DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “a model constructing module, an optimizing module, a parameter calibrating module, a judging module, a result generating module” (as cited in claim 10) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function based on fig. 6 and executed by a logic gate circuit([0148]) .
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 10 recites the limitation "[..] the measured evaporation data [..]" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Remaining claims are also rejected due to dependency of the base independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-10 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-99 fall within category of process; each of claim10 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 1-9
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of evaluating effective green water resources based on dynamic crop coefficients.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
A method of evaluating effective green water resources based on dynamic crop coefficients, comprising:
dividing and extracting an area to be measured to obtain watershed information, and dividing hydrological response units according to the watershed information;
constructing a SWAT model according to the hydrological response units and meteorological data, reservoir data and farmland management data obtained in advance;
constructing a mathematical relation expression of vegetation potential transpiration according to crop information, soil information and meteorological information obtained in advance, and optimizing a calculation formula of vegetation transpiration in the SWAT model according to the expression to simulate dynamic crop coefficients;
evaluating evapotranspiration results and crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model according to the measured evaporation data and leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance, and calibrating crop growth parameters and evapotranspiration parameters in the SWAT model according to the evaluation result;
judging evaporation effectiveness according to a land cover type and a dynamic coverage calculation method;
using the SWAT model to simulate vegetation coverage every day according to the judgment result, and obtaining a total amount of effective green water resources in the area to be measured according to the simulation result..
The italicized limitations above represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “constructing a SWAT model [..]; constructing a mathematical relation expression [..]; evaluating evapotranspiration results and crop leaf area index simulation results [..]; judging evaporation effectiveness [..]; using the SWAT model to simulate vegetation coverage every day [..] ” are combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “dividing and extracting an area to be measured to obtain watershed information, and dividing hydrological response units according to the watershed information” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea..
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-9
Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claim 6 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-9: a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 contains language similar to claims 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (Impacts of agricultural intensification through upscaling of suitable rainwater harvesting technologies in the upper Ewaso Ng’iro North Basin, Kenya, Chapter 8, 2010) in view of Jiang et al. (Simulation of water and salt transport in the Kaidu River Irrigation District using the modified SWAT-Salt, 2022).
Regarding claims 1 and 10. Su teaches a method of evaluating effective green water resources based on dynamic crop coefficients, comprising(abstract, p-148):
dividing and extracting an area to be measured to obtain watershed information, and dividing hydrological response units according to the watershed information(data requirements: section 8.2.3, fig. 8.1; page 152-153);
constructing a SWAT model according to the hydrological response units and meteorological data, reservoir data and farmland management data obtained in advance(description of swat model: section 8.2.2; pages 151-152; section 8.2.4, page 153);
constructing a mathematical relation expression of vegetation potential transpiration according to crop information, soil information and meteorological information obtained in advance, and optimizing a calculation formula of vegetation transpiration in the SWAT model according to the expression to simulate dynamic crop coefficients(Model calibration and validation, model simulation: section 8.3.1-8.3.2, pages 154-155);
calibrating crop growth parameters and evapotranspiration parameters in the SWAT model according to the evaluation result (table 8.1, page 154);
judging evaporation effectiveness according to a land cover type and a dynamic coverage calculation method (land cover/use changes an population: section 8.3.3, pages 155-154);
using the SWAT model to simulate vegetation coverage every day according to the judgment result, and obtaining a total amount of effective green water resources in the area to be measured according to the simulation result (Runoff generation (evapotranspiration): section: 8.3.4-8.3.5, pages156-160; fig. 8.4).
Su silent about evaluating evapotranspiration results and crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model according to the measured evaporation data and leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance
However, Jiang teaches valuating evapotranspiration results and crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model according to the measured evaporation data and leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance(crop parameters: section: 2.4.3, pages 4-6, table 4 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Su, evaluating evapotranspiration results and crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model according to the measured evaporation data and leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance, as taught by Jiang, so as to investigate and assess watershed-scale salinization, as well as implementing targeted management strategies to reduce salinization.
Regarding claim 2. Su further teaches dividing and extracting an area to be measured to obtain watershed information and dividing hydrological response units according to the watershed information comprises(data requirements: section 8.2.3, fig. 8.1; page 152-153):
importing raster DEM data of the area to be measured into a geographic information system platform to obtain natural sub-watershed division data and river network water system data as watershed information(section 8.2.3, pages 152-153);
importing the watershed information into an initial SWAT model, and dividing hydrological response units according to a land use type, a soil type and a slope type (section: 8.3.2(first paragraph), page 154 & fig. 8.1).
Regarding Claim 4. Su does not explicitly teach evaluating evapotranspiration results and crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model according to the measured evaporation data and leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance comprises:
based on the measured evaporation data and the leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance, selecting a correlation coefficient and a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient to evaluate the evapotranspiration results and the crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model.
Jiang further teaches evaluating evapotranspiration results and crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model according to the measured evaporation data and leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance comprises(crop parameters: section: 2.4.3, pages 4-6, table 4 ):
based on the measured evaporation data and the leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance, selecting a correlation coefficient and a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient to evaluate the evapotranspiration results and the crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model(Evolution indices: section 2.4.4, page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Su, evaluating evapotranspiration results and crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model according to the measured evaporation data and leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance comprises: based on the measured evaporation data and the leaf area index monitoring data obtained in advance, selecting a correlation coefficient and a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient to evaluate the evapotranspiration results and the crop leaf area index simulation results obtained by operating the SWAT model, as taught by Jiang, so as to investigate and assess watershed-scale salinization, as well as implementing targeted management strategies to reduce salinization.
Regarding Claim 5. Jiang further teaches the calibrated crop growth parameters comprise: the accumulated temperature ratio corresponding to the first point on the optimal leaf area index curve, the accumulated temperature ratio corresponding to the second point on the optimal leaf area index curve, a leaf area ratio corresponding to the first point on the optimal leaf area index curve, a leaf area ratio corresponding to the second point on the optimal leaf area index curve, and an accumulated temperature ratio corresponding to a potential maximum leaf area index and the time when an leaf area index begins to decline(crop parameters: section: 2.4.3, pages 4-6, table 4 );
the calibrated evapotranspiration parameters comprise: a soil evaporation compensation factor, a plant absorption compensation factor, a shallow groundwater re-evaporation coefficient, a threshold depth of shallow aquifer "re-evaporation" or infiltration into a deep aquifer, an effective water capacity of a soil layer and a vegetation interception capacity(table 2, page 6).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (Impacts of agricultural intensification through upscaling of suitable rainwater harvesting technologies in the upper Ewaso Ng’iro North Basin, Kenya, 2010) in view of Jiang et al. (Simulation of water and salt transport in the Kaidu River Irrigation District using the modified SWAT-Salt, 2022), further in view of Terink et al. (SPHYv2.0: Spatial Processes in Hydrology, 2015).
Regarding Claim 6: Su further teaches judging evaporation effectiveness according to a land cover type and a dynamic coverage calculation method(land cover/use changes an population: section 8.3.3, pages 155-154).
The modified Su does not explicitly teach the calculation method comprises:
judging canopy interception evaporation, residential building interception evaporation, swamp or water area evaporation, phreatic water evapotranspiration and water participating in vegetation transpiration as effective green water resources;
using a dynamic coverage calculation method to calculate vegetation coverage of sparse forest land and non-high density grassland;
calculating soil evaporation between vegetation according to the vegetation coverage of sparse woodland and non-high density grassland.
However, Terink teaches the calculation method comprises:
judging canopy interception evaporation, residential building interception evaporation, swamp or water area evaporation, phreatic water evapotranspiration and water participating in vegetation transpiration as effective green water resources(fig. 2: page 2013 );
using a dynamic coverage calculation method to calculate vegetation coverage of sparse forest land and non-high density grassland(Dynamic vegetation processes :section 2.4(2.4.1); pages 2014-2015);
calculating soil evaporation between vegetation according to the vegetation coverage of sparse woodland and non-high density grassland(interception: section 2.4.2, page 2015 and Actual evapotranspiration: section 2.7.2, page 2017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Su, the calculation method comprises: judging canopy interception evaporation, residential building interception evaporation, swamp or water area evaporation, phreatic water evapotranspiration and water participating in vegetation transpiration as effective green water resources; using a dynamic coverage calculation method to calculate vegetation coverage of sparse forest land and non-high density grassland; calculating soil evaporation between vegetation according to the vegetation coverage of sparse woodland and non-high density grassland, as taught by Terink, so as to simulate dynamic vegetational cover.
Regarding Claim 7: Terink further teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
130
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See, Section 2.4.1, equation 6, page 2014.
Examiner Notes
Three is no prior art rejection over claims 3 and 8-9, however there is 101 rejection. However, closets prior arts fail to teach the limitations of “
PNG
media_image2.png
124
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(claim 3)”; “
PNG
media_image3.png
84
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(claim 8)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Tian et al. (US 2024/0321403) disclose SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) was developed in 1994 by Dr. Jeff Arnold of the Agricultural Research Center of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The model was originally developed to predict the long-term impacts of land management on water, sediment, and chemicals in a large watershed with complex and variable soil types, land uses, and management practices. The SWAT model uses daily time for continuous calculation, and it is a distributed watershed hydrological model based on GIS. It has been rapidly developed and applied in recent years, mainly using the spatial information provided by remote sensing and geographic information systems to simulate a variety of different hydrological, physical and chemical processes, such as water quantity, water quality, and the transport and transformation process of pesticide.
b) Chen et al. (US 2024/0161655) disclose demonstration of the geo-analysis model presentation according to an embodiment of the subject invention. The provided soil and water assessment (SWAT) model is a small watershed-to-river-basin scale model used to simulate the quality and quantity of surface and ground water and predict the environmental impact of land use, land management practices, and climate change. The model has four kinds of input data: digital elevation model (DEM) data, soil type data, land use data, and meteorological data, and one output data: runoff data. So, in FIG. 9, the model has four input plugs and one output plug to express the corresponding input/output. The model flag shows the model's name: SWAT. The submodule in the model subject shows that the model running logic is simple calculation. The color of the subject shows the model belongs to the hydrologic domain.
c) Yang et al. (US 2023/0099257) disclose a multi-source complementary water supply module; and S4, improvement on a SWAT model. Based on the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, the present disclosure develops a distributed natural-artificial hydrological dynamic reciprocal simulation model. The model is endowed with the functions of simulating dynamic reciprocation of natural water cycle and artificial water cycle, and integration of development, utilization and regulation of water resources, thereby simulating a natural-artificial hydrological cycle based on modes of urban multi-source water supply and multi-source irrigation water supply.
D) Pat. Et al.(US 2005/0273300) disclose the modeling system calculates the sediment erosion from pervious soil using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, which is used in the SWAT model (Neitsch et al., 2000). FIG. 11 illustrates a dialog box with the parameters and balance terms in one embodiment. The modeling system represents sediment generated.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857