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
Note:
Applicants’ amendments are helping clarify the claim scope a little more, but the claims are still broad.
Firstly, it is unclear how the individual steps in the claim connect with the step above and below. For instance, in independent claim 1: “determining yield stability for at least two zones of an agricultural land” is not tied into the rest of the claim. It is unclear how or why the claim is starting with yield stability and ending with “selling carbon credits corresponding to the calculated avoided greenhouse gas emissions”. How are these steps relating to each other?
Secondly, it is unclear how certain determinations are being made in the claim. For instance, how is “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” is helping in “determining a reduction in nitrogen fertilizer from the indication”.
Thirdly, how is reduction in nitrogen fertilizer helping calculate avoided greenhouse gases? The claims are discussed at a very high level of generality with not a lot of details or explanations that tie the steps together.
In the amended independent claims 1, 8 and 16, the claim limitations discussed are broad and the specification does not provide enough detailed support to show to one of ordinary skill in the art what certain terms in the claim limitations mean.
In light of these notes, the amended claims, do not overcome previously presented rejections under 101 and 103. As is discussed below. This note is intended as a conversation starter to help applicants understand the examiner’s perspective. Applicants are welcome to call the examiner to discuss this further.
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 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, comprising different fertilizer applications for each of the at least two zones; receiving, an indication of actual nitrogen fertilizer application at the agricultural land corresponding to the prescription; determining a reduction in nitrogen fertilizer from the indication; and automatically calculating avoided greenhouse gas emissions based on the nitrogen fertilizer reduction; 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; send at least one proposed prescription associated with the agricultural area of interest; 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; and determine a reduction in greenhouse gas emission based upon the at least one fertilizer application.”
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 for that farm; and record data indicative of the applied amounts of fertilizer over the farm.”
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;”
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 to automatically adjust fertilizer application rates according to the proposed prescription”
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;”
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 to automatically adjust fertilizer application rates according to the proposed prescription”
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.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
generating a nitrogen fertilizer prescription for the agricultural land, comprising different fertilizer applications for each of the at least two zones
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 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
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);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Daggett et al. in view of Zykowski shows:
determining a reduction in nitrogen fertilizer from the indication
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. 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 g