Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 18/242,914, filed on 9/6/2023 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 11/15/2023 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 63/403,970 filed on 09/06/2022 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 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.
As to Claim 10, it is unclear what is meant by “accumulating land data……….. type and blend percentage range most conducive …………………………… GPS coordinates”, particularly “most conducive” is a relative term that makes the claim indefinite
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is 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. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system, method of claim 1,10, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
“A system for generating information concerning land, comprising:
a memory; a processor coupled to the memory programmed with executable instructions, the instructions including a graphical user interface for selection and
display of a map boundary containing a land area of interest for obtaining geographic location-specific information for a plurality of land subregions within the map boundary, wherein the geographic location-specific information comprises land soil data and topographical slope data uniquely associated with each of the plurality of land subregions, a recommended seed variety blend percentage, a recommended pure live seeding rate and a recommended user defined selected blend percentage; and
a global positioning system (GPS) coordinate retrieval interface for assigning GPS coordinates to the map boundary, wherein the graphical user interface includes
(a) a user selectable boundary selector for designating the map boundary for display on a display sector of the graphical user interface; and
(b) user selectable graphical subregions corresponding to a portion of the land area of interest within the designated map boundary, the selection of which causes display of the land soil data, topographical slope data and an area of the subregion”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of display map boundary, topographical slop data, recommended pure live seeding rate, display sector, user selectable graphical subregions and like.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they 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 user selectable graphical subregions, display of the land soil data, recommended pure live seeding rate, display sector, user selectable graphical subregions, 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.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 1, para 0017-0024,0033,0055-0060, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 1, para 0017-0024, 0033, 0055-0060, of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 10 is rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and claim 10 is rejected on that basis.
Claim 2, further elaborates “wherein the subregion comprises a selectable identifier that uniquely identifies a soil type and a topographical slope percentage attributable to each subregion”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3, further elaborates, “wherein a first subregion is coded in a manner differentiating the first subregion to a second subregion, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4, further elaborates,” wherein the processor generates a table within the graphical user interface corresponding to the selectable identifier of one or more of the subregions”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5, further elaborates, “wherein the recommended seed blend percentage comprises a range for each of one or more seed varieties optimally associated with the global positioning system coordinates of the land area of interest”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6, further elaborates, “wherein the recommended seed blend is displayed within the graphical user interface in an order according to a most prevalent historical growth data, by percentage, associated with the GPS coordinates of the land area of interest”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7, further elaborates “wherein the recommended seed blend displayed within the graphical user interface is limited to a user defined threshold set according to a minimum amount of historical growth data, by percentage, associated with the GPS coordinates of the land area of interest”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8, further elaborates “wherein the recommended user defined selected blend percentage is associated with a pound per acre blend pure live seed rate for a seed variety for the land area of interest”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9, further elaborates “wherein the recommended user defined selected blend percentage is associated with a total amount of blend pure live seed necessary for the land area of interest, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11. The method of claim 10, further comprising the step of “receiving from a user a selected blend percentage within the seed species and variety blend percentage range”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12, further elaborates “displaying of a blend pure live seeding rate in units of weight per area corresponding to the user selected blend percentage of the seed species and variety”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 13, further elaborates “displaying of a blend pure live seeding amount in a unit of weight for the area of interest corresponding to the user selected blend percentage of the seed species and variety”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 14, further elaborates “wherein display of the recommended seed species and variety blend percentage ranges are ranked from the plant life most conducive to growth corresponding to the retrieved GPS coordinates and according to historical data indicative of a most prevalent plant life growth in the land area of interest to a least prevalent plant life growth in the land area of interest corresponding to the retrieved GPS coordinates and according to historical data indicative of less prevalent plant life growth”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 15, further elaborates “wherein the pure live seeding rate is predefined according to the seed species and variety corresponding to the GPS coordinates of the land area of interest”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 16, further elaborates “parsing the displayed user drawn boundary into subregions according to differences in the soil type and the topography slope percentage across the user drawn boundary of the land area of interest and displaying the subregions to the user in the display area of the graphical user interface”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 17, further elaborates “wherein the subregions include user selectable identifiers that identify the soil type and topography slope percentage” which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 18, further elaborates “receiving a report request from the user requesting a report including a potential seller of the recommended seed blend”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 19, further elaborates “wherein seed species and variety blend percentage ranges are provided for plant life occupying more than a predefined minimum percentage of overall plant life growth in the land area of interest”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff et al., (hereafter Ruff), US Pub. No. 2019/0057461 published Feb, 2019 in view of Ell, US Pub. No. 2002/0035431 published Mar, 2002
As to claim 1, Ruff teaches a system which including A system for generating information concerning land, comprising” (Ruff: fig 1, 0051, land information corresponds to agricultural field data);
PNG
media_image1.png
136
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
:
“a memory; a processor coupled to the memory programmed with executable instructions, the instructions including a graphical user interface for selection” (Ruff: fig 1,4, 0070);
PNG
media_image2.png
212
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
“display of a map boundary containing a land area of interest for obtaining geographic location-specific information for a plurality of land subregions within the map boundary” (Ruff: fig 8-9, 0227, 0231 – Ruff teaches displaying of marked color locations for example selected locations based on the constraints and/or requirements specifically using agricultural intelligence computing system that identifies land area f interest in marked colors via GUI);
PNG
media_image3.png
528
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“wherein the geographic location-specific information comprises land soil data and topographical slope data uniquely associated with each of the plurality of land subregions” (Ruff: 0051, fig 1, field data element 106 including geographic identifiers, boundary identifiers, acreage, field name, crop identifiers including geographic coordinates and boundaries, soil data for example composition, pH, organic matter, seed(s) type as detailed in para 0051 is identical to instant specification para 0022;
; and
“a global positioning system (GPS) coordinate retrieval interface for assigning GPS coordinates to the map boundary, wherein the graphical user interface includes” (Ruff: 0051, fig 1,0146, including geographic coordinates, boundaries particularly GPS coordinates identifies a location of the field)
“(a) a user selectable boundary selector for designating the map boundary for display on a display sector of the graphical user interface” (Ruff: fig 8-9 – Ruff teaches graphical user interface allows to select/edit selected geographical field zone(s) on the map); and
“(b) user selectable graphical subregions corresponding to a portion of the land area of interest within the designated map boundary, the selection of which causes display of the land soil data, topographical slope data and an area of the subregion” (Ruff: fig 8-11, 0231-0233) .
It is however, noted that Ruff does not disclose “a recommended seed variety blend percentage, a recommended pure live seeding rate and a recommended user defined selected blend percentage”, although Ruff teaches crop yield, new crop seeding rate and specific crop hybrid in the grower’s field, particularly determining new crop seeding rate and recommend change in the crop hybrid based on the seeding rate (Ruff: 0213, fig 17, element 1708)
PNG
media_image4.png
102
317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Ell disclosed “a recommended seed variety blend percentage, a recommended pure live seeding rate and a recommended user defined selected blend percentage” (Ell: Abstract, 0124-0125,0242-0243, fig 25- Ell teaches site specific forming based on the types of agricultural inputs to create application map that including crop input requirement maps to create blend of crop related data, the prior art of Ell teaches recommendation equation module that directly related to create crop input, spatial blending module is responsible for converting the crop inputs in evaluating percentage of crop. It is further noted that Ell teaches blending logic (element 456) utilized in understanding ingredient applied to the field may recommend and/or suggest optimal blend and determines the optimal rate of application for each crop input, finally blending logic provides solution that satisfies all the rate requirements including optimal ingredient requirements for the better crop)
PNG
media_image5.png
285
220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention creating application maps for site specific forming particularly user interface allows to process various types of agricultural requirement of Ell into digital modeling and tracking of agricultural fields particularly using agricultural intelligence system of Ruff et al., because both Ruff, Ell specifically teaches agricultural computing system via graphical user interface (Ruff: Abstract, fig 1; Ell: Abstract, fig 1) and both Ruff, Ell teaches managing and recommending crop seed related information (Ruff: fig 17;0209,0213; Ell: fig 6 including blending recommendation) and they both Ruff, Ell are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Ruff, Ell teaches process various types of agricultural requirement, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly recommendation module, blending module to create refined agricultural product maps that allows not only optimization of expected crop under various conditions, but also allows to estimate reasonable percentage of crop presented to the use on the graphical user interface (Ell: 0124-0126), while allows to create customize crop requirement maps bringing the advantage of commercial products in the market (Ell: 0008), thus improves overall quality, reliability of the blending crop system.
As to claim 2, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “wherein the subregion comprises a selectable identifier that uniquely identifies a soil type and a topographical slope percentage attributable to each subregion” (Ruff: 0145-0146 – Ruff teaches agricultural intelligence system that supports various types of data including soil data, planting data, harvest and yield data, crop protection data and like)
As to claim 3, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed, “wherein a first subregion is coded in a manner differentiating the first subregion to a second subregion” (Ruff: fig 8-11 – Ruff teaches geographical map including selected region and/or subregion defined by multiple zones in fig 8)
As to claim 4, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed,” wherein the processor generates a table within the graphical user interface corresponding to the selectable identifier of one or more of the subregions” (Ruff: 0109,0233, fig 11).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “wherein the recommended seed blend percentage comprises a range for each of one or more seed varieties optimally associated with the global positioning system coordinates of the land area of interest” (Ell: Abstract, 0124-0125,0242-0243, fig 25)
As to claim 6, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “wherein the recommended seed blend is displayed within the graphical user interface in an order according to a most prevalent historical growth data (Ruff: fig 1-2, 0066, 0077),, by percentage, associated with the GPS coordinates of the land area of interest” (Ruff: 0051, 0094).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed,” wherein the recommended seed blend displayed within the graphical user interface is limited to a user defined threshold set according to a minimum amount of historical growth data Ruff: fig 1-2, 0066, 0077,0204,0209), by percentage, associated with the GPS coordinates of the land area of interest (Ruff: 0051, 0094).
As to claim 8, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “wherein the recommended user defined selected blend percentage is associated with a pound per acre blend pure live seed rate for a seed variety for the land area of interest” (Ell: 0039,0084,0125)
As to claim 9, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed, “wherein the recommended user defined selected blend percentage is associated with a total amount of blend pure live seed necessary for the land area of interest” (Ell: 0039,0084,0125-0126,0132).
As to claim 10, Ruff teaches a system which including ); A method for generating information concerning land, comprising” (Ruff: fig 1, 0051, land information corresponds to agricultural field data:
“establishing a subscribing member user account” (0075, line 10, 20, fig 2, element 202, 0144 – Ruff teaches user account field, as such agricultural intelligence computing system store account information for plurality of different user accounts);
PNG
media_image6.png
59
537
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“enabling a graphical user interface having a land area of interest boundary generating tool for user selection of the land area of interest” (Ruff: fig 8-9, 0227, 0231 – Ruff teaches displaying of marked color locations for example selected locations based on the constraints and/or requirements specifically using agricultural intelligence computing system that identifies land area f interest in marked colors via GUI);
“receiving a user drawn boundary surrounding the land area of interest in a display area of the graphical user interface drawn by the generating tool” (Ruff: fig 1, 0051, 0080, fig 8-9 – Ruff teaches data structure including geographic identifiers, boundary identifiers and like, Ruff specifically supports data visualization tools and geospatial field, also Ruff teaches multiple zones drawing specific boundary surrounding the area as multiple zones) ;
PNG
media_image3.png
528
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“displaying the user drawn boundary within the display area of the graphical user interface” (Ruff: fig 8-9, 0136, display area via graphical user interface) - ;
“retrieving global positioning system (GPS) coordinates associated with the user drawn boundary” (Ruff: 0051, fig 1,0146, including geographic coordinates, boundaries particularly GPS coordinates identifies a location of the field);
“accumulating land data, comprising a soil type and a topography slope percentage corresponding to the retrieved GPS coordinates” (Ruff: 0145-0146 – Ruff teaches agricultural intelligence system that supports various types of data including soil data, planting data, harvest and yield data, crop protection data and like)
; and
“displaying a recommended a seed species and most conducive to growth corresponding to the retrieved GPS coordinates” ( Ruff: fig 2a, 0145-0146)
PNG
media_image7.png
162
152
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is however, noted that Ruff does not disclose “variety blend percentage range”, although Ruff teaches crop yield, new crop seeding rate and specific crop hybrid in the grower’s field, particularly determining new crop seeding rate and recommend change in the crop hybrid based on the seeding rate (Ruff: 0213, fig 17, element 1708)
PNG
media_image4.png
102
317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Ell disclosed “variety blend percentage range” (Ell: Abstract, 0124-0125,0242-0243, fig 25- Ell teaches site specific forming based on the types of agricultural inputs to create application map that including crop input requirement maps to create blend of crop related data, the prior art of Ell teaches recommendation equation module that directly related to create crop input, spatial blending module is responsible for converting the crop inputs in evaluating percentage of crop. It is further noted that Ell teaches blending logic (element 456) utilized in understanding ingredient applied to the field may recommend and/or suggest optimal blend and determines the optimal rate of application for each crop input, finally blending logic provides solution that satisfies all the rate requirements including optimal ingredient requirements for the better crop)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention creating application maps for site specific forming particularly user interface allows to process various types of agricultural requirement of Ell into digital modeling and tracking of agricultural fields particularly using agricultural intelligence system of Ruff et al., because both Ruff, Ell specifically teaches agricultural computing system via graphical user interface (Ruff: Abstract, fig 1; Ell: Abstract, fig 1) and both Ruff, Ell teaches managing and recommending crop seed related information (Ruff: fig 17;0209,0213; Ell: fig 6 including blending recommendation) and they both Ruff, Ell are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Ruff, Ell teaches process various types of agricultural requirement, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly recommendation module, blending module to create refined agricultural product maps that allows not only optimization of expected crop under various conditions, but also allows to estimate reasonable percentage of crop presented to the use on the graphical user interface (Ell: 0124-0126), while allows to create customize crop requirement maps bringing the advantage of commercial products in the market (Ell: 0008), thus improves overall quality, reliability of the blending crop system.
As to claim 11, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “receiving from a user a selected blend percentage within the seed species and variety blend percentage range” (Ell: Abstract, 0124-0125,0242-0243, fig 25).
As to claim 12, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “displaying of a blend pure live seeding rate in units of weight per area corresponding to the user selected blend percentage of the seed species and variety” (Abstract, 0124-0125,0242-0243,0251 fig 25)
As to claim 13, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “displaying of a blend pure live seeding amount in a unit of weight for the area of interest corresponding to the user selected blend percentage of the seed species and variety” (Ell: Abstract, 0124-0125,0242-0243,0251, fig 25).
.
As to claim 14, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “wherein display of the recommended seed species and are ranked from the plant life most conducive to growth corresponding to the retrieved GPS coordinates (Ruff: 0051, 0075, 0146 – field data defines geographic coordinates, boundaries for the harvest data for example crop type, crop variety, and like) and according to historical data indicative of a most prevalent plant life growth in the land area of interest to a least prevalent plant life growth in the land area of interest corresponding to the retrieved GPS coordinates and according to historical data indicative of less prevalent plant life growth” (Ruff: 0075, 0077,0079,0089, 0146). On the other hand, Ell disclosed “variety blend percentage ranges” (Ell: Abstract, 0124-0125,0242-0243,0251, fig 25).
As to claim 15, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “wherein the pure live seeding rate is predefined according to the seed species and variety corresponding to the GPS coordinates of the land area of interest” (Ell: 0045,0065-0066,0125,0189- application control system supports position locator using global positioning system or GPS including in the Farm GPS system element 145 used in boundary and soil samples of a targeted fields).
As to claim 16, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “parsing the displayed user drawn boundary into subregions according to differences in the soil type and the topography slope percentage across the user drawn boundary of the land area of interest and displaying the subregions to the user in the display area of the graphical user interface” (Ruff: fig 8-10,0146).
As to claim 17, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed,” wherein the subregions include user selectable identifiers that identify the soil type and topography slope percentage” (Ruff: fig 21,0217,0231, fig 9, fig 14, 0201-0202) .
As to claim 18, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “receiving a report request from the user requesting a report including a potential seller of the recommended seed blend” (Ell: 0039,0125).
As to claim 19, the combination of Ruff, Ell disclosed “wherein seed species and variety blend percentage ranges are provided for plant life occupying more than a predefined minimum percentage of overall plant life growth in the land area of interest” (Ell: 0038, 0125,0189)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2019/0057461
b. US Pub. No. 2002/0035431
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154