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 Application
This office action is in response to the most recent filings filed by applicants on 01/12/24:
Claims 1, 8 and 16 are amended
No claims are cancelled
No claims are added
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 1-7 is/are directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 8-15 is/are directed to a system which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 16-20 is/are directed to a device/apparatus which is a statutory category.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Further, particular groupings of abstract ideas are consistent with judicial precedent and are based on an extraction and synthesis of the key concepts identified by the courts as being abstract.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong One, the claims as drafted, and given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (business relations; relationships or interactions between people). For instance, independent Method Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “determining yield stability for at least two zones of an agricultural land; generating a nitrogen fertilizer prescription for the agricultural land based on the determined yield stability, comprising different fertilizer applications for each of the at least two zones, wherein a first application rate for a higher yield stability zone is higher than a second application rate for a lower yield stability zone; receiving, an indication of actual nitrogen fertilizer application at the agricultural land corresponding to the prescription, wherein the indication comprises data indicative of applied amounts of fertilizer at each of the at least two zones; and determining a reduction in nitrogen fertilizer from the indication by comparing the actual nitrogen fertilizer application to a reference fertilizer application; automatically calculating avoided greenhouse gas emissions based on the nitrogen fertilizer reduction, wherein the avoided greenhouse gas emissions are calculated based on an amount of nitrous oxide that would have been emitted from the reduction in nitrogen fertilizer; and selling carbon credits corresponding to the calculated avoided greenhouse gas emissions.”
For instance, independent Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “receive a request for a fertilizer prescription for a crop to be grown on an agricultural area of interest; determine a crop yield stability map for the agricultural area of interest, wherein the crop yield stability map comprises at least two zones having different yield stability levels; send at least one proposed prescription associated with the agricultural area of interest to automatically adjust fertilizer application rates according to the proposed prescription, wherein the proposed prescription is based on the crop yield stability map and comprises different fertilizer application rates for each of the at least two zones based on the different yield stability levels; receive data corresponding to at least one actual fertilizer application for the agricultural area of interest, wherein the received data comprise fertilizer application data recorded; and determine a reduction in greenhouse gas emission based upon the at least one fertilizer application, by comparing the received fertilizer application data to a reference fertilizer application, wherein the reduction in greenhouse gas emission is calculated based on an amount of nitrous oxide that would have been emitted from a corresponding reduction in nitrogen fertilizer.”
For instance, independent Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “obtain real time location information; to adjust spray application of a fertilizer to be sprayed by the sprayer at zones of a farm according to a fertilizer prescription stored in the memory for that farm, wherein the fertilizer prescription comprises different application rates for different zones based on yield stability levels of the zones and wherein a first application rate for a higher yield stability zone is higher than a second application rate for a lower yield stability zone.”
These claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to field of environmental sciences, and more particularly to the technological field of precision conservation, including precision conservation systems and methods for reducing carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and similar greenhouse gas emissions from fertilization operations in agricultural ecosystems (See specification [0003]). Managing the reduction of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and similar greenhouse gas emissions from fertilization operations in agricultural ecosystems for one or more human entities involves organizing human activity based on the description of “certain methods of organizing human activity” provided by the courts. The court have used the phrase “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as —fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Independent Claims 8 and 16 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 1 and is/are rejected under 2A for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements:
For instance, in independent claim 1, “A method for reducing nitrogen application to agricultural land, comprising: from flow meters attached to spray heads of fertilizer sprayers used to deliver the different fertilizer applications, A system for precision conservation comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory in communication with the processor, the at least one memory having stored thereon a set of instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to:”
For instance, in independent claim 8, “A system for precision conservation comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory in communication with the processor, the at least one memory having stored thereon a set of instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: to a remote computer, to control valves of a fertilizer sprayer, from flow meters attached to spray heads of the fertilizer sprayer,”
For instance, in independent claim 16, “A kit comprising: at least one processor; a connection to receive data from a location positioning system; a valve controller adapted to connect to valves of a fertilizer sprayer; and a memory connected to the processor, having a set of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: from the connection to the location positioning system, send controller signals to the valve controller, stored in the memory”: are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 8 and 16 do not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are also directed to an abstract idea under 2A, first and second prong. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. For instance, dependent claims 2 recite “wherein determining yield stability further includes determining at least two of a high/stable, medium/stable, low/stable, and unstable zone for the agricultural land, and wherein the nitrogen fertilizer prescription includes a first application rate for high/stable or medium/stable zones that is higher than a second application rate for the low/stable zones” and dependent claims 3 recite “wherein the fertilizer prescription includes at least one of: a recommendation of low fertilizer application for a low/stable zone, no fertilizer application for a low/stable zone, planting cover crop in a low/stable zone, or allowing native vegetation to a overtake low/stable zone”. Dependent claims 4 recite “further comprising generating at least one of: a profitability map for the agricultural land, the profitability map taking into account the determined yield stability of the at least two zones as well as use of the fertilizer prescription; and an overall profitability of the agricultural land taking into account the determined yield stability of the at least two zones as well as use of the fertilizer prescription”. Here, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims which are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claim above.
Dependent claims 7 recites “wherein the fertilizer prescription comprises an application file that correlates geographic information of the agricultural land with the at least two zones and a nitrogen application rate for each of the two zones.”. In this claim, “an application file” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 10 recites “wherein the different fertilizer application rates of the fertilizer prescription file vary according to at least two zones of the crop yield stability map.”. In this claim, “fertilizer prescription file” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 12 recites “wherein the instructions further cause the processor to generate a record of greenhouse gas reduction utilizing the data corresponding to the at least one actual fertilizer application, and send the record to a server associated with a carbon credit exchange.” In this claim, “the instructions further cause the processor to” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 20 recites “wherein the set of instructions causes the processor to: control the valves, a pressure, and a flow rate for the sprayer according to the fertilizer prescription.” In this claim, “wherein the set of instructions causes the processor to: control the valves, a pressure, and a flow rate for the sprayer according to the fertilizer prescription” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the invention lacks improvements to another technology or technical field [see Alice at 2351; 2019 IEG at 55], and lacks meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment [Alice at 2360, 2019 IEG at 55], and fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [2019 IEG, 55]. For the reasons articulated above, the claims recite an abstract idea that is limited to a particular field of endeavor (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and recites insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). By the factors and rationale provided above with respect to these MPEP sections, the additional elements of the claims that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application also fail to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
For instance, in independent claim 1, “A method for reducing nitrogen application to agricultural land, comprising: from flow meters attached to spray heads of fertilizer sprayers used to deliver the different fertilizer applications, A system for precision conservation comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory in communication with the processor, the at least one memory having stored thereon a set of instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to:”
For instance, in independent claim 8, “A system for precision conservation comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory in communication with the processor, the at least one memory having stored thereon a set of instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: to a remote computer, to control valves of a fertilizer sprayer, from flow meters attached to spray heads of the fertilizer sprayer,”
For instance, in independent claim 16, “A kit comprising: at least one processor; a connection to receive data from a location positioning system; a valve controller adapted to connect to valves of a fertilizer sprayer; and a memory connected to the processor, having a set of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: from the connection to the location positioning system, send controller signals to the valve controller, stored in the memory”: are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in page/ paragraph [0071]-[0072]. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See MPEP 2106.05(f) - Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception - “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.). The additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and storing and retrieving information in memory, 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; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent Claims 8 and 16 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 1 and is/are rejected under 2B for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
Further, it should be noted that additional elements of the claimed invention such as claim limitations when considered individually or as an ordered combination along with the other limitations discussed above in method claim 1 also do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 also do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under the second prong or 2B of the Alice framework. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. Further, it should be noted that the dependent claims do not include limitations that overcome the stated assertions. Here, the dependent claims recite features/limitations that include computer components identified above in part 2B of analysis of independent claims 1, 8 and 16. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106, January 2019 Guidance at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01 -07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daggett et al. (US 2002/0173980 A1), further in view of Zyskowski (US 2010/0306012 A1) and Avey et al. (US 2014/0067745 A1).
As per claims 1: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. shows:
A method for reducing nitrogen application to agricultural land (Daggett shows [0008]: According to a CARBON CREDIT system, a person or entity is awarded carbon credits to recognize actions taken that reduce the overall emission of specified greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. An important feature of this CARBON CREDIT system is that the carbon credits may be bought and sold in an open market, which is currently being established. These markets can be created by regulation or through voluntary efforts. [0010] The soil has a great capacity for storing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. If farmers were able to sell the carbon credits, it would create an incentive to use these practices, which should lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases and a reduced risk to insurance providers. In order to create a viable market for carbon credits it is necessary to create a system that is verifiable and that does not create large administrative costs.), comprising:
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. shows:
determining yield stability for at least two zones of an agricultural land (Daggett shows [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware. [0031] Generally crop failure is defined as failing to meet a specified percentage of an expected yield. For example, if the field is insured for eighty percent of an expected yield of 150 bushels per acre for corn, a crop failure requiring payment of a claim would occur to the extent the average yield for the entire insured unit was less than 120 bushels per acre. [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
generating a nitrogen fertilizer prescription for the agricultural land based on the determined yield stability, comprising different fertilizer applications for each of the at least two zones, wherein a first application rate for a higher yield stability zone is higher than a second application rate for a lower yield stability zone
Even though Daggett shows “based on the determined yield stability” in [0031] Generally crop failure is defined as failing to meet a specified percentage of an expected yield. For example, if the field is insured for eighty percent of an expected yield of 150 bushels per acre for corn, a crop failure requiring payment of a claim would occur to the extent the average yield for the entire insured unit was less than 120 bushels per acre. [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware. Daggett also shows “generating a nitrogen fertilizer … for the agricultural land” in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land.
Regarding the claim limitation “comprising different fertilizer applications for each of the at least two zones, wherein a first application rate for a higher yield stability zone is higher than a second application rate for a lower yield stability zone”
Daggett shows management zones in: [0015]: each section of insurable farmland is divided into management zones. A management zone is an enclosed area of land that is internally similar with respect to crops, soils and agronomic risk determining factors. Each of these management zones is surrounded by a boundary defined by Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates. Agronomic information related to the management zones is gathered and associated with the GPS coordinates of the management zone in a Geographic Information System (GIS) computer record. The farmer specifies in which management zones he is planting the crops being insured. This information allows insurance providers to more accurately categorize the risk associated with each insurance policy. Furthermore, because the information is associated with a unique GPS coordinate boundary, it can be used to assure that the carbon credits for any portion of land are not sold more than once. The information gathered in determining the risk level of an insurance policy for a particular management zone can also be used to determine the available carbon credits for that management zone. [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware.
Even though Daggett shows management zone for carbon credits [0015], as well as, [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor. Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim. Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
receiving, from flow meters attached to spray heads of fertilizer sprayers used to deliver the different fertilizer applications, an indication of actual nitrogen fertilizer application at the agricultural land corresponding to the prescription, wherein the indication comprises data indicative of applied amounts of fertilizer at each of the at least two zones
Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware. [0036] Crop insurance providers will be aware of numerous methods of calculating and rating risk levels based on the aforementioned information. Such determinations may involve both quantitative methods and qualitative methods. [0037] Furthermore, this information can be used to reduce the risk of crop failure on an insured farm. For example, recommendations for types, timing, and rates of application for fertilizers and pesticides can be made based on the above noted information. [0040] The incentives to the farmers to provide the information relative to what is planted on the various management zones are numerous. First, because of the accurate boundaries created by the GPS system, an accurate accounting of the actual acres being planted is provided. This is beneficial to the farmer because it prevents the farmer from over-insuring by paying for more acres than are actually planted, and it prevents the farmer from being under insured in case of crop failure if he actually plants on more acres than he insures. More importantly, much of the same agronomic information that is important in determining and reducing risks of crop failure can be used to maximize the profitability within the management zones. The information can be used, for example, to recommend timing and rates of fertilizer applications to maximize profitability. [0042] To facilitate use of the system for reporting requirements, the information fields in the individual records of the GIS would include the information relevant for the various reporting requirements. For example, if the farmer is required to report the amount of fertilizer applied, a field would be provided in each record for that information. To further facilitate the use of the system to help with reporting requirements it may be necessary or desirable to include a separate record for the entire insurable unit, in addition to the individual management zone records. The record for the entire insurable unit would include fields for information that relates to the entire insurable unit. It may be possible for the system to sum specified fields from the management zone records into corresponding fields in the insurable unit record to provide totals for the entire insurable unit. Often times it is these totals that need to be reported.
Daggett shows “wherein the indication comprises data indicative of applied amounts of fertilizer at each of the at least two zones”: [0042] To facilitate use of the system for reporting requirements, the information fields in the individual records of the GIS would include the information relevant for the various reporting requirements. For example, if the farmer is required to report the amount of fertilizer applied, a field would be provided in each record for that information. To further facilitate the use of the system to help with reporting requirements it may be necessary or desirable to include a separate record for the entire insurable unit, in addition to the individual management zone records. The record for the entire insurable unit would include fields for information that relates to the entire insurable unit. It may be possible for the system to sum specified fields from the management zone records into corresponding fields in the insurable unit record to provide totals for the entire insurable unit. Often times it is these totals that need to be reported. [0060] In order for carbon credits to be a viable commodity, there must be some way of verifying that carbon credits for any given parcel of land have only been sold once. The GPS boundaries created for the management zones provide a global identifier for each management zone. GIS software permits a determination of whether any point or group of points is contained within a specified management zones. Therefore, as carbon credits are sold for a management zone, an indication is made in the GIS information that that management zone has had its carbon credits sold. If a certifying agency wishes to determine whether the carbon credits for a particular location have been sold, a search can be formed in the GIS based on the GPS coordinates of the specified location to verify that its carbon credits have not been sold previously. Because GPS coordinates are global, they define the entire set carbon credits available to be sold with unique coordinates. [0065] An application for carbon credits can be used to gather the information necessary to create carbon credits. The final form of the application may depend on what protocols become established as the norm in the market. At a minimum it is expected the application for carbon credits would include the GPS information locating the underlying land, the name and address of the present land owner, and a description of the activity planned to reduce or sequester carbon emissions.
Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim. Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Daggett in view of Zykowski does not explicitly show a “sprayer”. However, Avey shows the above limitation at least in [0028]: sprayer, [0027]-[0032], [0432]: controller.
Reference Daggett and Reference Avey are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural activities. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Avey, particularly the ability to identify native vegetation (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly identifying the type of crop ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage agricultural fields as taught by Reference Avey (see at least in [0007]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Avey allows for a method of managing an intra- or inter-field management zone is provided that includes providing one or more indications of a localized usage context associated with the intra- or inter-field management zone to an agricultural recommendation system. The agricultural recommendation system is configured to receive the one or more indications of the localized usage context, determine one or more suggested agricultural inputs based on the one or more indications, and cause the one or more suggested agricultural inputs to be provided. The method further includes managing the intra- or inter-field management zone in accordance with the one or more suggested agricultural inputs (see at least in [0007]) so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Avey, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
determining a reduction in nitrogen fertilizer from the indication by comparing the actual nitrogen fertilizer application to a reference fertilizer application
Daggett shows in: [0008] According to a CARBON CREDIT system, a person or entity is awarded carbon credits to recognize actions taken that reduce the overall emission of specified greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. An important feature of this CARBON CREDIT system is that the carbon credits may be bought and sold in an open market, which is currently being established. These markets can be created by regulation or through voluntary efforts. [0009] By allowing the carbon credits to be bought and sold, an incentive to reduce overall emissions is created. Regulations may be implemented which would require a party to offset any new or increased emissions with carbon credits that were either created by that entity, or purchased from a third party. Once a CARBON CREDIT is created, it remains in existence until it is redeemed or retired. A CARBON CREDIT is redeemed when it is used to offset an increase in emissions, for example by an emission source that wishes to increase its emissions, or by a source that must reduce its emissions, but cannot do so through any economically or technically feasible means. A CARBON CREDIT is retired when it is permanently taken off the market in order to reduce the overall amount of emissions, for example by an environmental group willing to pay for the reduction in emissions. [0010] The soil has a great capacity for storing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. If farmers were able to sell the carbon credits, it would create an incentive to use these practices, which should lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases and a reduced risk to insurance providers. In order to create a viable market for carbon credits it is necessary to create a system that is verifiable and that does not create large administrative costs. In [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land.
Daggett does not explicitly show “determining a reduction”, “comparing the actual nitrogen fertilizer application to a reference fertilizer application” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows the above limitation at least in [0069] Web application 130 receives a request to run soil and crop models to generate water and nitrogen schedules. The web application is configured to either run them directly or to request that calculation server 140 performs all the necessary calculations. In this case the database 135 has the potential to be used as an intermediary to handle reliable queuing and delivery of messages between web application and calculation server. [0087] It is anticipated that this system is used throughout the season to update schedules to account for actual weather (rainfall in particular) that differs from long term averages. This irrigation and nitrogen schedule calendar is indicated at 330. [0224] Nitrogen application rates specified by the system are indicated by the white symbols (for example at 1110 and 1115). The data shows that the system consistently scheduled nitrogen at the low end of the range. Because the lines are essentially flat with a low gradient there was no yield response to applying more additional nitrogen fertilizer than that scheduled by the system. Zykowski also shows in: [0178] In theory it should be possible for a crop to attain the potential yield that the invention calculates if it never encounters shortages of water, nitrogen or other nutrients or burdens from pests or disease. Identification of yield limitations is done by setting the invention's user inputs (FIG. 7, soil, weather and management) to represent a past crop of known yield. Firstly, the invention can determine if water or nitrogen shortage reduced yield below potential. This is done by simply comparing potential and limited yields (as output by the invention, FIG. 7) and if the limited yield is lower than potential, then the crop encountered shortage. Comparison of water and nitrogen supply with demand will identify which was limiting and a skilled operator can determine if alternative management strategies (such as following the management recommended by the invention) might improve yield. If the observed yield (as measured in the field) was less than the limited yield then something other than water or nitrogen was reducing yield and the farmer knows to look for other mineral deficiencies or disease problems.
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
automatically calculating avoided greenhouse gas emissions based on the nitrogen fertilizer reduction, wherein the avoided greenhouse gas emissions are calculated based on an amount of nitrous oxide that would have been emitted from the reduction in nitrogen fertilizer
Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware. [0036] Crop insurance providers will be aware of numerous methods of calculating and rating risk levels based on the aforementioned information. Such determinations may involve both quantitative methods and qualitative methods. [0037] Furthermore, this information can be used to reduce the risk of crop failure on an insured farm. For example, recommendations for types, timing, and rates of application for fertilizers and pesticides can be made based on the above noted information.
Daggett does not explicitly show “determining a reduction” as is recited in the claim. Daggett also does not show “calculating”.
However, Zyskowski shows the above limitation at least in [0069] Web application 130 receives a request to run soil and crop models to generate water and nitrogen schedules. The web application is configured to either run them directly or to request that calculation server 140 performs all the necessary calculations. In this case the database 135 has the potential to be used as an intermediary to handle reliable queuing and delivery of messages between web application and calculation server. [0087] It is anticipated that this system is used throughout the season to update schedules to account for actual weather (rainfall in particular) that differs from long term averages. This irrigation and nitrogen schedule calendar is indicated at 330. [0224] Nitrogen application rates specified by the system are indicated by the white symbols (for example at 1110 and 1115). The data shows that the system consistently scheduled nitrogen at the low end of the range. Because the lines are essentially flat with a low gradient there was no yield response to applying more additional nitrogen fertilizer than that scheduled by the system. Zykowski also shows in: [0178] In theory it should be possible for a crop to attain the potential yield that the invention calculates if it never encounters shortages of water, nitrogen or other nutrients or burdens from pests or disease. Identification of yield limitations is done by setting the invention's user inputs (FIG. 7, soil, weather and management) to represent a past crop of known yield. Firstly, the invention can determine if water or nitrogen shortage reduced yield below potential. This is done by simply comparing potential and limited yields (as output by the invention, FIG. 7) and if the limited yield is lower than potential, then the crop encountered shortage. Comparison of water and nitrogen supply with demand will identify which was limiting and a skilled operator can determine if alternative management strategies (such as following the management recommended by the invention) might improve yield. If the observed yield (as measured in the field) was less than the limited yield then something other than water or nitrogen was reducing yield and the farmer knows to look for other mineral deficiencies or disease problems.
Zykowski shows “calculating”: [0034] The invention further provides a computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that when executed on a computing device cause the computing device to perform a method of managing fertiliser and irrigation inputs for a crop, the method comprising obtaining management data for the crop, the management data including a planting date for the crop; obtaining weather data representative of the geographic area of the crop; obtaining soil description data representative of the geographic area of the crop; calculating an emergence date at least partly from the planting date; calculating a plurality of nitrogen deficit values at least partly from the emergence date and the soil description data, the nitrogen deficit values associated with respective dates each later than the emergence date; calculating a plurality of water deficit values at least partly from the emergence date and the weather data, the water deficit values associated with respective dates each later than the emergence date; and presenting on a display a schedule of recommended nitrogen application values, irrigation values and application dates, the schedule calculated at least partly from the nitrogen deficit values and the water deficit values. [0035] In another aspect the invention comprises a method of predicting potential yield for a crop, the method comprising obtaining management data for the crop, the management data including a planting date for the crop; obtaining weather data representative of the geographic area of the crop; obtaining soil description data representative of the geographic area of the crop; calculating an emergence date at least partly from the planting date; calculating a plurality of nitrogen deficit values at least partly from the emergence date and the soil description data, the nitrogen deficit values associated with respective dates each later than the emergence date; calculating a plurality of water deficit values at least partly from the emergence date and the weather data, the water deficit values associated with respective dates each later than the emergence date; and presenting on a display a schedule of potential crop yield values, the schedule calculated at least partly from the nitrogen deficit values and the water deficit values.
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
selling carbon credits corresponding to the calculated avoided greenhouse gas emissions (Daggett shows [0063] As seen in FIG. 3, the first step in the preferred process is to enlist agents who will solicit agreements with producers for the insurance provider, or other accumulator, to accumulate data related to carbon credits for the producer. Preferably the agent is already an agent that sells crop insurance for the insurance provider. Preferably a contract is signed between the agent and the accumulator that outlines the agents duties and responsibilities and provides for payment of a commission to the agent based on a percentage of the fees generated from the accumulating services. Training should be provided to the agents as to the concepts and principles involved in CARBON CREDIT establishment).
As per claims 2: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein determining yield stability further includes determining at least two of:
a high/stable, medium/stable, low/stable, and unstable zone for the agricultural land, and wherein the nitrogen fertilizer prescription includes a first application rate for high/stable or medium/stable zones that is higher than a second application rate for the low/stable zones.
Applicants originally submitted specification shows the above limitation at least in [0012] FIG. 1 shows an example of a crop yield stability map for an agricultural plot of interest, optionally utilizing four categorizations of stability zones: unstable (U); low yield, but stable (LS); medium yield, but stable (MS); and high yield and stable (HS). It is to be understood that other categorization systems are contemplated, having different, more, and/or fewer designations.
In light of this description, Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land.
Daggett does not explicitly show “determining a reduction” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows the above limitation at least in [0069] Web application 130 receives a request to run soil and crop models to generate water and nitrogen schedules. The web application is configured to either run them directly or to request that calculation server 140 performs all the necessary calculations. In this case the database 135 has the potential to be used as an intermediary to handle reliable queuing and delivery of messages between web application and calculation server. [0087] It is anticipated that this system is used throughout the season to update schedules to account for actual weather (rainfall in particular) that differs from long term averages. This irrigation and nitrogen schedule calendar is indicated at 330. [0224] Nitrogen application rates specified by the system are indicated by the white symbols (for example at 1110 and 1115). The data shows that the system consistently scheduled nitrogen at the low end of the range. Because the lines are essentially flat with a low gradient there was no yield response to applying more additional nitrogen fertilizer than that scheduled by the system.
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 3: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein the fertilizer prescription includes at least one of:
a recommendation of low fertilizer application for a low/stable zone, no fertilizer application for a low/stable zone, planting cover crop in a low/stable zone, or allowing native vegetation to a overtake low/stable zone.
Applicants originally submitted specification shows the above limitation at least in [0012] FIG. 1 shows an example of a crop yield stability map for an agricultural plot of interest, optionally utilizing four categorizations of stability zones: unstable (U); low yield, but stable (LS); medium yield, but stable (MS); and high yield and stable (HS). It is to be understood that other categorization systems are contemplated, having different, more, and/or fewer designations.
In light of this description, Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land.
Daggett does not explicitly show “determining a reduction” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows the above limitation at least in [0069] Web application 130 receives a request to run soil and crop models to generate water and nitrogen schedules. The web application is configured to either run them directly or to request that calculation server 140 performs all the necessary calculations. In this case the database 135 has the potential to be used as an intermediary to handle reliable queuing and delivery of messages between web application and calculation server. [0087] It is anticipated that this system is used throughout the season to update schedules to account for actual weather (rainfall in particular) that differs from long term averages. This irrigation and nitrogen schedule calendar is indicated at 330. [0224] Nitrogen application rates specified by the system are indicated by the white symbols (for example at 1110 and 1115). The data shows that the system consistently scheduled nitrogen at the low end of the range. Because the lines are essentially flat with a low gradient there was no yield response to applying more additional nitrogen fertilizer than that scheduled by the system.
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 4: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
further comprising generating at least one of:
a profitability map for the agricultural land, the profitability map taking into account the determined yield stability of the at least two zones as well as use of the fertilizer prescription; and
an overall profitability of the agricultural land taking into account the determined yield stability of the at least two zones as well as use of the fertilizer prescription.
Daggett shows the above limitations at least in [0028] The use of GPS technology in mapping farms is a well-known practice. For the purposes of the present invention a map is needed that identifies the location of features that are important to the risk characteristics of the underlying soil. In order to create this map, the land being insured may surveyed using a GPS receiver. Typically this will involve using a GPS receiver and recording device to get a map of the boundaries of that parcel of land; however, in some instances it may be possible to convert the township-range-section information into GPS coordinates without performing a physical survey of the parcel of land. Then, either individual soil test data or publicly available soil type data is incorporated into the map. Soil-type maps are commonly available that show the location of various soil types within a parcel of land. The GPS coordinates relating to these soil types can be entered into the overall map of the parcel by either physical inspection of the parcel and use of a GPS receiver and recording device, or by directly converting the information from the soil-type maps into GPS coordinates. FIG. 1 shows a map of a field that shows the types of soil contained in the field. The field may also be surveyed for major features such as waterways, terraces and fence lines using a GPS receiver and recorder. Using this agronomic information relating to soil types and major geographic features, the field can be divided into management zones. [0032] FIG. 2 shows a map divided into management zones that a farmer, or insurance agent working with a farmer, can use in obtaining the necessary information from the farmer. Preferably this map will be used with an interactive computer input screen so that farmer can just point a curser at the intended zone to select it. The map shows the farmer's field divided into management units. The farmer is requested to input for each management unit what, if any, insured crops he intends to plant within that management zone. It is expected that this will be accomplished with a graphic user interface. [0040] The incentives to the farmers to provide the information relative to what is planted on the various management zones are numerous. First, because of the accurate boundaries created by the GPS system, an accurate accounting of the actual acres being planted is provided. This is beneficial to the farmer because it prevents the farmer from over-insuring by paying for more acres than are actually planted, and it prevents the farmer from being under insured in case of crop failure if he actually plants on more acres than he insures. More importantly, much of the same agronomic information that is important in determining and reducing risks of crop failure can be used to maximize the profitability within the management zones. The information can be used, for example, to recommend timing and rates of fertilizer applications to maximize profitability.
As per claim 5: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
further comprising generating a recommendation to devote at least a portion of at least one of the at least two zones for a non-crop purpose, based upon at least one of yield stability, fertilizer prescription, and profitability information.
Daggett shows the above limitations at least in [0028] The use of GPS technology in mapping farms is a well-known practice. For the purposes of the present invention a map is needed that identifies the location of features that are important to the risk characteristics of the underlying soil. In order to create this map, the land being insured may surveyed using a GPS receiver. Typically this will involve using a GPS receiver and recording device to get a map of the boundaries of that parcel of land; however, in some instances it may be possible to convert the township-range-section information into GPS coordinates without performing a physical survey of the parcel of land. Then, either individual soil test data or publicly available soil type data is incorporated into the map. Soil-type maps are commonly available that show the location of various soil types within a parcel of land. The GPS coordinates relating to these soil types can be entered into the overall map of the parcel by either physical inspection of the parcel and use of a GPS receiver and recording device, or by directly converting the information from the soil-type maps into GPS coordinates. FIG. 1 shows a map of a field that shows the types of soil contained in the field. The field may also be surveyed for major features such as waterways, terraces and fence lines using a GPS receiver and recorder. Using this agronomic information relating to soil types and major geographic features, the field can be divided into management zones. [0032] FIG. 2 shows a map divided into management zones that a farmer, or insurance agent working with a farmer, can use in obtaining the necessary information from the farmer. Preferably this map will be used with an interactive computer input screen so that farmer can just point a curser at the intended zone to select it. The map shows the farmer's field divided into management units. The farmer is requested to input for each management unit what, if any, insured crops he intends to plant within that management zone. It is expected that this will be accomplished with a graphic user interface. [0040] The incentives to the farmers to provide the information relative to what is planted on the various management zones are numerous. First, because of the accurate boundaries created by the GPS system, an accurate accounting of the actual acres being planted is provided. This is beneficial to the farmer because it prevents the farmer from over-insuring by paying for more acres than are actually planted, and it prevents the farmer from being under insured in case of crop failure if he actually plants on more acres than he insures. More importantly, much of the same agronomic information that is important in determining and reducing risks of crop failure can be used to maximize the profitability within the management zones. The information can be used, for example, to recommend timing and rates of fertilizer applications to maximize profitability.
As per claims 6 and 14: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
wherein the non-crop purpose includes solar power generation, wind power generation, or native vegetation.
Daggett further in view of Zykowski does not explicitly show the above limations. Daggett shows identifying the type of crop all through it’s disclosure ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044]
However, Avey shows “native vegetation” at least in [0048]: According to a further embodiment, the TAIR system may also or alternatively determine agricultural recommendations based at least in part on such applicable regulations. The recommendations may also or alternatively be determined based at least in part on one or more goals related to stewardship of at least one of a product, a crop, a trait including a native trait or a transgenic trait, a location, or an environment.
Reference Daggett and Reference Avey are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural activities. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Avey, particularly the ability to identify native vegetation (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly identifying the type of crop ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage agricultural fields as taught by Reference Avey (see at least in [0007]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Avey allows for a method of managing an intra- or inter-field management zone is provided that includes providing one or more indications of a localized usage context associated with the intra- or inter-field management zone to an agricultural recommendation system. The agricultural recommendation system is configured to receive the one or more indications of the localized usage context, determine one or more suggested agricultural inputs based on the one or more indications, and cause the one or more suggested agricultural inputs to be provided. The method further includes managing the intra- or inter-field management zone in accordance with the one or more suggested agricultural inputs (see at least in [0007]) so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Avey, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 7: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein the fertilizer prescription comprises an application file that correlates geographic information of the agricultural land with the at least two zones and a nitrogen application rate for each of the two zones (Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land.
As per claim 8: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
A system for precision conservation comprising:
at least one processor (Daggett shows: [0015], [0032]);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
at least one memory in communication with the processor, the at least one memory having stored thereon a set of instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to (Daggett shows: [0015], [0032]):
receive a request for a fertilizer prescription for a crop to be grown on an agricultural area of interest Even though Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land, Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
determine a crop yield stability map for the agricultural area of interest, wherein the crop yield stability map comprises at least two zones having different yield stability levels
(Daggett shows [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
send at least one proposed prescription to a remote computer associated with the agricultural area of interest to control valves of a fertilizer sprayer to automatically adjust fertilizer application rates according to the proposed prescription, wherein the proposed prescription is based on the crop yield stability map and comprises different fertilizer application rates for each of the at least two zones based on the different yield stability levels
Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Daggett in view of Zykowski does not explicitly show a “sprayer”. However, Avey shows the above limitation at least in [0028]: sprayer, [0027]-[0032], [0432]: controller.
Reference Daggett and Reference Avey are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural activities. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Avey, particularly the ability to identify native vegetation (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly identifying the type of crop ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage agricultural fields as taught by Reference Avey (see at least in [0007]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Avey allows for a method of managing an intra- or inter-field management zone is provided that includes providing one or more indications of a localized usage context associated with the intra- or inter-field management zone to an agricultural recommendation system. The agricultural recommendation system is configured to receive the one or more indications of the localized usage context, determine one or more suggested agricultural inputs based on the one or more indications, and cause the one or more suggested agricultural inputs to be provided. The method further includes managing the intra- or inter-field management zone in accordance with the one or more suggested agricultural inputs (see at least in [0007]) so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Avey, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
receive data corresponding to at least one actual fertilizer application for the agricultural area of interest, wherein the received data comprise fertilizer application data recorded from flow meters attached to spray heads of the fertilizer sprayer
Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Daggett in view of Zykowski does not explicitly show a “sprayer”. However, Avey shows the above limitation at least in [0028]: sprayer, [0027]-[0032], [0432]: controller.
Reference Daggett and Reference Avey are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural activities. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Avey, particularly the ability to identify native vegetation (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly identifying the type of crop ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage agricultural fields as taught by Reference Avey (see at least in [0007]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Avey allows for a method of managing an intra- or inter-field management zone is provided that includes providing one or more indications of a localized usage context associated with the intra- or inter-field management zone to an agricultural recommendation system. The agricultural recommendation system is configured to receive the one or more indications of the localized usage context, determine one or more suggested agricultural inputs based on the one or more indications, and cause the one or more suggested agricultural inputs to be provided. The method further includes managing the intra- or inter-field management zone in accordance with the one or more suggested agricultural inputs (see at least in [0007]) so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Avey, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
determine a reduction in greenhouse gas emission based upon the at least one fertilizer application, by comparing the received fertilizer application data to a reference fertilizer application, wherein the reduction in greenhouse gas emission is calculated based on an amount of nitrous oxide that would have been emitted from a corresponding reduction in nitrogen fertilizer.
Applicants originally submitted specification shows the above limitation at least in [0012] FIG. 1 shows an example of a crop yield stability map for an agricultural plot of interest, optionally utilizing four categorizations of stability zones: unstable (U); low yield, but stable (LS); medium yield, but stable (MS); and high yield and stable (HS). It is to be understood that other categorization systems are contemplated, having different, more, and/or fewer designations.
In light of this description, Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land.
Daggett does not explicitly show “determining a reduction” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows the above limitation at least in [0069] Web application 130 receives a request to run soil and crop models to generate water and nitrogen schedules. The web application is configured to either run them directly or to request that calculation server 140 performs all the necessary calculations. In this case the database 135 has the potential to be used as an intermediary to handle reliable queuing and delivery of messages between web application and calculation server. [0087] It is anticipated that this system is used throughout the season to update schedules to account for actual weather (rainfall in particular) that differs from long term averages. This irrigation and nitrogen schedule calendar is indicated at 330. [0224] Nitrogen application rates specified by the system are indicated by the white symbols (for example at 1110 and 1115). The data shows that the system consistently scheduled nitrogen at the low end of the range. Because the lines are essentially flat with a low gradient there was no yield response to applying more additional nitrogen fertilizer than that scheduled by the system.
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 9: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to receive data concerning the agricultural area of interest from a remote computing device associated with the agricultural area of interest Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 10: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to send a proposed fertilizer prescription in a file format that can be used to instruct different fertilizer application rates by an agricultural sprayer equipment capable of variable fertilizer application (Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 11: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein the different fertilizer application rates of the fertilizer prescription file vary according to at least two zones of the crop yield stability map (Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 12: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to generate a record of greenhouse gas reduction utilizing the data corresponding to the at least one actual fertilizer application, and send the record to a server associated with a carbon credit exchange (Daggett shows [0063] As seen in FIG. 3, the first step in the preferred process is to enlist agents who will solicit agreements with producers for the insurance provider, or other accumulator, to accumulate data related to carbon credits for the producer. Preferably the agent is already an agent that sells crop insurance for the insurance provider. Preferably a contract is signed between the agent and the accumulator that outlines the agents duties and responsibilities and provides for payment of a commission to the agent based on a percentage of the fees generated from the accumulating services. Training should be provided to the agents as to the concepts and principles involved in CARBON CREDIT establishment).
As per claim 13: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to identify at least one section of the agricultural area of interest that is optimal for a non-crop purpose.
Daggett further in view of Zykowski does not explicitly show the above limations. Daggett shows identifying the type of crop all through it’s disclosure ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044]
However, Avey shows “native vegetation” at least in [0048]: According to a further embodiment, the TAIR system may also or alternatively determine agricultural recommendations based at least in part on such applicable regulations. The recommendations may also or alternatively be determined based at least in part on one or more goals related to stewardship of at least one of a product, a crop, a trait including a native trait or a transgenic trait, a location, or an environment.
Reference Daggett and Reference Avey are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural activities. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Avey, particularly the ability to identify native vegetation (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly identifying the type of crop ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage agricultural fields as taught by Reference Avey (see at least in [0007]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Avey allows for a method of managing an intra- or inter-field management zone is provided that includes providing one or more indications of a localized usage context associated with the intra- or inter-field management zone to an agricultural recommendation system. The agricultural recommendation system is configured to receive the one or more indications of the localized usage context, determine one or more suggested agricultural inputs based on the one or more indications, and cause the one or more suggested agricultural inputs to be provided. The method further includes managing the intra- or inter-field management zone in accordance with the one or more suggested agricultural inputs (see at least in [0007]) so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Avey, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 15: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to generate a profitability assessment for the agricultural land of interest, comparing profitability of continued uniform fertilization for crop growth for all of the agricultural land of interest versus profitability of fertilization according to the proposed prescription and the recommendation for the non-crop use of the at least one section of the agricultural land (Daggett shows the above limitations at least in [0028] The use of GPS technology in mapping farms is a well-known practice. For the purposes of the present invention a map is needed that identifies the location of features that are important to the risk characteristics of the underlying soil. In order to create this map, the land being insured may surveyed using a GPS receiver. Typically this will involve using a GPS receiver and recording device to get a map of the boundaries of that parcel of land; however, in some instances it may be possible to convert the township-range-section information into GPS coordinates without performing a physical survey of the parcel of land. Then, either individual soil test data or publicly available soil type data is incorporated into the map. Soil-type maps are commonly available that show the location of various soil types within a parcel of land. The GPS coordinates relating to these soil types can be entered into the overall map of the parcel by either physical inspection of the parcel and use of a GPS receiver and recording device, or by directly converting the information from the soil-type maps into GPS coordinates. FIG. 1 shows a map of a field that shows the types of soil contained in the field. The field may also be surveyed for major features such as waterways, terraces and fence lines using a GPS receiver and recorder. Using this agronomic information relating to soil types and major geographic features, the field can be divided into management zones. [0032] FIG. 2 shows a map divided into management zones that a farmer, or insurance agent working with a farmer, can use in obtaining the necessary information from the farmer. Preferably this map will be used with an interactive computer input screen so that farmer can just point a curser at the intended zone to select it. The map shows the farmer's field divided into management units. The farmer is requested to input for each management unit what, if any, insured crops he intends to plant within that management zone. It is expected that this will be accomplished with a graphic user interface. [0040] The incentives to the farmers to provide the information relative to what is planted on the various management zones are numerous. First, because of the accurate boundaries created by the GPS system, an accurate accounting of the actual acres being planted is provided. This is beneficial to the farmer because it prevents the farmer from over-insuring by paying for more acres than are actually planted, and it prevents the farmer from being under insured in case of crop failure if he actually plants on more acres than he insures. More importantly, much of the same agronomic information that is important in determining and reducing risks of crop failure can be used to maximize the profitability within the management zones. The information can be used, for example, to recommend timing and rates of fertilizer applications to maximize profitability).
As per claim 16: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
A kit comprising:
at least one processor (Daggett shows: [0015], [0032]);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
a connection to receive data from a location positioning system (Abstract: A system for gathering and organizing land-related information by associating that information with GPS coordinates. The system maps an agricultural field and divides the map of the field into management zones. The boundaries of the management zones are defined by Geographic Positioning System (GPS) coordinates. The land within a management zone is homogenous with respect to risk factors related to crop failure. A Geographic Information System (GIS) record is created with respect to each management zone and fields of relevant agronomic information for that management zone are associated with the record. The GIS records associated with the system are useful in verifying carbon credits, and the mechanisms used to gather the information for the GIS records is useful for accumulating carbon credits.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
a valve controller adapted to connect to valves of a fertilizer sprayer
Daggett in view of Zykowski does not explicitly show a “sprayer”. However, Avey shows the above limitation at least in [0028]: sprayer, [0027]-[0032], [0432]: controller.
Reference Daggett and Reference Avey are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural activities. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Avey, particularly the ability to identify native vegetation (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly identifying the type of crop ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage agricultural fields as taught by Reference Avey (see at least in [0007]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Avey allows for a method of managing an intra- or inter-field management zone is provided that includes providing one or more indications of a localized usage context associated with the intra- or inter-field management zone to an agricultural recommendation system. The agricultural recommendation system is configured to receive the one or more indications of the localized usage context, determine one or more suggested agricultural inputs based on the one or more indications, and cause the one or more suggested agricultural inputs to be provided. The method further includes managing the intra- or inter-field management zone in accordance with the one or more suggested agricultural inputs (see at least in [0007]) so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Avey, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
a memory connected to the processor, having a set of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Daggett shows: [0015], [0032]):
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
obtain real time location information from the connection to the location positioning system (Abstract: A system for gathering and organizing land-related information by associating that information with GPS coordinates. The system maps an agricultural field and divides the map of the field into management zones. The boundaries of the management zones are defined by Geographic Positioning System (GPS) coordinates. The land within a management zone is homogenous with respect to risk factors related to crop failure. A Geographic Information System (GIS) record is created with respect to each management zone and fields of relevant agronomic information for that management zone are associated with the record. The GIS records associated with the system are useful in verifying carbon credits, and the mechanisms used to gather the information for the GIS records is useful for accumulating carbon credits.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
send controller signals to the valve controller to adjust spray application of a fertilizer to be sprayed by the sprayer at zones of a farm according to a fertilizer prescription stored in the memory for that farm, wherein the fertilizer prescription comprises different application rates for different zones based on yield stability levels of the zones and wherein a first application rate for a higher yield stability zone is higher than a second application rate for a lower yield stability zone (Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
record data indicative of the applied amounts of fertilizer over the farm (Daggett shows in [0047]: nitrogen fertilizer reduction and [0055]: nitrogen content factor, [0045]-[0046]: Reduced tillage also effects the amount of organic matter and moisture retained in the soil, which could have an impact to reduce crop losses in a dry year. A carbon credit program is environmentally friendly because it reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but it also reduces agricultural risk by increasing the fertility of the soil and helping to control erosion of the land. Daggett does not explicitly show “prescription” as is recited in the claim.
However, Zyskowski shows “prescription” as well as “zones” (at least in [0010]). The production of an irrigation and nitrogen management schedule calendar prescribed to give optimal fertilizer and irrigation management for specified paddocks. [0092]: The invention relates to a method for collating soil, weather and management information and interpreting this to prescribe an optimal irrigation and nitrogen schedule forecast specific to the individual paddock. Here, the different paddocks read on “zones” in the claim. [0183] It also represents an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertilizer leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analyzing or monitoring resource losses.).
Reference Daggett and Reference Zykowski are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural land. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Zykowski, particularly the ability to prescribe nitrogen fertilizer in specific zones (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly in the nitrogen fertilizer reduction process of [0047], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage emission of greenhouse gases as taught by Reference Zykowski (see at least in [0183]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Zykowski allows for prevention of an environmental cost since drainage reduces water use efficiency, which increases the amount of fresh water that is removed from natural ecosystems for irrigation and can increase the salinity of ground water. Fertiliser leaching has a negative environmental impact because it contaminates ground and surface water. Nitrification is a negative impact because it produces nitrous oxide which is a potent greenhouse gas. Currently there is no alternative method for analysing or monitoring resource losses so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Zykowski, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 17: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
wherein the set of instructions causes the processor to:
determine the zones based on prior yield levels and prior yield stability levels corresponding to the zones (Daggett shows [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware.).
As per claim 18: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
wherein the set of instructions causes the processor to:
determine the zones based on prior reflectance levels or sustainability indexes corresponding to the zones (Daggett shows [0034] The preferred GIS fields at a minimum will track the soil type of each management zone, the types of crops planted on the management zone, and the known yield history of the management zone. Additional agronomic information may also be included in the fields, such as samplings of the pH levels of management zones, the timing and amount of fertilizer applied within each management zone, the timing of planting and emergence within each management zone, the average cation exchange capacity of the soil in the management zone, the moisture capacity of the soil, and numerous other agronomic characteristics of which those of ordinary skill in the art will be aware.).
As per claim 19: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
wherein the set of instructions causes the processor to: determine the fertilizer prescription based on at least one of:
a terrain attribute, historical climate data, a crop type, a crop maturity date, historical yield data, historical fertilizer application data, historical planting cycles, a projected plating date, a projected type of fertilizer, or a number of projected fertilizer applications (Daggett shows [0063] As seen in FIG. 3, the first step in the preferred process is to enlist agents who will solicit agreements with producers for the insurance provider, or other accumulator, to accumulate data related to carbon credits for the producer. Preferably the agent is already an agent that sells crop insurance for the insurance provider. Preferably a contract is signed between the agent and the accumulator that outlines the agents duties and responsibilities and provides for payment of a commission to the agent based on a percentage of the fees generated from the accumulating services. Training should be provided to the agents as to the concepts and principles involved in CARBON CREDIT establishment).
As per claim 20: Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski and Avey shows:
wherein the set of instructions causes the processor to:
control the valves, a pressure, and a flow rate for the sprayer according to the fertilizer prescription Daggett in view of Zykowski does not explicitly show a “sprayer”. However, Avey shows the above limitation at least in [0028]: sprayer, [0027]-[0032], [0432]: controller.
Reference Daggett and Reference Avey are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of handling or managing of agricultural activities. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Avey, particularly the ability to identify native vegetation (see Zykowski [0010] and [0092]) , in the disclosure of Reference Daggett, particularly identifying the type of crop ([0027], [0034], [0039], [0044], in order to provide for a system that can effectively manage agricultural fields as taught by Reference Avey (see at least in [0007]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Avey allows for a method of managing an intra- or inter-field management zone is provided that includes providing one or more indications of a localized usage context associated with the intra- or inter-field management zone to an agricultural recommendation system. The agricultural recommendation system is configured to receive the one or more indications of the localized usage context, determine one or more suggested agricultural inputs based on the one or more indications, and cause the one or more suggested agricultural inputs to be provided. The method further includes managing the intra- or inter-field management zone in accordance with the one or more suggested agricultural inputs (see at least in [0007]) so that the process of handling or managing of agricultural land can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar handling or managing of agricultural land field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Daggett in view of Reference Avey, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendments made to previously presented claims.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicants argue on page(s) 8-13 of applicants remarks that “The amendments made to claim 1 establish a clear technical pipeline: yield stability determination zone-specific prescription generation physical sprayer control flow meter verification nitrogen reduction calculation nitrous oxide-based greenhouse gas calculation. This is not merely organizing human activity but rather a technical system that controls physical agricultural equipment and verifies actual results through physical sensors. Just as Example 46 claims 2 and 3 were found eligible because they used analysis results to control farm equipment (i.e., a feed dispenser and sorting gate), the present claims use yield stability analysis to control fertilizer sprayer valves and verify actual application through flow meters.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #1
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It should be noted that amended claim 1 recites: “A method for reducing nitrogen application to agricultural land, comprising:
determining yield stability for at least two zones of an agricultural land;
generating a nitrogen fertilizer prescription for the agricultural land based on the determined yield stability, comprising different fertilizer applications for each of the at least two zones, wherein a first application rate for a higher yield stability zone is higher than a second application rate for a lower yield stability zone;
receiving, from flow meters attached to spray heads of fertilizer sprayers used to deliver the different fertilizer applications, an indication of actual nitrogen fertilizer application at the agricultural land corresponding to the prescription, wherein the indication comprises data indicative of applied amounts of fertilizer at each of the at least two zones; and
determining a reduction in nitrogen fertilizer from the indication by comparing the actual nitrogen fertilizer application to a reference fertilizer application;
automatically calculating avoided greenhouse gas emissions based on the nitrogen fertilizer reduction, wherein the avoided greenhouse gas emissions are calculated based on an amount of nitrous oxide that would have been emitted from the reduction in nitrogen fertilizer; and
selling carbon credits corresponding to the calculated avoided greenhouse gas emissions.”
As is discussed in the 101 rejection above, the additional elements recited in the claims are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 8 and 16 do not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For instance, the amended claim limitation “receiving, from flow meters attached to spray heads of fertilizer sprayers used to deliver the different fertilizer applications, an indication of actual nitrogen fertilizer application at the agricultural land corresponding to the prescription, wherein the indication comprises data indicative of applied amounts of fertilizer at each of the at least two zones”, recites the claim limitations “from flow meters attached to spray heads of fertilizer sprayers” is recited at such a high level without providing any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim could reasonably be understood as a human being looking at the flow meters attached to spray heads of fertilizer sprayers to receive this information.
Similarly, the claim limitations “determining a reduction in nitrogen fertilizer from the indication by comparing the actual nitrogen fertilizer application to a reference fertilizer application; automatically calculating avoided greenhouse gas emissions based on the nitrogen fertilizer reduction, wherein the avoided greenhouse gas emissions are calculated based on an amount of nitrous oxide that would have been emitted from the reduction in nitrogen fertilizer; and selling carbon credits corresponding to the calculated avoided greenhouse gas emissions” are all limitations that can be done by a human being.
Regarding applicants’ arguments for independent claims 8 and 16, similar to claim 1, the claims are at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 8 and 16 do not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference:
Kay et al. Recommendations Emerging from Carbon Emissions Estimations of the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting. ENEURO.0476-22.2023. Society for Neuroscience. 09/22/23. https://www.eneuro.org/content/10/10/ENEURO.0476-22.2023.
This reference discusses the annual Society for Neuroscience (SfN) meeting yields significant, measurable impacts that conflict with the environmental commitment of the Society and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations to address the climate emergency (IPCC, 2018). We used 12,761 presenters’ origins, two online carbon calculators, and benchmark values to estimate 2018 meeting-related travel, event venue operations, and hotel accommodation emissions. Presenters’ conference travel resulted in between 17,298 and 8690 tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide (t CO2), with or without radiative forcing index factors. Over 92% of authors traveled by air and were responsible for >99% of total travel-related emissions. Extrapolations based on 28,691 registrants yielded between 69,592.60 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (t CO2e) and 38,010.85 t CO2 from travel. Comparatively, authors’ and registrants’ hotel accommodation emissions equaled 429 and 965 t CO2e, whereas operation of the San Diego Convention Center equaled ∼107 t CO2e. We relate SfN meeting-related emissions to potential September Arctic Sea ice loss, labor productivity loss in lower-income equatorial countries, and future temperature-related deaths. We estimate emissions reductions of between 23% and 78% by incentivizing between 10% and 50% of the most distant registrants to attend virtually or connecting between two and seven in-person hubs virtually. Completely virtual meetings may yield a reduction of >99% relative to centralized in-person meetings and increase participation of women, queer and transgender scientists, and scientists from low- and middle-income countries. We strongly recommend adopting alternative meeting modes such as four or more in-person global hubs connected virtually by 2030 and fully virtual by 2050.
Foreign Reference:
(EP 2855102 B1) Cavender-Bares et al. The present invention relates generally to methods and robotic platforms for use in agriculture. More particularly, the present invention relates to an autonomous vehicle platform configured to perform various in-season management tasks between the planted rows of an agricultural field, including nitrogen fertilization, and methods for accomplishing the tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NANCY PRASAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3265. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/N.N.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights