DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. This office action is in response to the submission on 6/1/2023.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method and claims 8 and 15 are drawn to systems/products. Therefore claims 1, 8 and 15 fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?
It is an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes.
MPEP 2106.04(a) - “Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).”
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of claims 1, 8 and 15 recites functions below that under the limitation’s broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates mental concepts. Other than reciting generic computer elements “one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories,” (as recited in claim 8), nothing in the claims preclude the functions from the mental concept.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform the mental concept does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“identifying a crop type and a growth stage associated with a plant cultivated within an agricultural sector;” A human can identify crop type and growth stage (judgment).
“estimating a nutrient requirement and a water requirement associated with the plant based on the crop type and the growth stage” A human can estimate a nutrient and water requirement based on the crop type and growth stage (judgment).
“determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on the nutrient requirement, the water requirement, an earthworm productivity, and a soil moisture and a soil temperature.” A human can determine a desired soil moisture based on the variables cited (judgment).
Step 2A-Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The examiner has considered the limitations together as a single abstract idea for Step 2A Prong Two rather than as a plurality of separate ideas to be analyzed individually.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements amount to generic computer components, implementing generic processors and computer-readable tangible storage mediums towards the mental processes. “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As such, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20:
Step 1:
Claims 3-7 are drawn to a method, claims 10-14 and 17-20 are drawn to a systems/products, therefore each of claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 fall under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15.
Steps 2A-2B:
Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 recite further mental abstract concepts including further details about the desired moisture stimulating earthworms to produce nutrients sufficient for the nutrient requirement, the desired soil moisture being within a range earthworms may survive, adjusting the desired soil moisture value to induce aestivation responsive to nutrient and water requirements being met/exceeded, adjusting the desired soil moisture value in response to predicting a future nutrient requirement, and identifying crop type and growth stage based on analysis of satellite imagery. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The additional elements amount to generic computer components, implementing generic processors and computer-readable tangible storage mediums towards the mental processes. “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014). ” Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As such, claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George (US20240138283A1) in view of Woytowitz et al. (US20110238229A1), further in view of Li et al. (CN104854994A).
Claim 1:
George teaches “A processor-implemented method for agricultural earthworm management, the method comprising: identifying a crop type and a growth stage associated with a plant cultivated within an agricultural sector;” (George teaches identifying crop type and growth information i.e. a growth stage using an agricultural monitoring system 100 in George [0079] "The crop type and crop growth information is optionally provided; however, preferably the crop type and crop growth stage is determined using the remote agricultural monitoring system 100. For instance, the crop is identified as corn or soybean. Further, a post-sprout age of the crop is determined using the remote agricultural monitoring system 100. As treatment requirements for a first crop type, such as corn, differs as a function of time, such as 6 or 12 weeks post-sprout, and as treatment requirements for the first crop type differ from a second crop type, such as soybeans, the recommended treatment 1050 provided by the model 1040 is optionally and preferably adjusted by a basis set database for the identified crop and identified time period in the crop life."),
“estimating a nutrient requirement and a water requirement associated with the plant based on the crop type and the growth stage;” (George teaches using remote spectroscopy to determine how much additional irrigation/water and fertilizer is required in George [0045] "Still referring to FIG. 6 , a first central pivot crop circle 620 is illustrated. While the farmer may guess that the crops in general need water through visual inspection and/or may guess that the crops need more fertilizer through experience, remote spectroscopy generates a quantitative metric of specifically how much additional irrigation/water and/or fertilizer and/or crop protection is necessary and at which geolocations, the so-called variable rate agriculture. Further, remote spectroscopy optionally and preferably yields information on the application requirements for individual spatially resolved areas of each cropland area and does so without a required visual inspection by the farmer. In this example, the remote agricultural monitoring system 100 combines reflected and/or emitted light intensities as a function of wavelength, as further described infra, with a historical context of irrigation/fertilizer/crop protection application to remotely yield actionable information, and in the specific case of pivot irrigation, for the entire area of the first central pivot crop circle 620 requiring a fertilizer and an outer perimeter area 622 requiring extra watering."), and
“and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on the nutrient requirement, the water requirement, (George teaches using remote spectroscopy to determine how much additional irrigation/water is required i.e. the additional water required would determine the desired soil moisture value in George [0045] "Still referring to FIG. 6 , a first central pivot crop circle 620 is illustrated. While the farmer may guess that the crops in general need water through visual inspection and/or may guess that the crops need more fertilizer through experience, remote spectroscopy generates a quantitative metric of specifically how much additional irrigation/water and/or fertilizer and/or crop protection is necessary and at which geolocations, the so-called variable rate agriculture. Further, remote spectroscopy optionally and preferably yields information on the application requirements for individual spatially resolved areas of each cropland area and does so without a required visual inspection by the farmer. In this example, the remote agricultural monitoring system 100 combines reflected and/or emitted light intensities as a function of wavelength, as further described infra, with a historical context of irrigation/fertilizer/crop protection application to remotely yield actionable information, and in the specific case of pivot irrigation, for the entire area of the first central pivot crop circle 620 requiring a fertilizer and an outer perimeter area 622 requiring extra watering.").
George does not appear to explicitly teach “and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on However, Woytowitz does teach this claim limitation (Woytowitz teaches determining a soil moisture requirement based on actual soil moisture data and a soil temperature in Woytowitz [0042] "The soil moisture control unit 16 utilizes actual soil moisture data as its basis for estimating a soil moisture requirement value and making the modifications to the watering schedules implemented by the irrigation controller 12... If the installation includes the ability to measure the either the soil or the air temperature, this additional information can be used by the Soil Moisture Control Unit 16 to calculate the soil moisture requirement value. The soil moisture requirement value will increase or decrease in relationship to changes in the soil temperature or air temperature. The higher the recorded temperatures, the greater the evapotranspiriation of the plant material will be. Furthermore, overhead irrigation is not as efficient as high temperatures because of evaporation of the spray in the air prior to it hitting the surface of the ground. Also if the temperatures are very high, a certain percentage of water that hits the ground will evaporate prior to soaking into the soil. All of these considerations can be taken in to account by the soil moisture controller to increase or decrease the amount of water that is supplied at a given time.").
George and Woytowitz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of controlling watering of crops. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George and Woytowitz before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz because adding the Irrigation System with Soil Moisture Based Seasonal Watering Adjustment of Woytowitz would allow for globally modifying watering schedules to compensate for incorrectly placed sensors as described in Woytowitz [0044-0045] “If a conventional soil moisture based irrigation controller receives input from such an incorrectly located soil moisture sensor, the user can attempt to compensate by increasing the run times for each zone to compensate for the error. This is cumbersome and makes it difficult and frustrating for the user to adjust the conventional soil moisture based irrigation controller for optimum watering. An advantage of the present invention is the ability to globally modify the watering schedules of the stand alone irrigation controller 12 to compensate for this type of condition.” And in order to account for the temperature which affects evapotranspiration as described in Woytowitz [0042] “The soil moisture requirement value will increase or decrease in relationship to changes in the soil temperature or air temperature. The higher the recorded temperatures, the greater the evapotranspiriation of the plant material will be.”
Neither George or Woytowitz appear to explicitly teach “and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on However, Li does teach this claim limitation (Li teaches a method for improving soil fertility using earthworms where the soil moisture must be maintained at 30 to 50% i.e. the soil moisture content is required to keep the earthworms productive in Li [0011] "In a first aspect, the present invention discloses a method for rapidly improving the soil fertility of organic agriculture, comprising applying a compound conditioner to the soil and releasing earthworms; wherein, before applying the compound conditioner and releasing earthworms, the soil needs to meet the following conditions: 1) the soil moisture content is maintained at 30% to 50%, 2) the soil soluble salt content is maintained at below 4‰; the amount of the compound conditioner applied is 300 to 500 kg/mu; and the amount of earthworms released is 30 to 50 kg/mu.").
George, Woytowitz, and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of agriculture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George, Woytowitz, and Li before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George modified to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz to include the determination of soil moisture based on earthworm productivity of Li because adding the Method for rapidly improving organic agricultural soil fertility of Li would allow for improved soil fertility as described in Li [0036] "Earthworm castings not only have a porous granular structure (large specific surface area), water retention, fertilizer retention, moisture retention, and aeration functions, but also contain rich humus and readily available nutrients such as N, P, and K. Therefore, raising earthworms in farmland can improve soil fertility and enhance physical and chemical properties."
Claim 2:
George in view of Woytowitz, further in view of Li teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising: operating an irrigation system to adjust the soil moisture of the agricultural sector to match the desired soil moisture value.” (Woytowitz teaches adjusting the amount of water supplied based on soil temperature and moisture content using an irrigation controller 12 i.e. to reach the required soil moisture in Woytowitz [0042] "If the installation includes the ability to measure the either the soil or the air temperature, this additional information can be used by the Soil Moisture Control Unit 16 to calculate the soil moisture requirement value. The soil moisture requirement value will increase or decrease in relationship to changes in the soil temperature or air temperature. The higher the recorded temperatures, the greater the evapotranspiriation of the plant material will be. Furthermore, overhead irrigation is not as efficient as high temperatures because of evaporation of the spray in the air prior to it hitting the surface of the ground. Also if the temperatures are very high, a certain percentage of water that hits the ground will evaporate prior to soaking into the soil. All of these considerations can be taken in to account by the soil moisture controller to increase or decrease the amount of water that is supplied at a given time. In the case of a soil temperature measurement, this is further modified by how deep the sensor is placed into the soil because the temperature changes in the soil are reduced as the sensing depth is increased. The ability of the soil moisture control unit 16 to determine the irrigation requirements based on either air or soil temperature and moisture content allow it to change the seasonal adjust of the irrigation controller 12 from as little as 0% of normal watering to more than 100% of the normal watering schedule based on the actual conditions of the soil at the irrigation site.").
Claim 7:
George in view of Woytowitz, further in view of Li teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying is based on an analysis of satellite imagery.” (George teaches using a satellite in the remote agricultural monitoring system 100 in George [0033] "Still referring to FIG. 1 , as illustrated, one or more remote sensing platforms 110, of the remote agricultural monitoring system 100, are used to monitoring agricultural land 120, where at least a subset of gathered data is relayed, such as through wireless communication 140, to a base station 130 or a ground-based communication system. Optionally and preferably, the base station is on earth. As illustrated, the remote sensing platforms comprise one or more of: a balloon 112, an airplane 114, a satellite 115, such as a low earth orbit satellite 116, a high earth orbit satellite 118, and/or a geosynchronous satellite.").
Claim 8:
George teaches “A computer system for agricultural earthworm management, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories,” (George teaches a main controller comprises subsystems on a client which is a computing platform such as a computer in George [0113] "The main controller, a localized communication apparatus, and/or a system for communication of information optionally comprises one or more subsystems stored on a client. The main controller is optionally and preferably linked directly, indirectly, and/or wirelessly to one or more electromechanical devices, such as instrumentation and computing elements. The client is a computing platform configured to act as a client device or other computing device, such as a computer, personal computer, a digital media device, and/or a personal digital assistant. The client comprises a processor that is optionally coupled to one or more internal or external input device, such as a mouse, a keyboard, a display device, a voice recognition system, a motion recognition system, or the like. The processor is also communicatively coupled to an output device, such as a display screen or data link to display or send data and/or processed information, respectively. In one embodiment, the communication apparatus is the processor. In another embodiment, the communication apparatus is a set of instructions stored in memory that is carried out by the processor."),
“wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising: identifying a crop type and a growth stage associated with a plant cultivated within an agricultural sector;” (George teaches identifying crop type and growth information i.e. a growth stage using an agricultural monitoring system 100 in George [0079] "The crop type and crop growth information is optionally provided; however, preferably the crop type and crop growth stage is determined using the remote agricultural monitoring system 100. For instance, the crop is identified as corn or soybean. Further, a post-sprout age of the crop is determined using the remote agricultural monitoring system 100. As treatment requirements for a first crop type, such as corn, differs as a function of time, such as 6 or 12 weeks post-sprout, and as treatment requirements for the first crop type differ from a second crop type, such as soybeans, the recommended treatment 1050 provided by the model 1040 is optionally and preferably adjusted by a basis set database for the identified crop and identified time period in the crop life."),
“estimating a nutrient requirement and a water requirement associated with the plant based on the crop type and the growth stage;” (George teaches using remote spectroscopy to determine how much additional irrigation/water and fertilizer is required in George [0045] "Still referring to FIG. 6 , a first central pivot crop circle 620 is illustrated. While the farmer may guess that the crops in general need water through visual inspection and/or may guess that the crops need more fertilizer through experience, remote spectroscopy generates a quantitative metric of specifically how much additional irrigation/water and/or fertilizer and/or crop protection is necessary and at which geolocations, the so-called variable rate agriculture. Further, remote spectroscopy optionally and preferably yields information on the application requirements for individual spatially resolved areas of each cropland area and does so without a required visual inspection by the farmer. In this example, the remote agricultural monitoring system 100 combines reflected and/or emitted light intensities as a function of wavelength, as further described infra, with a historical context of irrigation/fertilizer/crop protection application to remotely yield actionable information, and in the specific case of pivot irrigation, for the entire area of the first central pivot crop circle 620 requiring a fertilizer and an outer perimeter area 622 requiring extra watering."), and
“and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on the nutrient requirement, the water requirement, (George teaches using remote spectroscopy to determine how much additional irrigation/water is required i.e. the additional water required would determine the desired soil moisture value in George [0045] "Still referring to FIG. 6 , a first central pivot crop circle 620 is illustrated. While the farmer may guess that the crops in general need water through visual inspection and/or may guess that the crops need more fertilizer through experience, remote spectroscopy generates a quantitative metric of specifically how much additional irrigation/water and/or fertilizer and/or crop protection is necessary and at which geolocations, the so-called variable rate agriculture. Further, remote spectroscopy optionally and preferably yields information on the application requirements for individual spatially resolved areas of each cropland area and does so without a required visual inspection by the farmer. In this example, the remote agricultural monitoring system 100 combines reflected and/or emitted light intensities as a function of wavelength, as further described infra, with a historical context of irrigation/fertilizer/crop protection application to remotely yield actionable information, and in the specific case of pivot irrigation, for the entire area of the first central pivot crop circle 620 requiring a fertilizer and an outer perimeter area 622 requiring extra watering.").
George does not appear to explicitly teach “and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on However, Woytowitz does teach this claim limitation (Woytowitz teaches determining a soil moisture requirement based on actual soil moisture data and a soil temperature in Woytowitz [0042] "The soil moisture control unit 16 utilizes actual soil moisture data as its basis for estimating a soil moisture requirement value and making the modifications to the watering schedules implemented by the irrigation controller 12... If the installation includes the ability to measure the either the soil or the air temperature, this additional information can be used by the Soil Moisture Control Unit 16 to calculate the soil moisture requirement value. The soil moisture requirement value will increase or decrease in relationship to changes in the soil temperature or air temperature. The higher the recorded temperatures, the greater the evapotranspiriation of the plant material will be. Furthermore, overhead irrigation is not as efficient as high temperatures because of evaporation of the spray in the air prior to it hitting the surface of the ground. Also if the temperatures are very high, a certain percentage of water that hits the ground will evaporate prior to soaking into the soil. All of these considerations can be taken in to account by the soil moisture controller to increase or decrease the amount of water that is supplied at a given time.").
George and Woytowitz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of controlling watering of crops. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George and Woytowitz before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz because adding the Irrigation System with Soil Moisture Based Seasonal Watering Adjustment of Woytowitz would allow for globally modifying watering schedules to compensate for incorrectly placed sensors as described in Woytowitz [0044-0045] “If a conventional soil moisture based irrigation controller receives input from such an incorrectly located soil moisture sensor, the user can attempt to compensate by increasing the run times for each zone to compensate for the error. This is cumbersome and makes it difficult and frustrating for the user to adjust the conventional soil moisture based irrigation controller for optimum watering. An advantage of the present invention is the ability to globally modify the watering schedules of the stand alone irrigation controller 12 to compensate for this type of condition.” And in order to account for the temperature which affects evapotranspiration as described in Woytowitz [0042] “The soil moisture requirement value will increase or decrease in relationship to changes in the soil temperature or air temperature. The higher the recorded temperatures, the greater the evapotranspiriation of the plant material will be.”
Neither George or Woytowitz appear to explicitly teach “and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on However, Li does teach this claim limitation (Li teaches a method for improving soil fertility using earthworms where the soil moisture must be maintained at 30 to 50% i.e. the soil moisture content is required to keep the earthworms productive in Li [0011] "In a first aspect, the present invention discloses a method for rapidly improving the soil fertility of organic agriculture, comprising applying a compound conditioner to the soil and releasing earthworms; wherein, before applying the compound conditioner and releasing earthworms, the soil needs to meet the following conditions: 1) the soil moisture content is maintained at 30% to 50%, 2) the soil soluble salt content is maintained at below 4‰; the amount of the compound conditioner applied is 300 to 500 kg/mu; and the amount of earthworms released is 30 to 50 kg/mu.").
George, Woytowitz, and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of agriculture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George, Woytowitz, and Li before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George modified to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz to include the determination of soil moisture based on earthworm productivity of Li because adding the Method for rapidly improving organic agricultural soil fertility of Li would allow for improved soil fertility as described in Li [0036] "Earthworm castings not only have a porous granular structure (large specific surface area), water retention, fertilizer retention, moisture retention, and aeration functions, but also contain rich humus and readily available nutrients such as N, P, and K. Therefore, raising earthworms in farmland can improve soil fertility and enhance physical and chemical properties."
Claim 9:
The limitations of claim 9 are substantially the same as claim 2 and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14:
The limitations of claim 14 are substantially the same as claim 7 and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15:
George teaches “"A computer program product for agricultural earthworm management, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium,"” (George teaches a main controller comprises subsystems on a client which is a computing platform such as a computer in George [0113] "The main controller, a localized communication apparatus, and/or a system for communication of information optionally comprises one or more subsystems stored on a client. The main controller is optionally and preferably linked directly, indirectly, and/or wirelessly to one or more electromechanical devices, such as instrumentation and computing elements. The client is a computing platform configured to act as a client device or other computing device, such as a computer, personal computer, a digital media device, and/or a personal digital assistant. The client comprises a processor that is optionally coupled to one or more internal or external input device, such as a mouse, a keyboard, a display device, a voice recognition system, a motion recognition system, or the like. The processor is also communicatively coupled to an output device, such as a display screen or data link to display or send data and/or processed information, respectively. In one embodiment, the communication apparatus is the processor. In another embodiment, the communication apparatus is a set of instructions stored in memory that is carried out by the processor."),
“the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising: identifying a crop type and a growth stage associated with a plant cultivated within an agricultural sector;” (George teaches identifying crop type and growth information i.e. a growth stage using an agricultural monitoring system 100 in George [0079] "The crop type and crop growth information is optionally provided; however, preferably the crop type and crop growth stage is determined using the remote agricultural monitoring system 100. For instance, the crop is identified as corn or soybean. Further, a post-sprout age of the crop is determined using the remote agricultural monitoring system 100. As treatment requirements for a first crop type, such as corn, differs as a function of time, such as 6 or 12 weeks post-sprout, and as treatment requirements for the first crop type differ from a second crop type, such as soybeans, the recommended treatment 1050 provided by the model 1040 is optionally and preferably adjusted by a basis set database for the identified crop and identified time period in the crop life."),
“estimating a nutrient requirement and a water requirement associated with the plant based on the crop type and the growth stage;” (George teaches using remote spectroscopy to determine how much additional irrigation/water and fertilizer is required in George [0045] "Still referring to FIG. 6 , a first central pivot crop circle 620 is illustrated. While the farmer may guess that the crops in general need water through visual inspection and/or may guess that the crops need more fertilizer through experience, remote spectroscopy generates a quantitative metric of specifically how much additional irrigation/water and/or fertilizer and/or crop protection is necessary and at which geolocations, the so-called variable rate agriculture. Further, remote spectroscopy optionally and preferably yields information on the application requirements for individual spatially resolved areas of each cropland area and does so without a required visual inspection by the farmer. In this example, the remote agricultural monitoring system 100 combines reflected and/or emitted light intensities as a function of wavelength, as further described infra, with a historical context of irrigation/fertilizer/crop protection application to remotely yield actionable information, and in the specific case of pivot irrigation, for the entire area of the first central pivot crop circle 620 requiring a fertilizer and an outer perimeter area 622 requiring extra watering."), and
“and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on the nutrient requirement, the water requirement, (George teaches using remote spectroscopy to determine how much additional irrigation/water is required i.e. the additional water required would determine the desired soil moisture value in George [0045] "Still referring to FIG. 6 , a first central pivot crop circle 620 is illustrated. While the farmer may guess that the crops in general need water through visual inspection and/or may guess that the crops need more fertilizer through experience, remote spectroscopy generates a quantitative metric of specifically how much additional irrigation/water and/or fertilizer and/or crop protection is necessary and at which geolocations, the so-called variable rate agriculture. Further, remote spectroscopy optionally and preferably yields information on the application requirements for individual spatially resolved areas of each cropland area and does so without a required visual inspection by the farmer. In this example, the remote agricultural monitoring system 100 combines reflected and/or emitted light intensities as a function of wavelength, as further described infra, with a historical context of irrigation/fertilizer/crop protection application to remotely yield actionable information, and in the specific case of pivot irrigation, for the entire area of the first central pivot crop circle 620 requiring a fertilizer and an outer perimeter area 622 requiring extra watering.").
George does not appear to explicitly teach “and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on However, Woytowitz does teach this claim limitation (Woytowitz teaches determining a soil moisture requirement based on actual soil moisture data and a soil temperature in Woytowitz [0042] "The soil moisture control unit 16 utilizes actual soil moisture data as its basis for estimating a soil moisture requirement value and making the modifications to the watering schedules implemented by the irrigation controller 12... If the installation includes the ability to measure the either the soil or the air temperature, this additional information can be used by the Soil Moisture Control Unit 16 to calculate the soil moisture requirement value. The soil moisture requirement value will increase or decrease in relationship to changes in the soil temperature or air temperature. The higher the recorded temperatures, the greater the evapotranspiriation of the plant material will be. Furthermore, overhead irrigation is not as efficient as high temperatures because of evaporation of the spray in the air prior to it hitting the surface of the ground. Also if the temperatures are very high, a certain percentage of water that hits the ground will evaporate prior to soaking into the soil. All of these considerations can be taken in to account by the soil moisture controller to increase or decrease the amount of water that is supplied at a given time.").
George and Woytowitz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of controlling watering of crops. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George and Woytowitz before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz because adding the Irrigation System with Soil Moisture Based Seasonal Watering Adjustment of Woytowitz would allow for globally modifying watering schedules to compensate for incorrectly placed sensors as described in Woytowitz [0044-0045] “If a conventional soil moisture based irrigation controller receives input from such an incorrectly located soil moisture sensor, the user can attempt to compensate by increasing the run times for each zone to compensate for the error. This is cumbersome and makes it difficult and frustrating for the user to adjust the conventional soil moisture based irrigation controller for optimum watering. An advantage of the present invention is the ability to globally modify the watering schedules of the stand alone irrigation controller 12 to compensate for this type of condition.” And in order to account for the temperature which affects evapotranspiration as described in Woytowitz [0042] “The soil moisture requirement value will increase or decrease in relationship to changes in the soil temperature or air temperature. The higher the recorded temperatures, the greater the evapotranspiriation of the plant material will be.”
Neither George or Woytowitz appear to explicitly teach “and determining a desired soil moisture value for the agricultural sector based on However, Li does teach this claim limitation (Li teaches a method for improving soil fertility using earthworms where the soil moisture must be maintained at 30 to 50% i.e. the soil moisture content is required to keep the earthworms productive in Li [0011] "In a first aspect, the present invention discloses a method for rapidly improving the soil fertility of organic agriculture, comprising applying a compound conditioner to the soil and releasing earthworms; wherein, before applying the compound conditioner and releasing earthworms, the soil needs to meet the following conditions: 1) the soil moisture content is maintained at 30% to 50%, 2) the soil soluble salt content is maintained at below 4‰; the amount of the compound conditioner applied is 300 to 500 kg/mu; and the amount of earthworms released is 30 to 50 kg/mu.").
George, Woytowitz, and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of agriculture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George, Woytowitz, and Li before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George modified to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz to include the determination of soil moisture based on earthworm productivity of Li because adding the Method for rapidly improving organic agricultural soil fertility of Li would allow for improved soil fertility as described in Li [0036] "Earthworm castings not only have a porous granular structure (large specific surface area), water retention, fertilizer retention, moisture retention, and aeration functions, but also contain rich humus and readily available nutrients such as N, P, and K. Therefore, raising earthworms in farmland can improve soil fertility and enhance physical and chemical properties."
Claim 16:
The limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as claim 2 and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George (US20240138283A1) in view of Woytowitz et al. (US20110238229A1), further in view of Li et al. (CN104854994A), further in view of WEVER, et al., "The influence of soil moisture and temperature on the survival, aestivation, growth and development of juvenile Aporrectodea tuberculata (Eisen) (Lumbricidae)," (From applicant’s IDS, hereinafter referred to as “Wever”).
Claim 3:
George in view of Woytowitz, further in view of Li teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the desired soil moisture value is a soil moisture level at which earthworms within the agricultural sector will be stimulated to produce soil nutrients sufficient to meet the nutrient requirement (Li teaches a method for improving soil fertility using earthworms where the soil moisture must be maintained at 30 to 50% i.e. the soil moisture content may be required to stay in this range in Li [0011] "In a first aspect, the present invention discloses a method for rapidly improving the soil fertility of organic agriculture, comprising applying a compound conditioner to the soil and releasing earthworms; wherein, before applying the compound conditioner and releasing earthworms, the soil needs to meet the following conditions: 1) the soil moisture content is maintained at 30% to 50%, 2) the soil soluble salt content is maintained at below 4‰; the amount of the compound conditioner applied is 300 to 500 kg/mu; and the amount of earthworms released is 30 to 50 kg/mu."; Li teaches the effects of earthworms on soil fertility, indicating that they increase the available nitrogen i.e. the earthworms may be used to meet the nutrient requirements in Li [0054] "Compared with conventional methods, the earthworm release treatment significantly improved soil quality, with a substantial reduction in pH and bulk density. At the same time, the total porosity and capillary porosity of the soil were 2.55 and 2.86 percentage points higher than those of conventional methods, respectively, and the organic matter content was 0.03% higher." and Li Table 2
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
283
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
None of George, Woytowitz, or Li appear to explicitly teach “the desired soil moisture value is a soil moisture level at which earthworms within the agricultural sector will be stimulated to produce soil nutrients sufficient to meet the nutrient requirement based on the soil temperature.” However, Wever does teach this claim limitation (Wever teaches that earthworm survival is influenced by both temperature and soil moisture i.e. the soil moisture requirement determination may account for the soil temperature in order to maintain survival of the earthworms in order to reach the desired nutrient requirements in Wever [Page 123, last paragraph - page 125 first paragraph] "Survival of juvenile earthworms ranged from 0 to 100% (Fig. 1). At 20(C, the survival curves for different soil moistures were well separated with the 25 % treatment having the highest rate of survival followed by 20 and 15%. The lowest rate of survival was associated with a soil moisture content of 10 % regardless of the incubation temperature. The logistic regression model model P(surv = 1) = 1/(1exp(β0+β1Z+β2XZ+β3XY)) where X = time in weeks, Y = temperature (°C), and Z = % moisture indicated that identified variables accounted for 54 % of the variation observed in earthworm survival (Table 1). The variables that significantly influenced the proportion of earthworms surviving were soil moisture, moisture × time and temperature × time with soil moisture accounting for 47.9% of the variation in P(surv). The soil moisture by time interaction accounted for 5.7%, and the time × soil temperature term accounted for an additional 0.8% of the variation in survival. The observed and modeled proportion of surviving earthworms is shown in Figure 1. In general, proportion of the surviving earthworms decreased with time, the probability of survival increased with moisture content, and only slightly decreased with increasing temperature. The rate of decreasing earthworm survival increased with increasing soil temperature and decreasing soil moisture (Fig. 1)." and in Wever Fig. 1).
George, Woytowitz, Li, and Wever are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of agriculture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George, Woytowitz, Li, and Wever before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George modified to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz further modified to include the determination of soil moisture based on earthworm productivity of Li to include the knowledge of how soil temperature affects earthworm survival of Wever because adding the influence of soil moisture and temperature on the survival, aestivation, growth and development of juvenile Aporrectodea tuberculata of Wever would allow for accounting for soil temperature as well as moisture when determining the nutrients released by earthworms which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an improvement as described in Wever [Page 121 Summary line 11 – Page 122 line 5] "Soil moisture accounted for 48 % of the variation in earthworm survival with the lowest survival associated with 10 % soil moistures. The interaction terms, time × temperature × moisture, and time × temperature, accounted for 63 % of the variation in earthworm growth. The greatest increase in earthworm weight was in soil incubated with 25 % moisture at 15 and 20 °C. There was also an obvious relationship between survival and growth linked to the interaction between soil temperature and moisture. After 10 wk the only post-clitellate individuals were observed in the 25 % and 20 °C treatment. Clitellate earthworms weighed 1.5 times more than individuals having only genital tumescences (GT). The results of the study showed that the effects of soil moisture on earthworm growth and survival are modified by soil temperature.”
Claim 4:
George in view of Woytowitz, further in view of Li teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above. None of George, Woytowitz, or Li appear to explicitly teach “wherein the desired soil moisture value falls within a range bounded by the minimum and maximum soil moisture levels at which an earthworm can survive.” However, Wever does teach this claim limitation (Wever teaches that earthworm survival is influenced by both temperature and soil moisture i.e. the soil moisture requirement determination may account for the soil moisture in order to maintain survival of the earthworms to reach the desired nutrient requirements in Wever [Page 123, last paragraph - page 125 first paragraph] "Survival of juvenile earthworms ranged from 0 to 100% (Fig. 1). At 20(C, the survival curves for different soil moistures were well separated with the 25 % treatment having the highest rate of survival followed by 20 and 15%. The lowest rate of survival was associated with a soil moisture content of 10 % regardless of the incubation temperature. The logistic regression model model P(surv = 1) = 1/(1exp(β0+β1Z+β2XZ+β3XY)) where X = time in weeks, Y = temperature (°C), and Z = % moisture indicated that identified variables accounted for 54 % of the variation observed in earthworm survival (Table 1). The variables that significantly influenced the proportion of earthworms surviving were soil moisture, moisture × time and temperature × time with soil moisture accounting for 47.9% of the variation in P(surv). The soil moisture by time interaction accounted for 5.7%, and the time × soil temperature term accounted for an additional 0.8% of the variation in survival. The observed and modeled proportion of surviving earthworms is shown in Figure 1. In general, proportion of the surviving earthworms decreased with time, the probability of survival increased with moisture content, and only slightly decreased with increasing temperature. The rate of decreasing earthworm survival increased with increasing soil temperature and decreasing soil moisture (Fig. 1)." and in Wever Fig. 1).
George, Woytowitz, Li, and Wever are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of agriculture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George, Woytowitz, Li, and Wever before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George modified to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz further modified to include the determination of soil moisture based on earthworm productivity of Li to include the knowledge of how soil moisture that earthworms can survive at of Wever because adding the influence of soil moisture and temperature on the survival, aestivation, growth and development of juvenile Aporrectodea tuberculata of Wever would allow for keeping the earthworms alive, which would assist in providing nutrients to the soil which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an improvement as described in Wever [Page 121 Summary line 11 – Page 122 line 5] "Soil moisture accounted for 48 % of the variation in earthworm survival with the lowest survival associated with 10 % soil moistures. The interaction terms, time × temperature × moisture, and time × temperature, accounted for 63 % of the variation in earthworm growth. The greatest increase in earthworm weight was in soil incubated with 25 % moisture at 15 and 20 °C. There was also an obvious relationship between survival and growth linked to the interaction between soil temperature and moisture. After 10 wk the only post-clitellate individuals were observed in the 25 % and 20 °C treatment. Clitellate earthworms weighed 1.5 times more than individuals having only genital tumescences (GT). The results of the study showed that the effects of soil moisture on earthworm growth and survival are modified by soil temperature.”
Claim 5:
George in view of Woytowitz, further in view of Li teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above. None of George, Woytowitz, or Li appear to explicitly teach “wherein the desired soil moisture value falls within a range bounded by the minimum and maximum soil moisture levels at which an earthworm can survive.” However, Wever does teach this claim limitation (Wever teaches earthworms are more likely to aestivate quickly with 10-20% soil moisture and more likely to aestivate after a long period of time with 25% soil moisture in Wever [Page 125, second paragraph] "In general, the number of aestivating earthworms increased as soil moisture increased up to 20 % after which there was a decrease in the number of aestivating individuals. Earthworms reared at 10, 15 and 20 % soil moisture were more likely to aestivate in the first five weeks whereas earthworm at 25 % soil moisture are more likely to aestivate in the tenth week. As temperature increased, the proportion of aestivating earthworms peaked during weeks 3 and 4 as temperature increased. The model also predicted a delay in aestivation if soil moisture was 20 % or greater." and in Wever Fig. 2. A person having ordinary skill in the art would determine that adjusting soil moisture to induce aestivation when water and nutrient requirements are met would be beneficial as it would reduce water usage.).
George, Woytowitz, Li, and Wever are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of agriculture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of George, Woytowitz, Li, and Wever before him/her, to modify the teachings of an On-board satellite crop analysis apparatus of George modified to include the determination of soil moisture requirement using soil moisture and temperature of Woytowitz further modified to include the determination of soil moisture based on earthworm productivity of Li to include the knowledge of how humidity affects aestivation of earthworms of Wever because adding the influence of soil moisture and temperature on the survival, aestivation, growth and development of juvenile Aporrectodea tuberculata of Wever would allow for a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the determination to cause earthworms to enter aestivation when nutrient and water requirements are met, saving water as described in Wever [Page 125, second paragraph] "In general, the number of aestivating earthworms increased as soil moisture increased up to 20 % after which there was a decrease in the number of aestivating individuals. Earthworms reared at 10, 15 and 20 % soil moisture were more likely to aestivate in the first five weeks whereas earthworm at 25 % soil moisture are more likely to aestivate in the tenth week. As temperature increased, the proportion of aestivating earthworms peaked during weeks 3 and 4 as temperature increased. The model also predicted a delay in aestivation if soil moisture was 20 % or greater."
Claim 6:
George in view of Woytowitz, further in view of Li, further in view of Wever teaches “The method of claim 5, responsive to predicting a future nutrient requirement, adjusting the desired soil moisture value to bring the earthworms in the agricultural sector out of aestivation.” (Wever teaches earthworms are more likely to aestivate quickly with 10-20% soil moisture and more likely to aestivate after a long period of time with 25% soil moisture in Wever [Page 125, second paragraph] "In general, the number of aestivating earthworms increased as soil moisture increased up to 20 % after which there was a decrease in the number of aestivating individuals. Earthworms reared at 10, 15 and 20 % soil moisture were more likely to aestivate in the first five weeks whereas earthworm at 25 % soil moisture are more likely to aestivate in the tenth week. As temperature increased, the proportion of aestivating earthworms peaked during weeks 3 and 4 as temperature increased. The model also predicted a delay in aestivation if soil moisture was 20 % or greater." and in Wever Fig. 2. A person having ordinary skill in the art would determine that adjusting soil moisture to bring earthworms out of aestivation when future nutrient requirements will not be met without action in order to cause the earthworms to provide the appropriate amount of nutrients would increase crop health.).
Claims 10-13:
The limitations of claims 10-13 are substantially the same as claims 3-6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 17-20:
The limitations of claims 17-20 are substantially the same as claims 3-6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krietzer (US5127186A) teaches a method of introducing earthworm eggs when planting at a specific density in Krietzer [Column 3 line 65 – Column 4 line 15] “The composition of this invention can be placed in a field in a number of different ways. The composition can be added by itself using a tractor-pulled planter or it can be applied aerially and incorporated by disking. However, the preferred method of introduction of the composition is by mixture and planting with the seed being grown. Not only is this the least expensive method, but it occurs at a time of year well-suited for hatching of the eggs and growth of the infant worms. The concentration at which to introduce the composition is a matter of choice. A number of factors are considered in choosing the concentration, including cost, current earthworm population in the field, and desired earthworm population in field. In general, the composition is introduced at the rate of about one cocoon per hundred square feet, or about 435 cocoons per acre."
Lankford (US20150040473A1) teaches receiving soil temperature, crop light reflectance, soil moisture, and weather data as inputs in Lankford [0057], irrigating crops based on those inputs in Lankford [0058], and determining appropriate soil moisture for a crop, variety, and soil type in Lankford [0109].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Cain whose telephone number is (571)272-4503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:30 CST.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/Z.A.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights