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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashdown et. al. (United States Patent US 2016/0007426 A1) in view of Maor (European Patent ES 2905856 T3), Surany (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0159407 A1) and Atam et. al. (Atam, Ercan et al. “A hybrid green energy-based system with a multi-objective optimization approach for optimal frost prevention in horticulture.” Journal of Cleaner Production (2021): n. pag.).
Regarding claim 8, Ashdown et. al. teaches a computer program product for farming using topography sunlight distribution analysis, the computer program product comprising (Ashdown et. al. [0189]): one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to perform operations comprising (Ashdown et. al. [0192]-[0193]): identifying topography in a locality, wherein the topography includes horizontal surfaces and vertical surfaces (Ashdown et. al. [0020]-[0021]); identifying sunlight exposure incident to the identified topography (Ashdown et. al. [0026], [0029], Fig. 2, [0098]-[0099]);
PNG
media_image1.png
775
1218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
analysing an intensity of identified sunlight exposure and variation over time (Ashdown et. al. Fig.8, 10, [0101]) identifying crop types for growing on the topography based on the analysed intensity of sunlight exposure and variation over time (Ashdown et. al. [0051]-[0054], [0077], [0104], [0113]-[0114], [0123]-[0124] i.e., daylight harvesting, radiative flux from direct/diffuse sunlight, plant selection/growth).
PNG
media_image2.png
784
1220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1010
902
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Ashdown et. al. fails to disclose scheduling a harvest of the identified crop types determined to be ripened based on the analysed intensity of sunlight exposure, variation of the intensity of sunlight exposure over time, and a predicted cultivation period; and deploying robots to harvest crops based on the scheduled harvest of the identified crop types determined to be ripened, wherein deploying the robots includes staggering the deployment of the robots for adjacent crops with similar ripening dates to avoid collisions between the robots.
Maor teaches scheduling a harvest of the identified crop types determined to be ripened based on the analysed intensity of sunlight exposure, variation of the intensity of sunlight exposure over time, and a predicted cultivation period (Maor [0015]-[0016], [0210]-[0214], method of optimal harvesting which depends on sunlight exposure and quality data); and deploying robots to harvest crops based on the scheduled harvest of the identified crop types determined to be ripened, wherein deploying the robots includes staggering the deployment of the robots for adjacent crops with similar ripening dates to avoid collisions between the robots (Maor [0050]-[0055] where a drone is used to harvest crops that are ripe and ready to be plucked, and the fruit harvesting device/UAV is equipped with an anti-collision system).
Ashdown and Maor fail to disclose deploying, by one or more processors, robots to perform crop critical services including heating crops during cold temperatures, providing artificial sunlight to the crops during periods of overcast, and watering the crops during dry conditions.
Surany teaches providing artificial sunlight to the crops during periods of overcast, and watering the crops during dry conditions (Surany Abstract, [0036]: a solar array which when deployed: f. Provides a mechanism to diffuse light and water onto crops by allowing for the replacement or adjustment of each of the sub-panel assemblies with light and/or water diffuser technology).
Atam et. al. teaches robots to perform crop critical services including heating crops during cold temperatures (Atam et. al. Introduction: a novel and cleaner hybrid green energy system providing the required energy for a set of active heaters which blow hot air on trees during frost periods). This heater can be combined with a drone of Maor so that a robot can perform this specific task.
The harvesting of the crops is the most important step of the claimed invention, which is coordinated by robots so that this eliminates the need for human labor by farmers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Ashdown et. al. and Maor with Surany and Atam et. al. so that the robots are able to harvest the crops using the method of Ashdown et. al. along with perform crop critical services including heating crops during cold temperatures, providing artificial sunlight to the crops during periods of overcast, and watering the crops during dry conditions.
Regarding claim 15, which is a computer system claim corresponding to the computer product claim 8 and thus, the rejection rationale for claim 8 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, Ashdown et. al. teaches a computer system for farming using topography sunlight distribution analysis, the system comprising (Ashdown et. al. Fig. 11): one or more computer processors, one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions stored on the one or more of the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors capable of performing operations (Ashdown et. al. [0192]-[0193]).
PNG
media_image4.png
733
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, which is a corresponding method claim of the system claim 15 of which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashdown et. al., Maor, Surany, and Atam et. al., as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above respectively, and further in view of Tiballi (WO 2022/060949 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 is incorporated herein.
Ashdown et. al. fails to teach wherein the locality is an urban environment, and wherein the
horizontal surfaces and vertical surfaces belong to man-made structures.
However, Tiballi teaches wherein the locality is an urban environment, and wherein the
horizontal surfaces and vertical surfaces belong to man-made structures (Tiballi, Abstract).
Ashdown et. al. and Tiballi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor.
At the time before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill to incorporate the teaching of Tiballi into Ashdown. The motivation for doing so
would have been to allow for utilization of urban rooftop farms in industrialized cities to use
buildings more productively to create a smart city network with greenhouses.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Ashdown et. al. fails to teach wherein the identifying
crop types for growing is based on local consumer demand.
However, Tiballi teaches wherein the identifying crop types for growing is based on local
consumer demand (Tiballi [0073]).
At the time before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill to incorporate the teaching of Tiballi into Ashdown. The motivation for doing so
would have been to address the needs in food deserts and provide better planning for city
agencies to allocate food appropriately.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Ashdown et. al. fails to teach wherein the identifying
sunlight exposure incident to the topography includes using global satellite image recognition to
detect sunlight distribution.
However, Tiballi teaches wherein the identifying sunlight exposure incident to the
topography includes using global satellite image recognition to detect sunlight distribution.
At the time before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill to incorporate the teaching of Tiballi into Ashdown. The motivation for doing so
would be to create more accurate data and metrics for analysis for crop demand.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashdown et. al., Maor , Surany, and Atam et. al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above respectively, and further in view of Tran et. al. (US Patent 2020/0364456 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Ashdown et. al., Maor, Surany et. al. and Atam et. al. teaches the method and computer program product and computer system for farming using topography sunlight distribution analysis as claimed in claim 1, claim 8, and claim 15, but fails to teach using a distributed ledger or blockchain utilization to calculate a price for growing the identified crops.
However, Tran et. al. teaches using a distributed ledger or blockchain utilization to
calculate a price for growing the identified crops (Tran et. al. Fig. 5A, 5B, [0034]).
PNG
media_image5.png
462
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
512
610
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Tran et. al. is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor in managing the farming business in a larger scale endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for farming using topography sunlight distribution analysis as taught by the combination of Ashdown et. al. in view of Tiballi to incorporate the teachings of Tran et. al. to use blockchain to calculate a price for growing the identified crops. The blockchain system tracks agricultural production and provides proof of origin, along with advanced purchases of the produce (Tran et. al. [0034]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 June 26, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights