DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 13, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 5, line 28 “with the the current” should be – with the the current --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 13, and 16’s “a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure” is being interpreted by the examiner as a vegetation or soil data, such as in index, that is taken at a time that is near to the time for which the agricultural measure is planned (Specification 130, 131). The times given are one month, one week, no more than five days (Specification 131). Therefore a time within a predetermined temporal proximity is within a month of the planned agricultural measure.
Claims 1, 13, and 16’s “the application map to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure” is being interpreted by the examiner as using the partial-area-specific agricultural measure modify settings of the implement during the vehicle performing the agricultural action on the field called a measure.
Claims 14-15 and 18’s “terrestrial field sensors” is being interpreted by the examiner as a field sensor with a range limited to the surrounding environment to give information about the local area in the field. The field sensor can be attached to a vehicle in the field, distributed in stationary fashion in and/or over the field (Specification: Para. 123, 146).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Claims 14-15 and 18 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The term field sensor is supported by the specification, but the term “terrestrial field sensor” is not supported by the applicant’s specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15 and 18 recites the limitation "terrestrial field sensor" which does not have antecedent basis. Claims 1, 13, and 16 have been amended to remove “terrestrial field sensor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples et al. (US Publication 2019/0059203 A1) in view of Koutsorodi et al (US Publication/0027725 A1) and in further view of Sugumaran et al. (US Publication 2018/0092295 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Staples teaches a method comprising: receiving at least one digital image of a field for crop plants, wherein the at least one digital image has been generated by one or a plurality of remote sensors (Staples: Para. 5-6; remote sensing satellite imagery to maximize the grower's budgeted fertilizer products over his/her fields) and ……… ; planning a partial-area-specific agricultural measure in the field based on the digital image of the field and generating partial-area-specific application map specifying an implementation of the measure for respective subregions of the field (Staples: Para. 5-6; generating a prescription map for the field that indicates a distribution of the fertilizer product)
Staples doesn’t explicitly teach represents a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure ………. , the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field.
However Koutsorodi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches represents a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 29, 61; image processing to build crop health indices (e.g., such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) images); precision agriculture system may receive farm-related information at particular time intervals (e.g., once an hour, once a day, once a week, or the like)) ………. , the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 61; sensor device may include or be attached to a UAV; precision agriculture system may receive farm-related information at particular time intervals (e.g., once an hour, once a day, once a week, or the like)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5) with the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the threshold based on a commodity size threshold value at a time of capture of the imagery data as taught by Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98).
Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach carrying out the measure based on the application map, wherein during the implementation of the measure, one or a plurality of field sensors records one or a plurality of current local parameters over the field …….. continuously adapting implementation of the measure by updating and/or refining the application map with the current local parameter(s) recorded by the independently moving field sensors with the digital image and the application map to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure, wherein the remote and field sensors together cover at least an area in the environment of an apparatus for implementing the agricultural measure.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches carrying out the measure based on the application map, wherein during the implementation of the measure, one or a plurality of field sensors records one or a plurality of current local parameters over the field (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65; adjusting an operating parameter such as the angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, or rotational speed; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; at least some of the sensors can be stationary sensors not configured to move with the agricultural vehicle, but to remain at location within the worksite) …….. continuously adapting implementation of the measure by updating and/or refining the application map with the current local parameter(s) recorded by the independently moving field sensors with the digital image (Sugumaran: Para. 39, 58; as the agricultural machine approaches an area of high soil moisture, the row unit depth may be decreased; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; one of sensors that is attached to agricultural vehicle; image, once taken by UAV, can be sent to vehicle where it is processed, for example by controller, along with a priori knowledge, to generate a site specific prescription) and the application map to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure (Sugumaran: Para. 58; adjustments of controllable subsystems, as indicated in block 470, can be pre-computed or computed dynamically in near real time), wherein the remote and field sensors together cover at least an area in the environment of an apparatus for implementing the agricultural measure (Sugumaran: Para. 34, 39, 37; sensors can include one or more temperature sensors, soil moisture sensors, as well as sensors related to the controllable subsystems; UAV can take an infrared image of a field in order to determine current soil temperatures; agricultural vehicle includes a closed loop control system such that the actual depth measured by a row unit depth sensor is then reported back to controller which adjusts a depth controlling mechanism (such as a down force actuator) on the row unit accordingly, based on the measured depth and the prescribed depth).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 2, Staples teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein planning of the partial-area-specific agricultural measure comprises: determining, based on the digital image and a plant growth model, a requirement of at least a portion of the field and/or the cultivated crop plants for one or a plurality of agricultural measures selected from the following list: cultivating the soil, application of seeds, treatment with one or a plurality of plant protection agents, application of nutrients, and watering (Staples: Para. 5, 57; a final Rx is generated reads on determining a requirement; different areas of the field (classes) have different product rates reads on a portion of the field; how much fertilizer is to be put on a given area of the field reads on application of nutrients); determining the total amount required to meet the determined requirement, wherein the total amount is determined based on the at least one digital image (Staples: Para. 5, 57; assessing a vegetative index such as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) from 1-to-many satellite images of the given field; final Rx is generated by taking into account all of the received user inputs and the calculations described above); and providing implementation of the agricultural measure based on the total amount determined (Staples: Para. 4; providing a prescription for spatial distribution of the selected product over a given field).
Regarding claim 3, Staples teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein planning of the partial-area-specific agricultural measure further comprises: determining the partial-area-specific amounts required to meet the determined requirement (Staples: Para. 57; different areas of the field (classes) have different product rates prescribed, which makes the Rx a variable rate Rx).
Regarding claim 4, Staples and Koutsorodi doesn’t explicitly teach specifying the route of one or a plurality of apparatuses through or over the field for implementing the agricultural measure based on the total amount determined and/or the partial-area-specific required amounts.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches specifying the route of one or a plurality of apparatuses through or over the field for implementing the agricultural measure based on the total amount determined and/or the partial-area-specific required amounts (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77; agricultural vehicle, in one example, can control the rate of a chemical applied to a worksite as the vehicle moves over the site based on a designated application rate indicated by plan; the generated route could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a planting operation or a chemical application operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 5, Staples teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the digital image is a satellite image (Staples: Para. 5; assessing a vegetative index such as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) from 1-to-many satellite images of the given field).
Regarding claim 7, Staples teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein a nutrient deficit has been detected or a nutrient deficit has been predicted in the field, and there is therefore a requirement for treatment with one or a plurality of nutrients (Staples: Para. 6, 32; analysis to convert a rate from weight of a particular component (N/K/P/S) to a rate of a specified product (having a percentage of the component of interest), override option, minimum nitrogen; generating a prescription map for the field that indicates a distribution of the fertilizer product in the total available fertilizer budget using field patterns determined from the vegetative index values, and taking into account the native soil nutrient supply determined from the mineralization map).
Regarding claim 12, Staples teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one digital image of the field is used to predict the state of the field for the period of the planned agricultural measure (Staples: Para. 5; assessing a vegetative index such as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) from 1-to-many satellite images of the given field), wherein the predicted state is used to plan the agricultural measure (Staples: Para. 36; images are useful for soil calculations).
Regarding claim 13, Staples teaches a system comprising: a first computer system configured to: receive at least one digital image of a field for crop plants, wherein the at least one digital image has been generated using one or a plurality of remote sensors (Staples: Para. 5-6; remote sensing satellite imagery to maximize the grower's budgeted fertilizer products over his/her fields) and ……… ; provide user support, based on the digital image of the field, in generating a partial-area-specific application map specifying an agricultural measure in the field, wherein the computer system determines means that must be provided for the partial-area-specific implementation of the measure for respective subregions of the field (Staples: Para. 5-6; generating a prescription map for the field that indicates a distribution of the fertilizer product).
Staples doesn’t explicitly teach represents a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure ……… the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field.
However Koutsorodi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches represents a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 29, 61; image processing to build crop health indices (e.g., such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) images); precision agriculture system may receive farm-related information at particular time intervals (e.g., once an hour, once a day, once a week, or the like)) ……… the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 61; sensor device may include or be attached to a UAV; precision agriculture system may receive farm-related information at particular time intervals (e.g., once an hour, once a day, once a week, or the like)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5) with the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the threshold based on a commodity size threshold value at a time of capture of the imagery data as taught by Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98).
Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach a second computer system configured to: determine the current local state of the field in implementation of the measure based on the application map by means of one or a plurality of field sensors, …….. and continuously adapt implementation of the measure to the current local state by updating and/or refining the application map with the current local parameter(s) of the current local state recorded by the independently moving field sensors with the digital image and the application map to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure, wherein the remote and field sensors together cover at least an area in the environment of an apparatus for implementing the agricultural measure.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a second computer system configured to: determine the current local state of the field in implementation of the measure based on the application map by means of one or a plurality of field sensors (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65; adjusting an operating parameter such as the angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, or rotational speed; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; at least some of the sensors can be stationary sensors not configured to move with the agricultural vehicle, but to remain at location within the worksite), …….. and continuously adapt implementation of the measure to the current local state by updating and/or refining the application map with the current local parameter(s) of the current local state recorded by the independently moving field sensors with the digital image (Sugumaran: Para. 39, 58; as the agricultural machine approaches an area of high soil moisture, the row unit depth may be decreased; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; one of sensors that is attached to agricultural vehicle; image, once taken by UAV, can be sent to vehicle where it is processed, for example by controller, along with a priori knowledge, to generate a site specific prescription) and the application map to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure (Sugumaran: Para. 58; adjustments of controllable subsystems, as indicated in block 470, can be pre-computed or computed dynamically in near real time), wherein the remote and field sensors together cover at least an area in the environment of an apparatus for implementing the agricultural measure (Sugumaran: Para. 34, 39, 37; sensors can include one or more temperature sensors, soil moisture sensors, as well as sensors related to the controllable subsystems; UAV can take an infrared image of a field in order to determine current soil temperatures; agricultural vehicle includes a closed loop control system such that the actual depth measured by a row unit depth sensor is then reported back to controller which adjusts a depth controlling mechanism (such as a down force actuator) on the row unit accordingly, based on the measured depth and the prescribed depth).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 14, Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach further comprising at least one application device, which is configured such that it moves through and/or over the field while applying the current local required amounts, and/or at least one terrestrial field sensor for detecting local conditions in the field.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising at least one application device, which is configured such that it moves through and/or over the field while applying the current local required amounts, and/or at least one terrestrial field sensor for detecting local conditions in the field (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65; adjusting an operating parameter such as the angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, or rotational speed; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; at least some of the sensors can be stationary sensors not configured to move with the agricultural vehicle, but to remain at location within the worksite).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 15, Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach wherein the second computer system component is the at least one application device and/or the at least one terrestrial field sensor moves in and/or over the field together with the at least one application device.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second computer system component is the at least one application device and/or the at least one terrestrial field sensor moves in and/or over the field together with the at least one application device (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65; adjusting an operating parameter such as the angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, or rotational speed; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; at least some of the sensors can be stationary sensors not configured to move with the agricultural vehicle, but to remain at location within the worksite).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 16, Staples teaches a method for implementing a partial-area-specific agricultural measure in a field for crop plants, comprising: receiving at least one digital image of the field generated by one or a plurality of remote sensors (Staples: Para. 5-6; remote sensing satellite imagery to maximize the grower's budgeted fertilizer products over his/her fields) and ……. ; planning the agricultural measure based on the digital image and generating partial-area-specific application map specifying an implementation of the measure for respective subregions of the field (Staples: Para. 5-6; generating a prescription map for the field that indicates a distribution of the fertilizer product).
Staples doesn’t explicitly teach representing a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure ……. the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field.
However Koutsorodi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches representing a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 29, 61; image processing to build crop health indices (e.g., such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) images); precision agriculture system may receive farm-related information at particular time intervals (e.g., once an hour, once a day, once a week, or the like)) ……. the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 61; sensor device may include or be attached to a UAV; precision agriculture system may receive farm-related information at particular time intervals (e.g., once an hour, once a day, once a week, or the like)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5) with the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the threshold based on a commodity size threshold value at a time of capture of the imagery data as taught by Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98).
Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach carrying out the measure based on the application map, wherein during the implementation, one or a plurality of current local parameters over the field, ………. continuously adapting the implement of the measure by updating and/or refining the application map with the the current local parameter(s) recorded by the by independently moving field sensors with the digital image and the application map to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure; wherein the remote and field sensors together cover at least an area environment of an apparatus for implementing the agricultural measure.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches based on the application map, wherein during the implementation, one or a plurality of current local parameters over the field (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65; adjusting an operating parameter such as the angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, or rotational speed; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; at least some of the sensors can be stationary sensors not configured to move with the agricultural vehicle, but to remain at location within the worksite), ………. continuously adapting the implement of the measure by updating and/or refining the application map with the the current local parameter(s) recorded by the by independently moving field sensors with the digital image (Sugumaran: Para. 39, 58; as the agricultural machine approaches an area of high soil moisture, the row unit depth may be decreased; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; one of sensors that is attached to agricultural vehicle; image, once taken by UAV, can be sent to vehicle where it is processed, for example by controller, along with a priori knowledge, to generate a site specific prescription) and the application map to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure (Sugumaran: Para. 58; adjustments of controllable subsystems, as indicated in block 470, can be pre-computed or computed dynamically in near real time); wherein the remote and field sensors together cover at least an area environment of an apparatus for implementing the agricultural measure (Sugumaran: Para. 34, 39, 37; sensors can include one or more temperature sensors, soil moisture sensors, as well as sensors related to the controllable subsystems; UAV can take an infrared image of a field in order to determine current soil temperatures; agricultural vehicle includes a closed loop control system such that the actual depth measured by a row unit depth sensor is then reported back to controller which adjusts a depth controlling mechanism (such as a down force actuator) on the row unit accordingly, based on the measured depth and the prescribed depth).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 17, Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach wherein the planned agricultural measure is carried out using the detected local parameters to adapt the implementation to the local requirements in the field.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the planned agricultural measure is carried out using the detected local parameters to adapt the implementation to the local requirements in the field (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65; adjusting an operating parameter such as the angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, or rotational speed; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; at least some of the sensors can be stationary sensors not configured to move with the agricultural vehicle, but to remain at location within the worksite).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 18, Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one terrestrial field sensor determines at least one parameter locally in the field that is taken into account for implementation of the agricultural measure to ensure appropriate treatment.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one terrestrial field sensor determines at least one parameter locally in the field that is taken into account for implementation of the agricultural measure to ensure appropriate treatment (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65; adjusting an operating parameter such as the angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, or rotational speed; adjusting a controllable subsystem comprises taking into account a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; at least some of the sensors can be stationary sensors not configured to move with the agricultural vehicle, but to remain at location within the worksite).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 19, Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one digital image is produced at a time that is near to the time for which the agricultural measure is planned, with the time of the image and the time of the agricultural measure being separated by not more than one month.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one digital image is produced at a time that is near to the time for which the agricultural measure is planned, with the time of the image and the time of the agricultural measure being separated by not more than one month (Sugumaran: Para. 45, 49, 56; the second worksite data set is obtained at a later time than the first worksite data set (for example on a different day); two data sets (e.g., the two images); generating a differential worksite map comprises combining the second worksite data set with the first worksite data set; generating a differential worksite map also includes a projected future soil temperature based on the worksite data available and expected weather conditions, for example within the next 7-10 days).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Regarding claim 20, Staples and Koutsorodi don’t explicitly teach wherein one or a plurality of prediction models are used to calculate the current state of the field, wherein calculating the current state of the field is based on data corresponding to a dynamic between time in which the digital image is captured and time in which the agriculture measure can be implemented.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein one or a plurality of prediction models are used to calculate the current state of the field, wherein calculating the current state of the field is based on data corresponding to a dynamic between time in which the digital image is captured and time in which the agriculture measure can be implemented (Sugumaran: Para. 22; because snow melt can be a key source of moisture for many areas, it can be helpful for a farmer to understand how much snow has accumulated, where the snow has accumulated, and therefore, how the snow is affecting the soil moisture; this can be used to influence a wide variety of different decisions such as when the land is dry enough to begin planting).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), and the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because the generated route based on collected information could be used by either agricultural vehicle to conduct a chemical application operation or any other operation such as flying a UAV over the route to collect images as taught by Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 77).
Claims 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples et al. (US Publication 2019/0059203 A1) in view of Koutsorodi et al (US Publication/0027725 A1), Sugumaran et al. (US Publication 2018/0092295 A1), and in further view of Starr (US Publication 2018/0014452 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Staples, Koutsorodi, and Sugumaran don’t explicitly teach wherein a pest infestation has been detected or a pest infestation is imminent in the field and there is therefore a requirement for treatment with a plant protection agent.
However Starr, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a pest infestation has been detected or a pest infestation is imminent in the field and there is therefore a requirement for treatment with a plant protection agent (Starr: Para. 77; pest problems on a nearby field operated by another farmer may be relevant to the user's fields).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77), and the imminent pest infestation taught in Starr (Starr: Para. 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because pest problems on a nearby field operated by another farmer with a similar crop being integrated relevant information for the user’s fields as taught by Starr (Starr: Para. 77).
Regarding claim 8, Staples, Koutsorodi, and Sugumaran don’t explicitly teach wherein there is a requirement for spreading seeds in the field.
However Starr, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein there is a requirement for spreading seeds in the field (Starr: Para. 87; determine the most appropriate seed rate (e.g., how many seeds to plant per acre)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77), and the imminent pest infestation taught in Starr (Starr: Para. 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because pest problems on a nearby field operated by another farmer with a similar crop being integrated relevant information for the user’s fields as taught by Starr (Starr: Para. 77).
Regarding claim 9, Staples doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the partial-area-specific required amount depends on the amount of biomass present in the field, which is preferably derived based on a vegetation index from the at least one digital image.
However, Staples is deemed to disclose an equivalent teaching. Staples generates a vegetative index (Staples: Para. 36) using information on crop type, % organic matter, nitrogen budget, irrigation information (Staples: Para. 32). Staples assesses a vegetative index such as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) from 1-to-many satellite images of the given field (Staples: Para. 5). The dictionary defines biomass as the total mass of organic material in a given area or volume, therefore the % of organic matter in a given area is the amount of biomass present in the field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have an area specific requirement based on the biomass from the vegetation index of a digital image taught in Staples with a reasonable expectation of success because generating a prescription map for the field with a goal of achieving an efficient use of the budgeted products as taught by Staples (Staples: Para. 4-6).
Regarding claim 10, Staples doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the partial-area-specific required amount depends on the size of the leaf areas present, which is preferably derived from a leaf area index from the at least one digital image.
However Koutsorodi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the partial-area-specific required amount depends on the size of the leaf areas present, which is preferably derived from a leaf area index from the at least one digital image (Koutsorodi: Para. 98; leaves associated with a cotton crop, at a time of capture of the imagery data, measures 7-10 centimeters in diameter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5) with the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the threshold based on a commodity size threshold value at a time of capture of the imagery data as taught by Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98).
Regarding claim 11, Staples, Koutsorodi, and Sugumaran don’t explicitly teach wherein based on the partial-area-specific required amounts, a digital application map is prepared, which is updated and/or refined using the local parameters in implementing the agricultural measure.
However Starr, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein based on the partial-area-specific required amounts, a digital application map is prepared, which is updated and/or refined using the local parameters in implementing the agricultural measure (Starr: Para. 54, 77; optimizing the limiting agronomic factor for a particular field may require multiple sets of data: 1) pre-planting information for that information, 2) an accurate map of actual plant progress).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prescription map for the field in Staples (Staples: Para. 5), the measurement of crop leaves taught in Koutsorodi (Koutsorodi: Para. 98), the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77), and the imminent pest infestation taught in Starr (Starr: Para. 77) with a reasonable expectation of success because pest problems on a nearby field operated by another farmer with a similar crop being integrated relevant information for the user’s fields as taught by Starr (Starr: Para. 77).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 9 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 13-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered. The rejection for claims 1, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn. The rejection of claims 14-15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s attorney argues that the prior arts fail to teach “the temporal proximity of the remote image” found in claim 1.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the claim interpretation above clarifies “the temporal proximity of the remote image” is a remote image of the field taken within a month or less of the agriculture operation. Koutsorodi teaches a UAV’s sensor device taking images of the field at a time interval between the image and the agricultural operation of once an hour, once a day, or once a week (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 29, 61).
The applicant next argues that the prior arts fail to teach “the use of independently moving field sensors” found in claim 1.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the claim can be interpreted as one field sensor moving independently from an application device over the field. Koutsorodi teaches a UAV’s sensor device taking images of the field as the UAV files over the field (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 29, 61).
The applicant next argues that the prior arts fail to teach “the real-time updating and/or refinement of the application map” found in claim 1.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Sugumaran teaches sensors attached to the agricultural vehicle. These sensors provide field data during the planting operation that is used to dynamically adjust the operating parameters of the vehicle such as angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, and rotational speed (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65). The agricultural machine’s sensors provide real time data so that operating parameters of the cover map can be adjusted based on sensor data from the vehicle traveling through the field (Sugumaran: Para. 39, 58). The applicant claims refinement of the application map and Sugumaran at least teaches a refinement due to sensor data.
The applicant next argues that Sugumaran doesn’t teach modifies the application map based on updated ground conditions found in claim 1.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Sugumaran teaches sensors attached to the agricultural vehicle. These sensors provide field data during the planting operation that is used to dynamically adjust the operating parameters of the vehicle such as angle of a residue engaging member relative to the direction of travel, the height above ground, and rotational speed (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65). The agricultural machine’s sensors provide real time data so that operating parameters of the cover map can be adjusted based on sensor data from the vehicle traveling through the field (Sugumaran: Para. 39, 58). The applicant claims refinement of the application map and Sugumaran at least teaches a refinement due to sensor data.
The applicant next argues that there is no motivation to combine the prior arts.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the primary prior art Staples uses satellite imagery of the field to generate a prescription map for an agricultural action on the field (Staples: Para. 5-6). Koutsorodi teaches a UAV attached sensor device to determine a normalized difference vegetation index from the images to determine precision agriculture operations (Koutsorodi: Para. 27, 29, 61). Sugumaran teaches field sensors and vehicle sensors working together to determine field information to adjust the operation parameter for the agricultural vehicle as it moves throughout the field (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 65). Starr teaches using local field data and nearby field data to determine the appropriate amounts of inputs to apply to a crop (Starr: Para. 54, 77, 87). All the prior arts are in the field of precision agricultural where they use multiple sources of information to determine an evolving prescription map of a field for an agriculture operation.
In response to the argument above, the examiner addressed the applicant’s argument above. That response would similarly apply to claims 13 and 16.
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Staples’s prescription map in view of Koutsorodi’s UAV field imaging timing, Sugumaran’s UAV field imaging feedback, and Starr’s soil sampler reads on applicant’s planning and implementing agricultural measures. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663