Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment for application number 18/201,728 received on 06/30/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 3-11, and 15-19 are amended. Claims 1, 3-11, and 15-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Regarding the §101 rejections previously applied to the original claims, upon review of the amended claims, the rejections are maintained and have been updated to address the amended claims.
Regarding the §103 rejections previously applied to the original claims, upon review of the amended claims, the rejections are maintained and have been updated to address the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 7-11) with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the original claims are primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1, and 15, and the dependent claims. The amendments and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed in the updated §101 rejections below.
Response to §103 arguments –
Regarding claims 1/15 (Remarks at pgs. 11-13)
Applicant argues “The management zones are compact by maximizing homogeneity. There is no indication, as cited, that the "zones" include a common feature (e.g., untreated segments), which is distinct as compared to remainder segments of the field (e.g., treated segments). Generally, management zones, as in Rowan, are identified prior to the feature being applied to the field (e.g., treatment, planting rate, etc.). Rowan, as cited, is therefore deficient as to identifying segment(s) as recited (especially as amended).”. The Examiner has considered applicant’s argument and finds it unpersuasive. Paragraph [0167] clearly states that the creation of the zones involves maximizing homogeneity within zones, not across zones. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret this are creating management zones that are unique in the field, based on the characteristics considered as disclosed in par. [0082], where Rowan discloses that the creation of the zones is based on – among other things – characteristics of the field, which would be reasonably interpreted by one of skill in the art as making the zones distinct from the rest of the field.
Applicant further argues “A model is not a strip including one or more segments of a field. There is no validation of a strip. As cited, Johannesson at ¶0124 does mention trial strips, but nothing, as cited, indicates that the trial strip is at all validated, much less validated based on a length and width thereof. The only reference to width in Johannesson, as cited, is the model using only strips of finite width on either side of a particular portion. The width is not used, in combination with length, to perform any validation of the strip, which includes one or more segments of a target field.”. This argument has been considered and believed to be fully addressed by the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments to original claims 1 and 15.
Regarding Claim 3 (Remarks at pg. 12-13)
Applicant argues “Anderson illustrates some boxes 502, and 504. However, neither box is disclosed as being a bounding box, or even disclosed as bounding one or multiple previously identified segments of a target field. A bounding box is not merely any rectangle, but is a specific minimum area rectangle, as defined in the art (and also in the instant application (see, ¶0046)). Anderson is thus specifically deficient as to this feature, and the suggested combination relying on Anderson is also deficient. What's more, the alleged motivation is errant. In combining Anderson, the Office argues one skilled in the art would have been motivated to do so "in order to identify damage or loss are associated with corresponding positions". There is no indication that damage is not really located without a bounding box. What's more, the Office relies on management zones from Rowan as being the "one or multiple segments." There is no reasonable purpose to draw a box around management zones in order to identify damage. The alleged motivation is inconsistent with the attempted combination, whereby the motivation is improper. The obviousness rejection based on combination with Anderson should be withdrawn.”. This argument has been considered and believed to be fully addressed by the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments to original independent claim 1, and original dependent claim 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 is/are directed to a method (i.e., Process), claim(s) 15-19 is/are directed to a computer-readable storage medium (i.e., Manufacture. Therefore, claims 1, 3-11, and 15-19 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite a method, and a computer-readable storage medium. As drafted, the limitations recited by the independent claims fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea group by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent claim 1 recites a method for identifying trials in fields with the following limitations:
accessing, by a computing device, for a target field, planting data for the target field from a data structure; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the step for “accessing planting data” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
identifying, by the computing device, one or multiple segment(s) of the target field having at least one common feature distinct as compared to remainder segment(s) of the target field; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the step for “identifying one or multiple segment(s)” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated.);
generating, by the computing device, a bounding box around the one or multiple segment(s); (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the step for “generating a bounding box” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
applying, by the computing device, a first geometric threshold to the bounding box and the identified segment(s); (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the step for “applying a first geometric threshold” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, the mere application of a threshold amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application.);
and in response to the identified segment(s) satisfying the first geometric threshold: validating, by the computing device, at least one strip including the segment(s), based on a length and width of the at least one strip; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the step for “validating at least one strip including the segment(s)” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application.);
and building, by the computing device, a trial based on the at least one strip, wherein the trial includes the at least one strip and at least one duplicate strip disposed along a long side of the at least one strip, the trial identified as a location of the trial in the target field. (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the step for “building a trial” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.).
Independent claim 15 recites a computer-readable storage medium with limitations that are largely similar to the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis applies to claim 15. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B recited by the independent claims are: computing device, computer-readable storage medium, and at least one processor.
Dependent claims 3-11, and 16-19 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce any additional elements for consideration under said steps. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract ideas as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely computing device, computer-readable storage medium, and at least one processor, these additional elements have been evaluated but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment).
Dependent claims 3-11, and 16-19 recite the same abstract ideas (“Mental Processes”) as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract ideas themselves, along with the same or substantially same additional elements addressed.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely computing device, computer-readable storage medium, and at least one processor, these additional element(s) has/have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s specification recites the computing additional elements at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, even if the accessing planting data, identifying one or multiple segment(s), applying a first geometric threshold, and validating at least one strip including the segment(s) steps are interpreted as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the accessing planting data extra-solution activity have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3-11, and 16-19 recite the same abstract ideas as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself and an additional abstract idea along with the same or substantially same generic computing element addressed above under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, which is incorporated herein.
The ordered combination of elements in the claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowan et al. (US 20180132423 A1, hereinafter “Rowan”), in view of Anderson SL and Murray SC (2020) R/UAStools:plotshpcreate: Create Multi-Polygon Shapefiles for Extraction of Research Plot Scale Agriculture Remote Sensing Data. Front. Plant Sci. 11:511768. (hereinafter “Anderson”), in further view of Schmeer et al. (WO 2021122962 A1, hereinafter “Schmeer”), in further view of Johannesson et al. (US 20200201269 A1, hereinafter “Johannesson”).
Regarding claims 1/15: Rowan teaches a method (FIG. 8 depicts an example method for creating management zones for an agricultural field.), and a computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions ([0155] The term “storage media” as used herein refers to any non-transitory media that store data and/or instructions that cause a machine to operate in a specific fashion. Such storage media may comprise non-volatile media and/or volatile media. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical disks, magnetic disks, or solid-state drives, such as storage device 410. Volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as main memory 406. Common forms of storage media include, for example, a floppy disk, a flexible disk, hard disk, solid-state drive, magnetic tape, or any other magnetic data storage medium, a CD-ROM, any other optical data storage medium, any physical medium with patterns of holes, a RAM, a PROM, and EPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, NVRAM, any other memory chip or cartridge.) for identifying trials in fields with the following limitations:
accessing, by a computing device, for a target field, planting data for the target field from a data structure; ([0094] agricultural intelligence computer system 130 is programmed with or comprises a communication layer 132, presentation layer 134, data management layer 140, hardware/virtualization layer 150, and model and field data repository 160.; [0095] Communication layer 132 may be programmed or configured to send the received data to model and field data repository 160 to be stored as field data 106.; [0088] Examples of field data 106 include (a) identification data (for example, acreage, field name, field identifiers, geographic identifiers, boundary identifiers, crop identifiers, and any other suitable data that may be used to identify farm land, such as a common land unit (CLU), lot and block number, a parcel number, geographic coordinates and boundaries, Farm Serial Number (FSN), farm number, tract number, field number, section, township, and/or range), (b) harvest data (for example, crop type, crop variety, crop rotation, whether the crop is grown organically, harvest date, Actual Production History (APH), expected yield, yield, crop price, crop revenue, grain moisture, tillage practice, and previous growing season information), (c) soil data (for example, type, composition, pH, organic matter (OM), cation exchange capacity (CEC)), (d) planting data (for example, planting date, seed(s) type, relative maturity (RM) of planted seed(s), seed population), (e) fertilizer data (for example, nutrient type (Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium), application type, application date, amount, source, method), (f) pesticide data (for example, pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, other substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant, application date, amount, source, method), (g) irrigation data (for example, application date, amount, source, method), (h) weather data (for example, precipitation, rainfall rate, predicted rainfall, water runoff rate region, temperature, wind, forecast, pressure, visibility, clouds, heat index, dew point, humidity, snow depth, air quality, sunrise, sunset), (i) imagery data (for example, imagery and light spectrum information from an agricultural apparatus sensor, camera, computer, smartphone, tablet, unmanned aerial vehicle, planes or satellite), (j) scouting observations (photos, videos, free form notes, voice recordings, voice transcriptions, weather conditions (temperature, precipitation (current and over time), soil moisture, crop growth stage, wind velocity, relative humidity, dew point, black layer)), and (k) soil, seed, crop phenology, pest and disease reporting, and predictions sources and databases.);
identifying, by the computing device, one or multiple segment(s) of the target field having at least one common feature distinct as compared to remainder segment(s) of the target field; ([0082] a computer can determine a plurality of management zones based on digital data representing historical yields and characteristics of the field itself.; [0167] Generating compact zones involves maximizing homogeneity within zones.);
applying, by the computing device, a first geometric threshold to the identified segment(s); ([0250] a test is performed to determine whether a size of a zone is smaller than a user-defined threshold. If the size of the zone is smaller than the threshold, then the zone is merged with its most similar neighboring large zone that is larger than the small zone.);
and in response to the identified segment(s) satisfying the first geometric threshold: ([0227] The process executed in block 710 may be repeated, as depicted by arrow 712, one or more times until the quality of the created management zones is satisfactory.);
However, Rowan doesn’t teach:
generating, by the computing device, a bounding box around the one or multiple segment(s);
applying, by the computing device, a first geometric threshold to the bounding box
validating, by the computing device, at least one strip including the segment(s), based on a length and width of the at least one strip;
and building, by the computing device, a trial based on the at least one strip, wherein the trial includes the at least one strip and at least one duplicate strip disposed along a long side of the at least one strip, the trial identified as a location of the trial in the target field.
Anderson teaches:
generating, by the computing device, a bounding box around the one or multiple segment(s); (Figure 2: Multi-Row Polygons B)
applying, by the computing device, a first geometric threshold to the bounding box (Figure 1: Plot Polygon, Buffer Polygon; Table 2: rowbuf - Distance removed from both sides of rowspc to create a buffer zone between plot boundaries, rangebuf - Distance removed from both sides of rangespc to create a buffer zone between plots boundaries;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan with Anderson’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to exclude areas of bare soil (e.g., walkways/alley) and reduce plot overlap when an orthomosaic has some distortion (Anderson; [Page 2, Introduction]). By incorporating the teachings of Anderson, one would’ve been able to implement the use of bounding boxes and apply a geometric threshold to fine-tune a bounding box.
Rowan & Anderson doesn’t teach:
validating, by the computing device, at least one strip including the segment(s), based on a length and width of the at least one strip;
and building, by the computing device, a trial based on the at least one strip, wherein the trial includes the at least one strip and at least one duplicate strip disposed along a long side of the at least one strip, the trial identified as a location of the trial in the target field.
Schmeer teaches:
validating, by the computing device, at least one strip including the segment(s), based on a length and width of the at least one strip; ([Page 9, Lines 21-26] sampling locations are generated distanced from the border of adjacent plots/strips and from tractor tramlines, wherein the distance is between 2.5% and 20% of the plot/strip width and/or length, preferably 5% of the plot/strip width and/or length. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the verification of the distance between a strip and a border of another strip and from tractor tramlines being between 205% and 20% of the width and/or length, as being equivalent to validating a strip based on length and width of the strip.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan and Anderson with Schmeer’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to avoid carry-over effects from nearby field areas (Schmeer; [Page 9, Line 29]). By incorporating the teachings of Schmeer, one would’ve been able to use the segment’s dimensions (width and length) to validate the segments.
Rowan, Anderson & Schmeer doesn’t teach:
and building, by the computing device, a trial based on the at least one strip, wherein the trial includes the at least one strip and at least one duplicate strip disposed along a long side of the at least one strip, the trial identified as a location of the trial in the target field.
Johannesson teaches:
and building, by the computing device, a trial based on the at least one strip, wherein the trial includes the at least one strip and at least one duplicate strip disposed along a long side of the at least one strip, the trial identified as a location of the trial in the target field. ([0158] The system may select the first treatment for an area of the map originally used to generate the deviation values for the selected portion of the agronomic field. For example, if the system created each statistical model using only strips of finite width on either side of the particular portions of the agronomic field, the system may generate the prescription map such that at least the selected portion of the agronomic field has the second treatment and strips of the finite width on either side of the selected portion receive the first treatment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan, Anderson & Schmeer with Johannesson’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to avoid carry-over effects from nearby field areas (Schmeer; [Page 9, Line 29]). By incorporating the teachings of Schmeer, one would’ve been able to use the segment’s dimensions (width and length) to validate the segments.
Regarding claims 3/16: Rowan doesn’t teach:
wherein applying the first geometric threshold includes imposing the first geometric threshold on a ratio of an area of said identified segments relative to an area of the bounding box.
Anderson further teaches:
wherein applying the first geometric threshold includes imposing the first geometric threshold on a ratio of an area of said identified segments relative to an area of the bounding box. (Table 2: rowbuf - Distance removed from both sides of rowspc to create a buffer zone between plot boundaries, rangebuf - Distance removed from both sides of rangespc to create a buffer zone between plots boundaries; [Page 4, Plot and Buffer Dimensions] Range (i.e., row) spacing (rangespc) refers to the total plot length including half alley distance on either side of the plot.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan, Anderson, Schmeer & Johannesson with Anderson’s additional features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to accurately create the proper plot dimensions and buffer dimensions (Anderson; [Page 4, Plot and Buffer Dimensions]). By incorporating the teachings of Anderson, one would’ve been able to impose a geometric threshold on a ratio of an area of the segment.
Regarding claims 5: Rowan doesn’t teach:
further comprising grouping ones of the identified segment(s) into the at least one strip; and wherein generating the bounding box includes generating the bounding box around the at least one strip and wherein applying the first geometric threshold to the bounding box and the identified segment(s) includes applying the first geometric threshold to the bounding box and the at least one strip.
Anderson further teaches:
further comprising grouping ones of the identified segment(s) into the at least one strip; and wherein generating the bounding box includes generating the bounding box around the at least one strip and wherein applying the first geometric threshold to the bounding box and the identified segment(s) includes applying the first geometric threshold to the bounding box and the at least one strip. ([Figure 2] (B) Single polygons created for each plot merging the adjacent rows of each plot, (D) Sub-Setting out the middle two rows and merging them to a single polygon (purple) of a six row plot (red).; [Figure 1] Plot Polygon, Buffer Polygon; [Table 2] rowbuf - Distance removed from both sides of rowspc to create a buffer zone between plot boundaries, rangebuf - Distance removed from both sides of rangespc to create a buffer zone between plots boundaries;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan, Anderson, Schmeer & Johannesson with Anderson’s additional features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to create single polygons of each row plot of a multi-row plot (Anderson; [Page 5]). By incorporating the teachings of Anderson, one would’ve been able to impose a geometric threshold on a ratio of an area of the segment.
Regarding Claim 6: Rowan further teaches:
wherein the at least on feature includes a seeding rate; ([0165] teaches providing growers with recommendations for a seeding rate selection.);
and wherein identifying the one or multiple segment(s) of the field having the at least one feature includes: grouping each of the segment(s) of the target field into one of multiple bands of planting rates of seeds; ([0279] the provided values may specify an agricultural field for which delineation of management zones is requested. The values may also specify the grower's objectives in terms of expected profits, amounts and types of seeds for the field, the seeding rates, and the like.);
aggregating the segment(s) within each of the multiple groups of the plant rates of seeds; ([0368] The following equations demonstrate the how, in an embodiment, seeding-rate recommendations for different zones can be combined.);
and selecting the segment(s) of the target field grouped into at least one of the bands having a highest number of aggregated segments therein. ([0230] In block 718, a set of management zones is post-processed. Post-processing of the management zones may include eliminating the zones that are fragmented or unusable. [0231] The process executed in block 718 may be repeated one or more times until the quality of created management zones is satisfactory. The process may be repeated using different criteria, different parameters, or different parameter values.).
Regarding Claim 7: Rowan further teaches:
further comprising simplifying a geometry of the segment(s) prior to validating the at least one strip including the segment(s) ([0249] teaches a set of management zones is post-processed. For example, small isolated zones may be merged with other zones to make sure all zones are spatially contiguous and have reasonable sizes.).
Regarding Claim 8: Rowan further teaches:
further comprising, in response to the identified segment(s) satisfying the first geometric threshold: grouping ones of the segment(s) into the at least one strip based on: coordinates associated with a centroid of each of the identified segments and a grouping threshold associated with the coordinates of the centroids, prior to validating the at least one strip. ([0227] The process executed in block 710 may be repeated, as depicted by arrow 712, one or more times until the quality of the created management zones is satisfactory. [0244] teaches: A benefit of the region merging approach is that it utilizes a spatial location of the yield observations when creating the management zones. The approach is expected to generate spatially contiguous zones naturally unless the dissimilarity threshold is set too strictly or the yield maps are too rough.; [0226] teaches preprocessed data representing transient and permanent characteristic of an agricultural field is used to delineate a set of management zones for an agricultural field. The set of delineated management zones may be represented using stored digital zone data, and created by applying centroid-based approaches, such as the K-means approach, or a fuzzy C-means approach.).
Regarding Claim 9/18: Rowan further teaches:
further comprising, in response to the identified segment(s) not satisfying the first geometric threshold: ([0226] In block 710, preprocessed data representing transient and permanent characteristic of an agricultural field is used to delineate a set of management zones for an agricultural field. The set of delineated management zones may be represented using stored digital zone data, and created by applying centroid-based approaches, such as the K-means approach, or a fuzzy C-means approach. Details of these approaches are described further herein in connection with FIG. 8.; [0227] The process executed in block 710 may be repeated, as depicted by arrow 712, one or more times until the quality of the created management zones is satisfactory. The process may be repeated using different criteria, different parameters, or different parameter values. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the process of delineating the management zones until they become satisfactory and modifying the management zones
Rowan doesn’t teach:
trimming, by the computing device, the segment(s);
generating, by the computing device, a second bounding box around the trimmed segment(s);
and applying the first geometric threshold to the second bounding box and the trimmed segment(s)
Anderson teaches:
trimming, by the computing device, the segment(s); ([Page 2] An option for buffering (i.e., a reduced representation of the plot polygon) to exclude areas of bare soil (e.g., walkways/alley) and reduce plot overlap when an orthomosaic has some distortion. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret excluding areas of base soil as equivalent to trimming.);
generating, by the computing device, a second bounding box around the trimmed segment(s); ([Page 2] Plot Phenix (Progeny Development Team, 2019) “grid” functionality, a commercial software, resolves this issue through manual, point and click identification of corner plots, automated polygon centering, and a vast array of options to optimize polygon size, rotation, buffer, stagger, and subsetting.; Figure 1: Plot Polygon, Buffer Polygon, Plant Material. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the process to optimize polygon size as equivalent to generating a second polygon.).
and applying the first geometric threshold to the second bounding box and the trimmed segment(s) ([Page 2] There are several features that are needed to make plot extraction from GIS software efficient, even for novices. (i) The ability to rapidly create a grid of polygons to be overlayed on plots in the proper rotation for any mosaic. (ii) The ability to easily incorporate the experimental design using tabular information with attributes, such as, unique plot IDs for each polygon. (iii) An option for buffering (i.e., a reduced representation of the plot polygon) to exclude areas of bare soil (e.g., walkways/alley) and reduce plot overlap when an orthomosaic has some distortion.; Figure 1: Plot Polygon, Buffer Polygon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan, Anderson, Schmeer & Johannesson with Anderson’s additional features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to incorporates (i) plot orientation, (ii) experimental design, (iii) automated attribute table with unique plot ID, and (iv) plot buffering (Anderson; [Page 2]). By incorporating the teachings of Anderson, one would’ve been able to generate a second bounding box.
Regarding Claim 10/19: Rowan further teaches:
wherein the at least one feature includes an absence of a treatment; and
wherein the at least one duplicate strip disposed along the long side of the at least one strip includes two duplicate strips disposed along each opposite long side of the at least one strip, wherein the duplicate strips are subject to one or more boundaries and/he headlands of the target field.
Johannesson further teaches:
wherein the at least one feature includes an absence of a treatment; and ([0134] teaches: As another example, two the effects of applying either of the two treatments may be computed as: y(s.sub.i)=μ+δ.sub.1μ.sub.1,i+δ.sub.2μ.sub.2,i+x.sub.iβ+w(s.sub.i)+ϵ.sub.i
where δ.sub.1 is an effect of applying a second treatment to the agronomic field, δ.sub.2 is an effect of applying a third treatment to the agronomic field, μ.sub.1,i is 1 when the second treatment is applied and 0 at all other times, and μ.sub.2,i is 1 when the third treatment is applied and 0 at all other times.)
wherein the at least one duplicate strip disposed along the long side of the at least one strip includes two duplicate strips disposed along each opposite long side of the at least one strip, wherein the duplicate strips are subject to one or more boundaries and/he headlands of the target field. ([0124] A trial strip, as used herein, refers to a location on the agronomic field that can be treated in one or more full passes of an agronomic vehicle. In an embodiment, the first portion of the agronomic field at least partially surrounds the second portion of the agronomic field. For example, the first portion of the agronomic field may be a strip on one side of the second portion, a strip on both sides of the second portion, a remainder of the field aside from the trial location, and/or any portion of the agronomic field that is at least partially abutting the second portion)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan, Anderson, Schmeer & Johannesson with Johannesson’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to identify a location on the agronomic field that can be treated in one or more full passes of an agronomic vehicle. (Johannesson; [0124]). By incorporating the teachings of Johannesson, one would’ve been able to identify contiguous areas for trials.
Regarding Claim 11: Rowan further teaches:
further comprising labeling, by the computing device, data included in the data structure, based on the data being associated with the trial and/or a location in the target filed defined by the trial. (Fig. 1: Field Data 106; [0105] In an embodiment, model and field data is stored in model and field data repository 160.; [0112] field manager computing device 104 sends field data 106 to agricultural intelligence computer system 130 comprising or including, but not limited to, data values representing one or more of: a geographical location of the one or more fields, tillage information for the one or more fields, crops planted in the one or more fields, and soil data extracted from the one or more fields.).
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowan et al. (US 20180132423 A1, hereinafter “Rowan”), in view of Anderson SL and Murray SC (2020) R/UAStools: plotshpcreate: Create Multi-Polygon Shapefiles for Extraction of Research Plot Scale Agriculture Remote Sensing Data. Front. Plant Sci. 11:511768. (hereinafter “Anderson”), in further view of Schmeer et al. (WO 2021122962 A1, hereinafter “Schmeer”), in further view of Johannesson et al. (US 20200201269 A1, hereinafter “Johannesson”) as applied to claims 1/15 above, in further view of Richt (US 20180020622 A1).
Regarding claims 4/17: Rowan doesn’t teach:
further comprises accessing, by a computing device, treatment data for the target field; wherein the at least one feature includes a presence or absence of a treatment indicated in the treatment data; and wherein identifying the one or multiple segment(s) of the target field having the at least one feature includes: overlaying the treatment data and the planting data for the target field; and selecting the one or more segment(s) which are planted and have the at least one feature.
Johannesson further teaches:
further comprises accessing, by a computing device, treatment data for the target field; ([0041] In an embodiment, a method comprises receiving first yield data for a first portion of an agronomic field, the first portion of the agronomic field having received a first treatment; receiving second yield data for a second portion of the agronomic field, the second portion of the agronomic field having received a second treatment that is different than the first treatment; [0142] display data indicating a benefit or detriment of the trial);
wherein the at least one feature includes a presence or absence of a treatment indicated in the treatment data; ([0121] The first treatment, as used herein, refers to one or more management practices that are being performed in the non-trial location. For example, the first treatment may comprise any of a particular seeding population, hybrid type, seed type, pesticide application, nutrient application, or other management practices. The server computer may receive data indicating locations on the agronomic field that have received the first treatment.; Fig. 7: Steps 702-712);
…the treatment data and the planting data for the target field; ([0142] display data indicating a benefit or detriment of the trial; [0043] (d) planting data);
and selecting the one or more segment(s) which are planted and have the at least one feature. (FIG. 8 depicts a method for using a spatial statistical model to select locations for performing a trial.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan, Anderson, Schmeer & Johannesson with Johannesson’s additional features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to identify a benefit or detriment of performing the one or more different agricultural activities (Johannesson; [0124]). By incorporating the teachings of Johannesson, one would’ve been able to identify segments of the field with a treatment.
Johannesson doesn’t teach:
and wherein identifying the one or multiple segment(s) of the target field having the at least one feature includes: overlaying…
Richt teaches:
and wherein identifying the one or multiple segment(s) of the target field having the at least one feature includes: overlaying… ([0103] The system overlays the information from the different information sources to identify the farmable zones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Rowan, Anderson, Schmeer & Johannesson with Richt’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to identify the farmable zones. (Richt; [0103]). By incorporating the teachings of Richt, one would’ve been able to overlay data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625