the baseline, the irrigation schedule and amount is varied until the value of the plant status function crosses the baseline.” Where the lack of water would be the restraining factor, and adding irrigation would terminate the restraining factor).
Regarding Claim 4, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitation of Claim 3.
Guy further teaches predicting a fruit quality which is above than said fruit quality threshold for the crop, (Fig. 12 the height of the plant (i.e., a type of fruit quality that can be measured according to [0094]) prediction line is above baseline 1, where the baseline is calculated by [0071] “For example, a test crop can be grown under controlled conditions so as to ensure a generally fixed level ( e.g., within about 20% or within about 10%) of the plant status function during the growth period or during a season of interest. The yield of the test crop can then be measured, and the level of the plant status function can then be defined as the baseline for the measured yield of the test crop.”),
Guy does not teach a second predetermined percentage of the crop where said second percentage being not higher than said first percentage.
Geary teaches a second predetermined percentage of the crop where said second percentage being not higher than said first percentage (see fig 4 where shows a map of the group of fields of Figure 3, which has been divided into an alternative arrangement of numbered blocks, each block contains a percentage of the crops, and the block that is chosen for the second percentage is smaller than the block with the first percentage, so it contains less crop. For example, the block for the first percentage is 5C, the block for the second percentages is 6C.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use crop percentages as discussed in Geary to the fruit quality yield discussed in Guy for the purpose of being able to analyze smaller groups of the whole yield. This is advantageous because each crop zone will have its own set of crop growth parameters (e.g., Geary, pg. 7 paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitation of Claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein said restraining said growth comprises reducing or terminating irrigation (([0067] “in some embodiments at least one operational parameter of the crop treatment system is varied when a difference between the calculated plant status function and the plant status baseline, in absolute value, is above a predetermined threshold (or within a predetermined range of thresholds),” where plant growth is a plant status function as discussed in [0094]; and [0135] “Specifically, when the soil moisture is above the threshold the irrigation is decreased or ceased,”).
Regarding Claim 6, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitation of Claim 1.
Guy and Geary does not teach reducing or terminating fertilization.
Haas teaches reducing or terminating fertilization (pg. 5 line 31- pg. 6 line 1“less inputs needed (e.g. less fertilizer)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the restraining of the growth of the crop as discussed in Haas to the fruit quality predicting method discussed in Guy and Geary for the purpose of controlling the time the plant flowers. This is advantageous because agriculturally, the product created by the crop to be consumed can be collected and stored within one time period.
Regarding Claim 8, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitations of claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein said monitoring said growth comprises monitoring a width of a trunk of a fruit tree ([0167] Variations in trunk diameters (i.e., referring to almond trees which are stone fruit trees) were recorded every 1 hour by means of two dendrometers (DE (dendrometer) Dendrometer Phytomonitor Stations, PhyTech Ltd., Yad Mordechai, Israel) placed on two different trees.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitations of claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein the crop is a citrus crop ([0072] “of almonds, bell pepper, tomato, melon, water melon, cotton, corn, soya, avocado, mango, citrus, deciduous trees, olives, grapes, and the like).”)
Regarding Claim 14, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitations of claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein the crop is a stone fruit crop ([0072] “of almonds (i.e., also referred to as stone fruit trees), bell pepper, tomato, melon, water melon, cotton, corn, soya, avocado, mango, citrus, deciduous trees, olives, grapes, and the like).”)
Regarding Claim 16, Guy and Geary teach the limitations of claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein the crop is a grape crop ([0072] “of almonds, bell pepper, tomato, melon, water melon, cotton, corn, soya, avocado, mango, citrus, deciduous trees, olives, grapes, and the like).”)
Regarding Claim 18, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitations of claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein the crop is a tomato crop ([0072] “of almonds, bell pepper, tomato, melon, water melon, cotton, corn, soya, avocado, mango, citrus, deciduous trees, olives, grapes, and the like).”)
Regarding Claim 20, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitations of claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein the crop is a pear crop ([0072] “of almonds, bell pepper, tomato, melon, water melon, cotton, corn, soya, avocado, mango, citrus, deciduous trees (i.e., pear trees are deciduous trees), olives, grapes, and the like).”)
Regarding Claim 22, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitations of claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein the crop is an apple crop ([0072] “of almonds, bell pepper, tomato, melon, water melon, cotton, corn, soya, avocado, mango, citrus, deciduous trees (i.e., apple trees are deciduous trees), olives, grapes, and the like).”)
Regarding Claim 28, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitation of claim 1.
Guy further teaches wherein a duration of said time-window is at least one month but less than three months ([0103] “Typically, but not obligatorily, the measurements are obtained at least every 6 hours or at least every 4 hours or at least every 2 hours or at least every 1 hour or at least every 30 minutes or at least every 15 minutes, over a period of at least 5 days or at least 10 days or at least 20 days or at least 30 days or at least 2 months or at least 4 months or at least 6 months or at least 8 months or at least 10 months or at least a year or at least a time period which is equivalent to a season.” Where a time window of 2 months is more than 1 month but less than 3 months).
Regarding Claim 30, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitations of claim 1.
Guy further teaches a computer software product ([0042] “As software, selected
tasks according to embodiments of the invention could be implemented as a plurality of software instructions being executed by a computer using any suitable operating system.”), comprising a non- transitory computer-readable medium in which program instructions are stored, ([0042] “the data processor includes a volatile memory for storing instructions and/or data and/or a non-volatile storage, for example, a magnetic hard-disk and/or removable media, for storing instructions and/or data.”).
Regarding Claim 33, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitation of claim 31.
Guy further teaches wherein said data processor is configured for generating output instructing to terminate said restraining of said growth of said crop when said monitored growth is below said growth threshold ([0070] “In an embodiment of the invention, when the calculated plant status function is reduced to a level which is below the baseline, the irrigation schedule and amount is varied until the value of the plant status function crosses the baseline.” Where the lack of water would be the restraining factor, and adding irrigation would terminate the restraining factor, and [0154] “Optionally, system 30 also comprises a controller 42 which communicates with data processor 40 and is configured for operating a crop treatment system 44” where [0134] “The crop treatment system can be, for example, a controllable irrigation system, in which case the amount and/or schedule of the irrigation can be set based on the plant status function.”).
Claim(s) 10, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy, Geary, Haas and further in view of Kinhal (Brix as a Metric of Fruit Maturity, 2019, (WWW: https://felixinstruments.com/blog/brix-as-a-metric-of-fruit-maturity/))
Regarding Claim 10, Guy, Geary and Haas teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Guy and Geary do not teach wherein the fruit quality comprises level of total soluble solids.
Kinhal teaches wherein the fruit quality comprises level of total soluble solids (pg. 2 paragraph 7 “Brix is used to evaluate the flavour and quality of many fruits at different stages of fruit production, such as harvest and processing.” Where pg. 1 paragraph 2 “Degrees Brix or 'Brix (Brix) is a measure of the total soluble solids (TSS) present in the fruit.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine total soluble solids as discussed in Kinhal to the fruit quality predicting method discussed in Guy and Geary for the purpose of quantifying the quality of the fruit using how sweet the fruit is. This is advantageous because total soluble sugars can be used as a measure of maturity, flavour, and level of sweetness in fruits and vegetables to help in fixing the time of harvest, sales, and processing (e.g., Kinhal, pg. 2 paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 24, Guy, Geary, Haas and Kinhal teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Guy further teaches wherein the crop is a citrus crop ([0072] “of almonds, bell pepper, tomato, melon, water melon, cotton, corn, soya, avocado, mango, citrus, deciduous trees, olives, grapes, and the like).”)
Regarding Claim 26, Guy, Geary and Kinhal teach the limitations of Claim 24.
Guy does not teach wherein said fruit quality threshold equals at least 10 0Bx, and said first percentage equals at least 50%.
Geary teaches said first percentage equals at least 50%(see fig 4 where shows a map of the group of fields of Figure 3, which has been divided into an alternative arrangement of numbered blocks, each block contains a percentage of the crops, and one can select multiple blocks of the crop yield percentage equals at least 50% the crop yield.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use crop percentages as discussed in Geary to the fruit quality yield discussed in Guy for the purpose of being able to analyze smaller groups of the whole yield. This is advantageous because each crop zone will have its own set of crop growth parameters (e.g., Geary, pg. 7 paragraph 2).
Guy and Geary do not teach wherein said fruit quality threshold equals at least 10 0Bx.
Kinhal teaches wherein said fruit quality threshold equals at least 10 0Bx , (pg. 2 paragraph 7 “For example, consumers like Brix values of: 13 for apples; 12 for avocados; 16 for banana; 14 for mango; 12 for tomatoes; 20 for kiwis; 20 for grapes”, where the fruit quality threshold is the consumer preferred Brix values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a Brix threshold as discussed in Kinhal to the fruit quality predicting method discussed in Guy and Geary for the purpose of quantifying the quality of the fruit using how sweet the fruit is. This is advantageous because Brix can be used as a measure of maturity, flavour, and level of sweetness in fruits and vegetables to help in fixing the time of harvest, sales, and processing (e.g., Kinhal, pg. 2 paragraph 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights