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 the Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending and examined herein.
No claims are canceled.
Priority
As detailed on the 13 March 2023 filing receipt, the application claims priority as early as 26 May 2022 to CN 2022/10587857.2. At this point in examination, all claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date as the effective filing date.
Claim Interpretation based on 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “system” recited in claim 11 and the modules in claims 11-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the system, the claims do not recite what physical components the system comprises and neither does the specification.
Regarding the modules, a module is not considered to provide any indication of structure and thus is a nonce term (MPEP 2181(I)(A)). As explained in reference to the “system,” no further structure is disclosed in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “system” and “modules” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. The claims recite a system and modules, and the specification discloses the structure for neither of these. As such, the claims recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claims 15-16 are similarly rejected because they are dependent on claim 14 and do not resolve the lack of structure in claim 14.
35 USC § 101
Matter Belonging to No Statutory Category
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 is to a "system," which is not, in all embodiments within a BRI, interpreted as belonging to any category listed in 101. In a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the system does not have a particular structure, such as a computer with at least a processor and memory. The claim is not limited to any particular structure as a 101 machine or manufacture. The claim therefore does not fit within any of the four statutory categories of invention (In re Nuijten, Federal. Circuit, 2006). MPEP 2106.03 pertains.
Patent Eligibility
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 § I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claims as a whole, considering all claim elements individually and in combination, are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong 2, and the additional elements of the claims, considered individually and in combination, do not provide significantly more at Step 2B than the abstract idea of predicting bacterial blight severity in rice.
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1-10) and a system (claims 11-12). The method falls within one of the categories of statutory subject matter, while the system does not for the reasons described above. [Step 1: Claims 1-10: Yes; Claims 11-12: No]
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
• mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships
and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or
• mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Mathematical concepts recited in claims 1 and 11 include calculating rice spectral reflectance, determining chlorophyll content based on rice spectral reflectance and a first regression model, determining rice water content based on rice spectral reflectance and a second regression model, correlating chlorophyll content and water content, screening based on a numerical value’s correlation with a regression model to obtain a spectral index, and calculating a correlation between the spectral index and blight incidence.
Claim 2 recites calculating correlations, which is a verbal description of a mathematical process.
Claim 4 recites further details of the chlorophyll content calculation and thus also directed to a mathematical concept.
Claim 5 recites further details of the water content calculation and thus also directed to a mathematical concept.
Claims 6-9 recite using partial least squares regression to determine the regression model and thus recite verbal descriptions of mathematical processes.
Claim 10 recites pre-processing images and extracting values from the images using software. This is interpreted as performing mathematical steps on the image data to extract values that can be analyzed and thus also an abstract idea.
Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination,
constitute abstract ideas. The claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they
integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). [Step 2A Prong One: Yes]
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Because the claims recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A Prong Two provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
Claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas: obtaining multi-spectral images and generating a visual distribution map of blight incidence.
Claim 3 recites constructing a sample database.
Claim 11 recites a system.
The steps of obtaining the data and constructing the database are data gathering steps for performing the leaf quality calculations and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Similarly, constructing the map based on the data is interpreted as data outputting and also insignificant extra-solution activity.
The system, if interpreted as a computer, would be a generic computer to perform the functions that constitute the abstract idea. Hence, mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the claims do not recite elements in addition to the abstract ideas which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and so the claims are interpreted as directed to one or more judicial exceptions. [Step 2A Prong Two: No]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Step 2B of 101 analysis determines whether the claims contain additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, and an inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas: obtaining multi-spectral images and generating a visual distribution map of blight incidence. Claim 3 recites constructing a sample database. Claim 11 recites a system.
In a review, Patane (International Journal of Engineering Research and Reviews 2(4): 33-41, 2014; newly cited) teaches acquiring remote sensing multi-spectral imaging data for chlorophyll estimation (abstract), computed using software (pg. 34, last paragraph) including data storage (pg. 37, Section V), and mapping chlorophyll content (pg. 35, fourth paragraph), where modeling disease is also taught (pg. 39, third paragraph).
The claims recite a computer, interpreted as instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, where the computer does not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions, which can be performed without the use of a computer (MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)). Storing data on a computer is a conventional computer function (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; MPEP 2106.05(d)). Display steps are interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which do not impose meaningful limits on the claim, here displaying an output of the analysis (Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55; MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the recited additional elements, alone or in combination with the judicial exceptions, do not appear to provide an inventive concept. [Step 2B: No]
Conclusion: Claims are Directed to Non-statutory Subject Matter
For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole,
are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Hence, the claimed invention does not
constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Plant Methods 18(67): 15 pgs., 2022; newly cited) in view of Pittman (US 2016/0084635 A1; newly cited) and Liu (IEEE Access 99: 52181-52191, 2020; newly cited).
Claim 1 recites obtaining multi-spectral images of rice in a study area, wherein the study area comprises a plurality of plots and calculating a rice spectral reflectance corresponding to each of the plots based on the multispectral images.
Cao teaches obtaining vegetation indices through hyperspectral images of rice leaves (abstract) including in large scale fields (pg. 2, col. 1, second paragraph).
Claim 1 recites determining a rice leaf chlorophyll content corresponding to each of the plots based on the rice spectral reflectance and a first regression model, and determining a rice plant water content (WC) corresponding to each of the plots based on the rice spectral reflectance and a second regression model, wherein the first regression model is determined based on a first sample data set; the second regression model is determined based on a second sample data set; the first sample data set comprises a plurality of spectral reflectances of sample rice and a leaf chlorophyll content of the sample rice corresponding to each of the spectral reflectances of the sample rice, and the second sample data set comprises the plurality of spectral reflectances of the sample rice and a plant WC of the sample rice corresponding to each of the spectral reflectances of the sample rice; and the sample rice is rice under stress of the bacterial blight.
Cao teaches partial least squares regressions based on the training data (Table 5), interpreted as sample data, but not in comparison to chlorophyll content and water content, which are discussed separately, where Cao teaches chlorophyll content water content is affects reflectance (pg. 11, col. 2, second paragraph) and chlorophyll content may predict plant disease stress (abstract).
Claim 1 recites determining an incidence of the bacterial blight of rice corresponding to each of the plots based on a correlation relationship and the rice leaf chlorophyll content and the rice plant WC corresponding to each of the plots, wherein the correlation relationship is a correlation relationship between the rice leaf chlorophyll content, the rice plant WC, and the incidence of the bacterial blight of rice.
Cao teaches chlorophyll content of infected rice leaves is negatively correlated with the severity of bacterial blight disease (pg. 1, col. 2, first paragraph) but not a specific relationship with water content.
Claim 1 recites screening characteristic variables of the rice spectral reflectance based on a score of a variable importance in the projection (VIP) index of the first regression model and a score of a VIP index of the second regression model to obtain a spectral index (SI), screening variables of importance from the regressions, and calculating a correlation between the index and blight.
Cao teaches a partial least squares regression between spectral indices such as the spectral fractal dimension index (SFDI) which is correlated with soil-plant analysis development (SPAD), where a positive correlation was determined and thus useful for predicting SPAD in the event of bacterial blight disease stress (abstract). Cao does not teach variables important in the projection for the individual parameters.
Claim 1 recites generating a visual distribution map of the severity of the bacterial blight of rice in the study area based on the correlation between the SI and the incidence of the bacterial blight of rice.
Cao does not recite such a map.
Pittman teaches spectral reflectance of plants (paragraph [46]) including variable importance analysis based on the regression (paragraph [80]).
Liu teaches a map visualizing blight infection based on a model informed by multispectral imagery (pg. 7, Fig. 6).
Claim 11 recites a system performing the steps of claim 1. The system, if interpreted as a computer, is taught by Cao as computed steps (pg. 6, col. 1, first paragraph) where a computer is implied, Pittman as computers with software (paragraph [97]) where modules may be interpreted as software, or Liu data processing using software (pg. 4, Section B).
Claims 2 and 12 recite calculating a correlation between the SI and the rice leaf chlorophyll content, and generating a visual distribution map of the rice leaf chlorophyll content in the study area based on the correlation between the SI and the rice leaf chlorophyll content.
Cao teaches correlation between chlorophyll content and SPAD value and therefore possible to measure SPAD as an indicator of plant health (pg. 2, col. 1, second paragraph). Cao teaches vegetable indices includes spectral fractal dimension index, which can predict SPAD levels related to bacterial blight disease stress (pg. 2, col. 2, third paragraph).
Claim 3 recites constructing a sample database, wherein the sample database comprises the first sample data set, the second sample data set, and a third sample data set; and the third sample data set comprises a plurality of incidences of bacterial blight of the sample rice and a leaf chlorophyll content and a plant WC of the sample rice corresponding to each of the incidences of the bacterial blight of the sample rice.
Cao teaches a training set and testing set (Fig. 1), where the database is interpreted as reading on the training set. Cao teaches a relationship between chlorophyll and leaf water content and leaf reflectance (pg. 11, col. 2, second paragraph), and Liu teaches relevance of spectral data to chlorophyll (pg. 52182, col. 1, second paragraph). Liu also teaches training data to detect blight (pg. 52184, Section C), which implies training based on blight data and reflectance.
Claim 4 recites a process of determining the leaf chlorophyll content of the sample rice is determining the leaf chlorophyll content of the sample rice corresponding to each of the plots in the sample area using a soil-plant analysis development (SPAD)-502 chlorophyll meter.
Cao teaches validation with the SPAD-502 meter (pg. 5, col. 1, last paragraph).
Claims 6 and 8 recite a process of determining the first regression model is determining the first regression model according to a partial least square regression (PLSR) method and the first sample data set.
Cao teaches partial least squares regression (pg. 10, col. 1, last paragraph) between wavelength data and SPAD, some of which correlate with chlorophyll content.
Claims 7 and 9 recite a process of determining the second regression model is determining the second regression model according to a PLSR method and the second sample data set.
Cao teaches partial least squares regression (pg. 10, col. 1, last paragraph) and a relationship between water content and leaf reflectance (pg. 11, col. 2, second paragraph).
Claim 10 recites a process of calculating a rice spectral reflectance corresponding to each of the plots based on the multi-spectral images specifically comprises pre-processing the multi-spectral images and extracting rice spectral reflectances from the pre-processed multi-spectral images using environment for visualizing images (ENVI) software, so as to determine the rice spectral reflectance corresponding to each of the plots.
Cao teaches pre-processing image data to extract wavelength information using software (pg. 3, col. 1, first and second paragraphs).
Combining Cao, Pittman, and Liu
An invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to modify prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the invention. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Pittman, which are directed to remote sensing of leaf traits, and Liu, which is are directed to detecting leaf blight using multispectral imagery. Regarding Pittman, Pittman teaches variable importance plot values in a partial least squares procedure, where VIP scores higher than a threshold are considered valuable sensor parameters (pg. 12, col. 1, paragraph [85]) and the values are wavelengths considered for model inclusion (Table 2), which would be desirable to combine with Cao where wavelengths are also taught as indicative of a plant disease condition. Regarding Liu, Liu teaches mapping the disease condition determined based on the wavelength parameters (Fig. 6) and is taught as desirable because the map can be used to monitor disease at a regional scale (pg. 52189, col. 1, first paragraph). The combined pieces of prior art are all directed to remote sensing of leaf traits for disease detection and so are in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Pittman and Liu as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-12 above and further in view of Swain (Remote Sensing of Biomass – Principles and Applications, Chapter 12, 253-273, 2012; newly cited).
Claim 5 recites a process of determining the plant WC of the sample rice is calculating the plant WC of the sample rice corresponding to each of the plots in the sample area using a wet basis WC method.
Cao teaches water content (pg. 11, col. 2, second paragraph) but not a wet basis method.
Swain teaches calculating moisture content in rice plants using wet basis (pg. 264, Equation 4).
Combining Cao, Pittman, Liu, and Swain
An invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to modify prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the invention. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Swain regarding collection of water content data with the previously combined teachings because Swain teaches such a method is the standard method of moisture content determination (pg. 263, Section 4.1.1) and therefore would be known to one having ordinary skill in the art. The combined art is directed to remote sensing of leaf data and such a combination would be expected to succeed. Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert J Kallal whose telephone number is (571)272-6252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Olivia M. 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.
/Robert J. Kallal/Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights