DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments received 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image1.png
288
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the USPTO determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines. Applicant is particularly advised that, under the 2019 PEG, when assessing subject matter eligibility for a patent, examples of “determining or calculating parameters" that might be considered a judicial exception include claims that simply involve basic mathematical calculations, like determining a ratio between two values, computing the impedance from known values of voltage and current using a well-known Ohm's Law, frequency spectrums using Fourier-transform, or performing a straightforward arithmetic operation without any inventive application of that calculation to a specific technological problem; essentially, claims that are "directed to" a mathematical concept without adding a practical application. While a calculation itself may be considered abstract, if it's integrated into a novel process or system that solves a specific problem, it can be a patentable "Inventive concept".
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea of acquiring detailed weather related field data for planning/controlling farming activities but without reciting any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analysis as set forth in sections 4-5 below).
In particular, the additional limitation "controlling, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region" merely encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, neither the claim nor the Specification (e.g., US 20240008390 A1, para. 0027, 0105, 0115) provides any detailed specifics to how/why the limitation in question is essential to the function of the identified abstract idea and/or the operation of the claimed system/method such that the limitation to which the Applicant refers amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the claim does not include any limitation whatsoever of how said “agricultural machine” operates as a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The “agricultural intelligence computer” is recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses a general-purpose computer or merely instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer but not be qualified for an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The recitation of “perform the at least one field activity in the field region” is viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment.
While arguing about the alleged similarity between the pending claims of the present application and Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, Applicant fails to clearly explain the reason or justification for that conclusion. The Examiner’s position is that: the decision in Diamond V. Diehr is fact specific. It is not analogous to the instant claims of the present application. For example, the claim of Diamond v. Diehr, recites such additional elements as specifically claimed constant measurement of temperature at a mold cavity of a rubber-molding press and the repetitive computer recalculation of the appropriate cure time using the constantly updated measurements which provide ‘‘something more’’ than mere computer implementation of calculation of the Arrhenius equation. Further, the claimed steps act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber to cured molded rubber. As affirmed by the Court, the combination of steps recited in addition to the mathematical formula show that the claim is not to the formula in isolation, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that apply the formula to improve an existing technological process. Thus, the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. However, Examiner asserts that none of the additional elements recited in the instant claims of the present application is proven to be ‘‘significantly more’’ to make the claim go beyond just performing data manipulation based on math/mental concepts thus provides qualified improvement. Applicant’s arguments based on Diamond v. Diehr are therefore unpersuasive.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding claim eligibility are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the analysis under the 2019 PEG as set forth below in this Office Action, thus are deemed unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection or have been fully addressed by the detailed discussion of the prior art as set forth in sections 6-8 below in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea of planning and controlling farming related activities based on local field information.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for managing agricultural activities in a field region, the method comprising:
receiving, by an agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of field definition data identifying a field region;
retrieving, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of input data from a plurality of data networks for the identified field region, wherein the plurality of input data includes field-specific data for the field region;
(c) identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of temperature grids for the field region;
(d) identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of weather stations for the plurality of temperature grids, wherein a weather station of the plurality of weather stations is located at a weather station location, of a plurality of weather station locations, in a temperature grid of the plurality of temperature grids;
(e) computing weight values for each of the weather stations of the plurality of weather stations, wherein weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to their respective temperature grids have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to their respective temperature grids;
(f) receiving a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations;
(g) based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, computing a plurality of weighted temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids;
(h) computing a plurality of field condition data for the field region, for multiple projected intervals, based on the plurality of weighted temperatures and the field-specific data, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions;
(i) based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determining at least one field activity for the field region;
(j) providing the at least one field activity for the field region to an agricultural machine configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region; and
(k) controlling, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each or the combination of the steps of “(c) identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of temperature grids for the field region”, “(d) identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of weather stations for the plurality of temperature grids, wherein a weather station of the plurality of weather stations is located at a weather station location, of a plurality of weather station locations, in a temperature grid of the plurality of temperature grids” and “(i) … determining at least one field activity for the field region” recited in the bolded portion as listed above encompasses the user mentally or manually matching up “a plurality of temperature grids for the field region”, “the plurality of weather stations for the plurality of temperature grids … in a temperature grid of the plurality of temperature grids” and “at least one field activity for the field region”. These steps encompass mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under its BRI, each or the combination of the steps of “(e) computing weight values for each of the weather stations of the plurality of weather stations … ”, “(g) … computing a plurality of weighted temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids”, and “(h) computing a plurality of field condition data for the field region …” covers a series of mathematical steps, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper using mathematical concepts. The lack of specific math equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps.
That is, other than reciting “by the agricultural intelligence computer” nothing in the bolded portion precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind or with pen and paper. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Each of the steps of “receiving … a plurality of field definition data identifying a field region;”, “retrieving … a plurality of input data from a plurality of data networks for the identified field region …;” and “receiving a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations;” recited in instant claim 1 is considered merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The step of “receiving a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations;” is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify how the “receiving” is performed and/or any sensor is used in certain particular manner. It could just as easily relate to the acquisition of temperature readings from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
Under the BRI to the claim, each or the combination of the limitations of “providing the at least one field activity for the field region to an agricultural machine configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region; and controlling, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region” encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(g) concerns “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.” It describes, as an example, a mathematical calculation of an alarm limit and extra-solution activity of accordantly adjusting the alarm limit. This example is taken from Flook, which claimed method consists of a mathematical calculation of an alarm limit as a function of temperature, indescriptly monitoring the temperature, and accordingly adjusting the alarm limit. Flook, 437 U.S. at 585-86, 596-97. Applicant’s claimed invention similarly consists of a mathematical calculation (“weight values for the plurality of weather stations ”, “a plurality of weighted temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids”, and “a plurality of field condition data for the field region”), indescriptly collecting the inputs, and accordingly adjusting process parameters (for controlling the operation of the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region) to attain the calculated value/s. Also similar to Flook’s claim, the data collecting and adjusting steps of Applicant’s claim 1 are broad in scope (e.g., controlling, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region). They do not provide any detail/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, these additional elements are treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception but not be qualified for an improvement in the functioning of such as a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a generic computer and/or link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A under the 2019 PEG. See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05 (f).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, Examiner considers that the “core” of the representative claim 1 is directed to an algorithm of planning and controlling farming related activities based on local field information, which is considered as a judicial exception falling within a combination of the mental process and the math concept groupings of abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG.
Each of the additional limitations/elements is evaluated by considering them both individually and in combination to determine whether or not an additional element amounts to an inventive concept. However, it is asserted that, under the BRI, all the additional limitations/elements recited in instant claim 1 are considered well-understood, routine, or conventional. The claim does not recite any additional limitation or element that amounts to “significantly more” or reflect an “inventive concept”, see MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-3 and 5-9 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, the step of “transmitting an alert to the user device including the at least one date for performing the at least one field activity” (claim 3) is considered insignificant post-solution activities (i.e., transmitting or displaying the algorithm results) that do not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself, while limitations such as “the field-specific data is received from the agricultural machine” (claim 5), “the field-specific data is received from the user device” (claim 6), “the at least one field activity includes: planting, nitrogen application, pest and disease treatment, irrigation application, scouting, and/or harvesting” (claim 7), etc. are all recited at a high level of generality. None of these elements is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation. At most, they generally link the use of the judicial exception (math + mental) to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 10-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 1-3 and 5-9 as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedberg et al. (US 20130332205 A1) in view of YUN (KR 20090088131 A, machine translation) and Anderson (US 20070250412 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Friedberg discloses a computer-implemented method, and a system for practicing the method, for managing agricultural activities in a field region (para. 0002, 0035) implemented using an agricultural intelligence computer system comprising a processor in communication with a memory (see Figs. 1, 18 and related text), the method, executed by the computer program on said processor, comprising:
receiving, by an agricultural intelligence computer (e.g., 102 Fig. 1), a plurality of field definition data identifying a field region (para. 0038: “the user may be required to input information that identifies one or more of the land that the user farms, …”);
retrieving, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of input data from a plurality of data networks for the identified field region, wherein the plurality of input data includes field-specific data for the field region (para. 0038: “Identification of land may include a lot and block number, a parcel number, geographic coordinates and boundaries … Historical data may include …, and so forth”; see also para. 0039);
identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of temperature grids for the field region (para. 0039: “Other approaches for obtaining historical weather data may include utilizing gridded temperature datasets”; para. 0042: “… example system 206 may represent a system associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that provides precipitation data for predetermined geographical grid sizes (e.g., 2.5 miles by 2.5 miles)”; para. 0054: “Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations, or, alternatively, utilizing gridded temperature datasets”);
identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of weather stations for the plurality of temperature grids (para. 0039: “in some example embodiments, historical weather data from the weather station located nearest to the location in question may be retrieved. In other example embodiments, the user may be prompted to select a weather station located near the location in question via a user interface. … a listing of weather stations located proximally to the location in question may be presented to the user via the user interface”), wherein a weather station of the plurality of weather stations is located at a weather station location, of a plurality of weather station locations, in a temperature grid of the plurality of temperature grids (para. 0039-0040, 0054);
receiving a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations (para. 054: “the temperature module 320 may … select one or more weather stations from which to obtain temperature data. … Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations”);
based on the plurality of temperature readings, computing a plurality of simulated temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids (para. 0054: “the temperature module 320 may access a list of weather stations located in the region of the parcels of land being used to grow the crop and may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location, … Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations”; para. 0060: “simulated data may be generated with respect to temperature and/or precipitation data. Such simulations may be warranted if the temperature and precipitation data is obtained from a location other than the farm growing the crop”);
computing a plurality of field condition data (e.g., “a policy document” or “categories of weather perils”) for the field region, for multiple projected intervals (para. 0052: “The system 302 of FIG. 3A may also include a growth stage tracker module (not shown) to establish a range of dates for a category of weather peril corresponding to a portion of a planting season for the type of crop, wherein the payout rule utilizes a number of days within the range of dates when the threshold is exceeded …”), based on the plurality of simulated temperatures and the field-specific data, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions (para. 0039: “To aid in the assessment of risk, the pricing servers 120 may communicate with one or more modeling servers 124 to determine weather data related to the land on which the crop is grown”; para. 0049: “The pricing module may process data representing a plurality of factors. Example factors taken into account may include the type of crop being grown, the location of a property growing the crop, historical and estimated weather data (e.g., precipitation, temperature) …”; para. 0051: “The weather modeling module 312 may generate a plurality of simulations based on the obtained weather data and may estimate the weather of the parcels of land based on the plurality of simulations”; see also para. 0040, 0050-0052, 0054, 0061, 0077, 0079-0080); and
based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determining at least one activity (e.g., a payment entitled to the policyholder) for the field region (para. 0035: “An insurance policy may simply say that if … then the policyholder will be entitled to a payment”; para. 0049: “The pricing module may process data representing a plurality of factors. Example factors taken into account may include the type of crop being grown … the probability of various perils occurring during different stages of the crop's growth cycle, and so forth”).
Friedberg does not mention explicitly:
computing weight values for each of the weather stations of the plurality of weather stations based on the plurality of weather station locations of the plurality of weather stations, wherein weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to their respective temperature grids have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to their respective temperature grids; said plurality of simulated temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids are computed based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations;
wherein said one activity is a field activity for the field region which is provided to an agricultural machine configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region; and the agricultural intelligence computer is configured to control the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region.
YUN discloses an algorithm of simulating/estimating grid meteorological data based on multiple weather stations observations using a spatial interpolation scheme (page 2, last paragraph), comprising: receiving a plurality of temperature readings (T.sub.i) from the plurality of weather stations (page 4, last paragraph – page 5, 1st paragraph; page 5, last three paragraphs); computing weight values (d.sub.i corresponds to the average distance between this observation point i and the unobserved arbitrary point) for each of the weather stations (observation point i) of the plurality of weather stations based on the plurality of weather station locations of the plurality of weather stations, wherein weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to their respective temperature grids have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to their respective temperature grids, and based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, computing a plurality of simulated temperatures (e.g., T.sub.1 for the unobserved arbitrary point 1 between the observation points i in the target area) for the plurality of temperature grids (page 5, 7th paragraph – last paragraph; page 6 last paragraph – page 7, 3rd paragraph; see also the discussion of the Inverse Distance Squared Weighting (IDSW) method expressed by Equation 1).
Friedberg and YUN are in the same field of endeavor (interpolation algorithm for local air temperature estimates) and Friedberg teaches the general condition of the interpolation/simulation algorithm (Friedberg, para. 0051, 0054). In view of Friedberg and YUN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate YUN’s teaching of IDSW interpolation algorithm into Friedberg to arrive the claimed computing of a plurality of simulated temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids. Doing so would allow for refining the weather values to obtain relatively more accurate temperature estimates at the geographic grids of interest for the purpose of (numerical) weather forecasting (Friedberg, para. 0051: “the simulation may use weather data obtained from the closest proximate location to the parcels of land, while in other example embodiments, a user may specify one or more weather stations from which to obtain weather data for use in the simulation”; YUN, page 2, 2nd paragraph). It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
The combination of Friedberg and YUN is silent on: wherein said one activity is a field activity for the field region which is provided to an agricultural machine configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region; and the agricultural intelligence computer is configured to control the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region.
Anderson discloses a computer-implemented method for managing agricultural activities in a field region (para. 0017) implemented using an agricultural intelligence computer system comprising a processor in communication with a memory (para. 0012), comprising: computing a plurality of field condition data for the field region for multiple projected intervals, based on field-specific data, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions (para. 0012: “Processor 36 may additionally have connections with predictive sources, such as future weather conditions …”; para. 0017: “Such information includes soil type, topography, rainfall, temperature, irrigation water amounts and sources as well as external field and weather data to determine whether it is appropriate to harvest the crop in field 12”, “Further determinations may also be made to evaluate the impact of weather, which may cause chemical drift from an adjacent field 14 into field 12”; see also para. 0019); based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determining at least one activity (e.g., "safe to harvest") for the field region (para. 0017: “The evaluation process includes a "safe to enter" determinant that the farm equipment may enter and perform the operation as well as a "safe to harvest" determination, which may include insitu field and weather data that may be from field information node 34 or other predictive sources apart from field 12. … If a problem in field 12 does exist the identified reason may lead to the generation of a remediation plan for field 12, which may include waiting to harvest the field until a mandated waiting period has past after the application of a chemical”); wherein said one activity is a field activity for the field region which is provided to an agricultural machine (equipment 20 Fig. 1) configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region, and the agricultural intelligence computer is configured to control the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region (para. 0018-0019).
Friedberg and Anderson are in the same field of endeavor (planning and controlling farming related activities based on field information). In view of Friedberg and Anderson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Friedberg’s method for managing agricultural activities to Anderson’s method for managing the operation of agricultural machines based on field data to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for more accurately (Friedberg, para. 0051, 0054) controlling execution of the operation depending on authorized effect of the operation (Anderson, para. 0006).
Regarding claim 10, Friedberg discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor (see Figs. 1, 18 and related text), cause the at least one processor to:
associate a field region (para. 0038: “the user may be required to input information that identifies one or more of the land that the user farms) with a temperature grid that contains at least part of the grids for a field region (para. 0039: “Other approaches for obtaining historical weather data may include utilizing gridded temperature datasets”; para. 0042: “… example system 206 may represent a system associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that provides precipitation data for predetermined geographical grid sizes (e.g., 2.5 miles by 2.5 miles)”; para. 0054: “Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations, or, alternatively, utilizing gridded temperature datasets”: by inherency, to apply the historical gridded temperature datasets and/or the gridded datasets provided by NOAA to the field region specified by the user, one must associate the field region with at least one temperature grid of a plurality of temperature grids that contains at least part of the grids for the field region);
identify a plurality of weather stations for the temperature grid, wherein each of the plurality of weather stations is located at a corresponding weather station location within or adjacent to the temperature grid (para. 0039: “in some example embodiments, historical weather data from the weather station located nearest to the location in question may be retrieved. In other example embodiments, the user may be prompted to select a weather station located near the location in question via a user interface. … a listing of weather stations located proximally to the location in question may be presented to the user via the user interface”; see also para. 0040, 0054);
receive a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations (para. 054: “the temperature module 320 may … select one or more weather stations from which to obtain temperature data. … Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations”);
adjust at least one of the plurality of temperature readings based on a difference between a relative elevation of the temperature grid and an elevation the weather station(s) from which the at least one of the plurality of temperature readings is received, and adjust at least one of the plurality of temperature readings based on a distance of the weather station(s) from which the at least one of the plurality of temperature readings is received from a body of water (para. 0054: “the temperature module 320 may access a list of weather stations located in the region of the parcels of land being used to grow the crop and may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location, which may be adjusted for factors such as elevation, land cover, and proximity to bodies of water”); and then
based on the plurality of temperature readings, compute a plurality of simulated temperatures for the temperature grid (para. 0054: “The temperature module 320 may be used to determine the temperature of the identified parcels of land over a period of time …. the temperature module 320 may access a list of weather stations located in the region of the parcels of land being used to grow the crop and may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location”; para. 0060: “simulated data may be generated with respect to temperature and/or precipitation data. Such simulations may be warranted if the temperature and precipitation data is obtained from a location other than the farm growing the crop”);
compute a plurality of field condition data (e.g., “a policy document” or “categories of weather perils”) for the field region, for multiple projected intervals (para. 0052: “The system 302 of FIG. 3A may also include a growth stage tracker module (not shown) to establish a range of dates for a category of weather peril corresponding to a portion of a planting season for the type of crop, wherein the payout rule utilizes a number of days within the range of dates when the threshold is exceeded …”), based, at least in part, on the plurality of simulated temperatures, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions (para. 0039: “To aid in the assessment of risk, the pricing servers 120 may communicate with one or more modeling servers 124 to determine weather data related to the land on which the crop is grown”; para. 0049: “The pricing module may process data representing a plurality of factors. Example factors taken into account may include the type of crop being grown, the location of a property growing the crop, historical and estimated weather data (e.g., precipitation, temperature) …”; para. 0051: “The weather modeling module 312 may generate a plurality of simulations based on the obtained weather data and may estimate the weather of the parcels of land based on the plurality of simulations”; see also para. 0040, 0050-0052, 0054, 0061, 0077, 0079-0080);
based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determine at least one field activity (e.g., a payment entitled to the policyholder) for the field region (para. 0035: “An insurance policy may simply say that if … then the policyholder will be entitled to a payment”; para. 0049: “The pricing module may process data representing a plurality of factors. Example factors taken into account may include the type of crop being grown … the probability of various perils occurring during different stages of the crop's growth cycle, and so forth”).
Friedberg does not mention explicitly: compute a plurality of weight values including a weight value for each weather station of the plurality of weather stations such that weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to the temperature grid have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to the temperature grid; and based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, compute the plurality of simulated temperatures for the temperature grid; wherein said at least one field activity is a field activity for the field region and is transmitted to an agricultural machine configured to perform agricultural activities in the field region wherein the agricultural machine performs the at least one field activity in the field region based on the transmitted at least one field activity.
As discussed for claims 1 and 17 above, YUN’s algorithm of simulating and/or estimating grid meteorological data based on multiple weather stations observations using a spatial interpolation scheme (page 2, last paragraph) encompasses: compute a plurality of weight values including a weight value for each weather station of the plurality of weather stations such that weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to the temperature grid have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to the temperature grid, and based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, computing a plurality of simulated temperatures for the temperature grid (page 5, 7th paragraph – last paragraph; page 6 last paragraph – page 7, 3rd paragraph; see also the discussion of the Inverse Distance Squared Weighting (IDSW) method expressed by Equation 1).
In view of Friedberg and YUN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate YUN’s teaching of IDSW interpolation algorithm into Friedberg to arrive the claimed computing of a plurality of simulated temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids. Doing so would allow for refining the weather values to obtain relatively more accurate temperature estimates at the geographic grids of interest for the purpose of (numerical) weather forecasting (Friedberg, para. 0051: “the simulation may use weather data obtained from the closest proximate location to the parcels of land, while in other example embodiments, a user may specify one or more weather stations from which to obtain weather data for use in the simulation”; YUN, page 2, 2nd paragraph). It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Anderson discloses a computer-implemented method for managing agricultural activities in a field region (para. 0017) implemented using an agricultural intelligence computer system comprising a processor in communication with a memory (para. 0012), comprising: computing a plurality of field condition data for the field region for multiple projected intervals, based on field-specific data, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions (para. 0012: “Processor 36 may additionally have connections with predictive sources, such as future weather conditions …”; para. 0017: “Such information includes soil type, topography, rainfall, temperature, irrigation water amounts and sources as well as external field and weather data to determine whether it is appropriate to harvest the crop in field 12”, “Further determinations may also be made to evaluate the impact of weather, which may cause chemical drift from an adjacent field 14 into field 12”; see also para. 0019); based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determining at least one activity (e.g., "safe to harvest") for the field region (para. 0017: “The evaluation process includes a "safe to enter" determinant that the farm equipment may enter and perform the operation as well as a "safe to harvest" determination, which may include insitu field and weather data that may be from field information node 34 or other predictive sources apart from field 12. … If a problem in field 12 does exist the identified reason may lead to the generation of a remediation plan for field 12, which may include waiting to harvest the field until a mandated waiting period has past after the application of a chemical”); wherein said at least one field activity is a field activity for the field region and is transmitted to an agricultural machine (equipment 20 Fig. 1) configured to perform agricultural activities in the field region wherein the agricultural machine performs the at least one field activity in the field region based on the transmitted at least one field activity (para. 0018-0019).
In view of Friedberg and Anderson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Friedberg’s method for managing agricultural activities to Anderson’s method for managing the operation of agricultural machines based on field data to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for more accurately (Friedberg, para. 0051, 0054) controlling execution of the operation depending on authorized effect of the operation (Anderson, para. 0006).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 18, Friedberg discloses: identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, at least one precipitation grid for the field region (para. 0042: “example system 206 may represent a system associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that provides precipitation data for predetermined geographical grid sizes”; para. 0090) and retrieving a set of recent precipitation data (para. 0038-0039, “Historical data may include … weather information (e.g., temperature, rainfall) to the extent maintained or accessible by the user, and so forth”) and a set of predicted (or estimated) precipitation data for the identified at least one precipitation grid for the field region (para. 0049); and wherein computing the plurality of field condition data is further based on the retrieved set of recent precipitation data and the retrieved set of predicted precipitation data (para. 0049).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Friedberg discloses: determining, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a workability index (e.g., payout rule/schedules for an insurance policy) for the field region based, at least in part, on the set of recent precipitation data and the set of predicted precipitation data (para. 0049); based, at least in part, on the workability index for the field region, determining, by the agricultural intelligence computer, at least one date for performing the at least one field activity in the field region (para. 0052: “to establish a range of dates for a category of weather peril corresponding to a portion of a planting season for the type of crop, wherein the payout rule utilizes a number of days within the range of dates when the threshold is exceeded. …”); and transmitting an alert to the user device including the at least one date for performing the at least one field activity (para. 0079-0080, 0083-0084, 0087: “The progress estimate is adjusted for early or delayed planting by tracking early season temperature and precipitation. Within the Planting Window, the Field Work Day Threshold and Trigger can determine an Estimated Planting Date. …”).
Regarding claim 6, Friedberg discloses: wherein the field-specific data is received from the user device (para. 0038: “the user may be prompted via one or more user interfaces to input identifying information about the user, including both personal information and information regarding the user's land, equipment, and/or agricultural assets sought to be protected”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Friedberg discloses: wherein the at least one field activity includes: planting, nitrogen application, pest and disease treatment, irrigation application, scouting, and/or harvesting (para. 0087: “… for early or delayed planting by tracking early season temperature and precipitation. Within the Planting Window, the Field Work Day Threshold and Trigger can determine an Estimated Planting Date”; see also para. 0091).
8. Claims 5, 8-9, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedberg et al. in view YUN and Anderson, further in view of Ochs et al. (US 11145420 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Friedberg is silent on: wherein the field-specific data is received from the agricultural machine.
Ochs discloses a system and method for managing a crop insurance program, comprising: based, at least in part, on a plurality of field condition data (see discussion of step S101 Fig. 3), determining at least one field activity for a target field region (col. 7, lines 5-28); and directing an agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region (col. 7, lines 17-28); wherein the plurality of field condition data comprises data that is computed based on field-specific data for the field region (col. 7, lines 17-20), and the field-specific data is received from the agricultural machine (col. 3, lines 16-18; col. 4, lines 14-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ochs’s teaching of directing the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity into Friedberg’s agricultural intelligence computer to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would obviously improve the feasibility and applicability of the Friedberg/YUN/Anderson combination, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable as the use of the technique taught by Ochs provides the rationale to arrive at the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claims 8-9, 15-16 and 20, the combination of Friedberg/YUN and Anderson is silent on: comparing, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the field condition data to the one or more thresholds, and in response to the field condition data satisfying the one or more thresholds, transmitting, by the agricultural intelligence computer, an alert relating to the at least one field activity to the user device and/or the agricultural machine; receiving, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of alert preferences from the user device; and identifying the one or more thresholds based on the plurality of alert preferences received from the user device.
The teaching of Ochs includes: comparing the field condition data to one or more thresholds, and in response to the field condition data satisfying the one or more thresholds, transmitting an alert relating to the at least one field activity to the user (col. 13, lines 32-36); receiving a plurality of alert preferences from the user device, and identifying the one or more thresholds based on the plurality of alert preferences received from the user device (col. 13, lines 36-42; see also claim 1: “if it is determined that the field is not compliant with the input management plan, sending an alert ….”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ochs’s teaching of real-time alert and the corresponding correction instruction into the Friedberg’s agricultural intelligence computer to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would obviously improve the feasibility and applicability of the Friedberg/YUN/Anderson combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable as the use of the technique taught by Ochs provides the rationale to arrive at the conclusion of obviousness.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights