DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 April 2026 has been entered.
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, 11, and 13-16 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 17 March 2025, with respect to the objection to Claim 16 has been fully considered, and has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of Claims 14-15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been fully considered, and has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent claim 1 includes “partial-area-specific application map specifying an implementation of the measure for respective subregions of the field”, “wherein the updating and/or refining comprises producing an updated digital application map based on the determined current local required amounts”, and “wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors”. Claim 11 appears to not limit claim 1 further. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seal et al. (US Publication 2005/0149235 A1) in view of Sugumaran et al. (US Publication 2018/0092295 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seal 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 (Seal: Para. 29; overhead sensor that acquires digital spectral image data; overhead sensor may be for example a satellite or airborne remote sensing system) and represents a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology); planning a partial-area-specific agricultural measure in the field based on the digital image of the field and generating a first partial-area-specific application map specifying an implementation of the measure for respective subregions of the field (Seal: Para. 61, 63; completed prescriptions shown by field/zone and request date; number of grid cells found in a field or zone prescription is simply dictated by the size of the field or zone and the size of the grid cells); and carrying out the measure based on the first application map (Seal: Para. 4, 65; a navigation controller controls the delivery rate of agricultural products by an applicator vehicle, as a function of the global position of the vehicle, based on digital maps which divide a field into "zones", according for example to soil types), ………. , continuously adapting the implementation of the measure by updating and/or refining the first application map with the current local parameter(s) recorded by the independently moving field sensors (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64, 67; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology) ……….. , wherein the updating and/or refining comprises producing an updated digital application map based on the determined current local required amounts and reading the updated digital application map into a control unit and/or working memory of the at least one application device (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64, 67; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology), such that the at least one application device, when located at corresponding positions in and/or over the field, applies the respective local required amounts specified by the updated digital application map (Seal: Para. 4, 65; a navigation controller controls the delivery rate of agricultural products by an applicator vehicle, as a function of the global position of the vehicle, based on digital maps which divide a field into "zones", according for example to soil types).
Seal doesn’t explicitly teach 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, the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field ………. to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure, wherein the current local parameter(s) comprise values from which current local required amounts for the agricultural measure are determined ……. wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors, 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 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; a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; remote sensor), the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field (Sugumaran: Para. 31, 58; communication with a remote sensor; UAV) ………. 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 current local parameter(s) comprise values from which current local required amounts for the agricultural measure are determined (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 153-155; 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; identifying suggested modifications to the route specification; prompting the user to modify the route specification using the suggested modifications) ……. wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 58, 70), 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).
Sugumaran teaches remote sensors on a UAV or a satellite and ground-based sensors on the vehicle or in the field which collect data about the field from a variety of sensors (Sugumaran: Para. 37 58, 70). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the spatial resolution of a field sensor would be higher than the spatial resolution of the remote sensor. The distance between the satellite's sensor to the field and the field's sensor to the field are obviously significant and thus would make the spatial resolution for the field's sensor to be higher.
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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the digital image is a satellite image (Seal: Para. 29; overhead sensor that acquires digital spectral image data; overhead sensor may be for example a satellite).
Regarding claim 12, Seal 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 (Seal: Para. 48, 50; 3-band multispectral sensor that acquires digital imagery in three portions of the light spectrum; red and nir wavelengths are used to generate the scout or vegetation index maps; create variable-rate prescription requests based on the NDVI images), wherein the predicted state is used to plan the agricultural measure (Seal: Para. 48; create variable-rate prescription requests based on the NDVI images).
Regarding claim 13, Seal 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 (Seal: Para. 29; overhead sensor that acquires digital spectral image data; overhead sensor may be for example a satellite or airborne remote sensing system) and represents a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology); provide user support, based on the digital image of the field, in generating a first 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 (Seal: Para. 61, 63; completed prescriptions shown by field/zone and request date; number of grid cells found in a field or zone prescription is simply dictated by the size of the field or zone and the size of the grid cells); and ……… and continuously adapt implementation of the measure to the current local state by updating and/or refining the first application map with the current local parameter(s) of the current local state recorded by the independently moving field sensors (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64, 67; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology) ……….. , wherein the updating and/or refining comprises producing an updated digital application map based on the determined current local required amounts and reading the updated digital application map into a control unit and/or working memory of the at least one application device (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology), such that the at least one application device, when located at corresponding positions in and/or over the field, applies the respective local required amounts specified by the updated digital application map (Seal: Para. 4, 65; a navigation controller controls the delivery rate of agricultural products by an applicator vehicle, as a function of the global position of the vehicle, based on digital maps which divide a field into "zones", according for example to soil types).
Seal doesn’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 first application map by means of one or a plurality of field sensors, the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field ……. to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure, wherein the current local parameter(s) comprise values from which current local required amounts for the agricultural measure are determined ………. wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors, 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 first 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), the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field (Sugumaran: Para. 31, 58; communication with a remote sensor; UAV) ……. 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 current local parameter(s) comprise values from which current local required amounts for the agricultural measure are determined (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 153-155; 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; identifying suggested modifications to the route specification; prompting the user to modify the route specification using the suggested modifications) ………. wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 58, 70), 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).
Sugumaran teaches remote sensors on a UAV or a satellite and ground-based sensors on the vehicle or in the field which collect data about the field from a variety of sensors (Sugumaran: Para. 37 58, 70). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the spatial resolution of a field sensor would be higher than the spatial resolution of the remote sensor. The distance between the satellite's sensor to the field and the field's sensor to the field are obviously significant and thus would make the spatial resolution for the field's sensor to be higher.
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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal doesn’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 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 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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the second computer system component is the at least one application device and/or the at least one 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 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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal 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 (Seal: Para. 29; overhead sensor that acquires digital spectral image data; overhead sensor may be for example a satellite or airborne remote sensing system) and representing a biophysical condition of the field at a time within a predetermined temporal proximity of a planned agricultural measure (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology); planning the agricultural measure based on the digital image and generating a first partial-area-specific application map specifying an implementation of the measure for respective subregions of the field (Seal: Para. 61, 63; completed prescriptions shown by field/zone and request date; number of grid cells found in a field or zone prescription is simply dictated by the size of the field or zone and the size of the grid cells); carrying out the measure based on the first application map (Seal: Para. 4, 65; a navigation controller controls the delivery rate of agricultural products by an applicator vehicle, as a function of the global position of the vehicle, based on digital maps which divide a field into "zones", according for example to soil types), ………. ; continuously adapting the implementation of the measure by updating and/or refining the first application map with the current local parameter(s) recorded by the independently moving field sensors (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64, 67; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology) ……… , wherein the updating and/or refining comprises producing an updated digital application map based on the determined current local required amounts and reading the updated digital application map into a control unit and/or working memory of the at least one application device (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology), such that the at least one application device, when located at corresponding positions in and/or over the field, applies the respective local required amounts specified by the updated digital application map (Seal: Para. 4, 65; a navigation controller controls the delivery rate of agricultural products by an applicator vehicle, as a function of the global position of the vehicle, based on digital maps which divide a field into "zones", according for example to soil types).
Seal doesn’t explicitly teach wherein during the implementation, one or a plurality of field sensors record one or a plurality of current local parameters over the field, the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field ……… to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure, wherein the current local parameter(s) comprise values from which current local required amounts for the agricultural measure are determined ……… wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors; 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 wherein during the implementation, one or a plurality of field sensors record one or a plurality of current local parameters over the field (Sugumaran: Para. 58; a sensor that is sensing during the planting operation as the agricultural vehicle moves throughout a field; remote sensor), the one or plurality of field sensors moving independently from at least one application device through or over the field (Sugumaran: Para. 31, 58; communication with a remote sensor; UAV) ……… 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 current local parameter(s) comprise values from which current local required amounts for the agricultural measure are determined (Sugumaran: Para. 58, 153-155; 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; identifying suggested modifications to the route specification; prompting the user to modify the route specification using the suggested modifications) ……… wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors (Sugumaran: Para. 37, 58, 70); 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).
Sugumaran teaches remote sensors on a UAV or a satellite and ground-based sensors on the vehicle or in the field which collect data about the field from a variety of sensors (Sugumaran: Para. 37 58, 70). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the spatial resolution of a field sensor would be higher than the spatial resolution of the remote sensor. The distance between the satellite's sensor to the field and the field's sensor to the field are obviously significant and thus would make the spatial resolution for the field's sensor to be higher.
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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal doesn’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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one 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 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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal doesn’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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal doesn’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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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 2-4, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seal et al. (US Publication 2005/0149235 A1) in view of Sugumaran et al. (US Publication 2018/0092295 A1) and in further view of staples et al. (US Publication 2019/0059203 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Seal and Sugumaran doesn’t explicitly teach 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; determining the total amount required to meet the determined requirement, wherein the total amount is determined based on the at least one digital image; and providing implementation of the agricultural measure based on the total amount determined.
However Staples, in the same field of endeavor, teaches 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).
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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) and the calculated variable rate to different areas (Staples: Para. 57) with a reasonable expectation of success because
Regarding claim 3, Seal and Sugumaran doesn’t explicitly teach determining the partial-area-specific amounts required to meet the determined requirement.
However Staples, in the same field of endeavor, teaches 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).
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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) and the calculated variable rate to different areas (Staples: Para. 57) with a reasonable expectation of success because
Regarding claim 4, Seal 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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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 7, Seal and Sugumaran doesn’t explicitly teach 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.
However Staples, in the same field of endeavor, teaches 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).
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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) and the calculated variable rate to different areas (Staples: Para. 57) with a reasonable expectation of success because
Regarding claim 9, Seal and Sugumaran 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, in the same field of endeavor, teaches 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.
Staples generates a vegetative index (Staples: Para. 0036) using information on crop type, % organic matter, nitrogen budget, irrigation information (Staples: Para. 0032). 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. 0005). 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 having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77) and the calculated variable rate to different areas (Staples: Para. 57) with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seal et al. (US Publication 2005/0149235 A1) in view of Sugumaran et al. (US Publication 2018/0092295 A1) and in further view of Starr (US Publication 2018/0014452 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Seal 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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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, Seal 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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seal et al. (US Publication 2005/0149235 A1) in view of Sugumaran et al. (US Publication 2018/0092295 A1), Starr (US Publication 2018/0014452 A1), and in further view of Koutsorodi et al (US Publication/0027725 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Seal, Sugumaran, and Starr don’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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with the route creation for a variable rate agriculture application taught in Sugumaran (Sugumaran: Para. 72, 77), the imminent pest infestation taught in Starr (Starr: Para. 77), and 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, Seal teaches the method according to claim 10, 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 (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 49, 64, 67; remotely sensed spectral image data are used to develop a Vegetation Index image; user selects the desired date of image acquisition; real-time georeferenced image data could then be transferred directly to processing center; process is automated and the turnaround time can be as little as approximately three minutes using currently available technology).
Seal doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors.
However Sugumaran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or plurality of field sensors has a higher spatial resolution than the one or plurality of remote sensors.
Sugumaran teaches remote sensors on a UAV or a satellite and ground-based sensors on the vehicle or in the field which collect data about the field from a variety of sensors (Sugumaran: Para. 37 58, 70). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the spatial resolution of a field sensor would be higher than the spatial resolution of the remote sensor. The distance between the satellite's sensor to the field and the field's sensor to the field are obviously significant and thus would make the spatial resolution for the field's sensor to be higher.
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 variable rate delivery system based on spectral image data (Seal: Para. 29) with 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 April 2026, 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 “planning a partial-area-specific agricultural measure in the field based on the digital image of the field and generating a first partial-area-specific application map” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the applicant’s argument is moot because newly applied prior art Seal teaches this limitation.
The applicant next argues that “carrying out the measure based on the first application map” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the applicant’s argument is moot because newly applied prior art Seal teaches this limitation.
The applicant next argues that “continuously adapting the implementation of the measure by updating and/or refining the first application map with the current local parameter(s) recorded by the independently moving field sensors” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the applicant’s argument is moot because newly applied prior art Seal teaches this limitation.
The applicant next argues that “to locally modify the implementation of the measure during the measure, wherein the current local parameter(s) comprise values from which current local required amounts for the agricultural measure are determined” is not taught by the prior arts.
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). Sugumaran teaches identifying suggested modifications and prompting the modification of the route using the suggestions (Sugumaran: Para. 153-154). The prior art teaches locally modifying the rout during the measure based on current local parameters.
The applicant next argues that “wherein the updating and/or refining comprises producing an updated digital application map based on the determined current local required amounts and reading the updated digital application map into a control unit and/or working memory of the at least one application device, such that the at least one application device, when located at corresponding positions in and/or over the field, applies the respective local required amounts specified by the updated digital application map” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the applicant’s argument is moot because newly applied prior art Seal teaches this limitation.
The applicant next argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of Sugumaran in an attempt to implement the recited two-stage map workflow.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Seal uses digital image created vegetation index to create prescription change rates for different zones throughout the field in as little as three minute turnaround (Seal: Para. 15, 38, 63). Sugumaran uses sensor data during the planting operation to make changes in the pre-computed prescription map (Sugumaran: Para. 58). It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to record what the implement actually does as it treats/plants/operates across a field. It is logical to use an acquired digital image to come up with a prescription map (Seal: Para. 61, 63). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current sensor data to modify, refine, or updated the planned prescription map to improve effectiveness of the system, not waste time or product for prescription that is no longer right with current sensor data, and improves crop growth and yield due to current sensor data.
The applicant argues that arguments applied to claim 1 would similarly apply to claims 13 and 16.
In response to the argument above, the examiner addressed the applicant’s argument above. Those responses would similarly apply to claims 13 and 16.
The applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable at least based on their dependencies.
In response to the argument above, the independent claims are rejected. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
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, Seal’s digital image prescription map in view of Sugumaran’s UAV field imaging feedback reads on applicant’s planning and implementing agricultural measures. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights