DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 9, 2016, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In an Amendment filed on June 2, 2026, claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 were amended, claims 7, 15, and 20 were canceled, and new claims 21-23 were added.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are currently pending and under examination, of which claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Response to Arguments
On page 10 of the Amendment, the following is argued:
Thus, Hickson only relates to selecting a single reconfiguration action (e.g., moving/redirecting to a one or more new locations) versus maintaining a current route or location. Applicant respectfully asserts that maintaining a current route or location is not a “reconfiguration action,” as nothing is being reconfigured. Said differently, Hickson selects between a reconfiguration action or taking no action. As such, Hickson does not include two distinct reconfiguration actions to select from (e.g., a reconfiguration action and a second reconfiguration action).
Furthermore, Hickson does not select “the reconfiguration action” over a “second reconfiguration action based on a reward of the reconfiguration action exceeding a reward of the second reconfiguration action.” Rather, Hickson evaluates where a candidate location or location(s) satisfy an “objective function of interest” relative to a baseline. Thus, Hickson evaluates a candidate state versus a current state using an objective function of interest, and does not perform a selection of a reconfiguration action “based on a reward of the reconfiguration action exceeding a reward of the second reconfiguration action.” Thus, Hickson cannot be said to teach “wherein the reconfiguration action is selected over a second reconfiguration action based on a reward of the reconfiguration action exceeding a reward of the second reconfiguration action.”
In response to the arguments presented in the Amendment that Hickson only relates to selecting a single reconfiguration action, the Office respectfully submits that, as indicated in the Non-Final Office Action, “It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. (Emphasis added) In view of the amendment deleting that the reconfiguration action is a first reconfiguration action and reciting “wherein the reconfiguration action is selected over a second reconfiguration action based on a reward of the reconfiguration action exceeding a reward of the second reconfiguration action”, the original cited reference in the Non-Final Office Action to Hickson also describes the following:
[0062] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the recourse function is a function of all possible final locations (i.e., determined locations) that gives an estimate of the value (on each objective function) of being in that state. For each possible final location, the predictive model measures against all components of the objective function, as well as allowing for determination of the expected energy impacts, both the predicted energy cost of moving the pen(s) as well as any predicted energy gains from renewable energy sources as well as the uncertainty in the predictions.”)
[0063] (“An optimization method such as a genetic algorithm can be used to generate and compare the potential new locations. Comparing the potential new locations in the presence of multiple objectives can be handled by any of a number of methods...”)
[0064] (“Once one or more of the potential new locations has been selected and, if required, communicated to the pens, the pens are moved. It should be understood that one or more of the pens may already be moving, e.g., on a current, and the moving includes adjusting a velocity (e.g., speed and/or direction of travel of the pen(s)).”)
[0070] (“A new location of a pen can be determined using a variety of methods. According to one exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the new location is determined using a genetic method (see FIG. 6, method 600) including generating an initial solution population 601, candidate solutions are evaluated 602, and a stopping criteria is evaluated 603. If the stopping criteria is not satisfied and 603, then one or more of the candidate solutions are selected as parent 604 and a new population is generated with crossover and mutation 605. This new population is then evaluated at 602. Once the stopping criteria is satisfied at 603, then a best solution among the candidate solutions is selected at 606 as the new location of the pen.”)
[0071] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the initial solution population is generated 601 as a set of feasible locations around a current location. The set of feasible locations can be determined using parameters including, for example, available fuel, weather conditions, the licensed area for crop production and a sparsity condition enforcing a minimum distance between the feasible locations.”)
[0072] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation of the candidate solutions 602 includes scoring each of the feasible locations. For example, a feasible location can be scored as a combination of parameters. These parameters can include, for example, a cost of adjusting a location of the pen to the feasible location, an estimated productivity at the feasible location, etc. These and other parameters are contemplated within the scope of the present invention and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure.”)
[0073] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the stopping criteria 603 is a threshold. For example, the stopping criteria can be satisfied when at least one of the feasible solutions has a score greater than a score of the current location. Another exemplary stopping criteria can be satisfied when at least one of the feasible solutions has a score greater than a minimum score for movement the pen to a new location. These and other stopping criteria are contemplated within the scope of the present invention and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the feasible solution selected at 606 has a highest score among those that satisfy the stopping criteria.”)
(Emphasis added)
Contrary to the contentions made in the Amendment that Hickson only selects between a reconfiguration action or taking no action, the Office respectfully submits that Hickson teaches the amended recitations. At least the portions of Hickson provided above, teaches the amended recitation. That is, the selected best solution among the one or more candidate solutions reads on “the reconfiguration action is selected over a second reconfiguration action”. The candidate solution or the feasible solution having a highest score among those that satisfy the stopping criteria reads on “based on a reward of the reconfiguration action exceeding a reward of the second reconfiguration criteria”, as amended in independent claim 1.
Furthermore, the argument that “Thus, Hickson only relates to selecting a single reconfiguration action (e.g., moving/redirecting to a one or more new locations) versus maintaining a current route or location” is not persuasive. The argument appears to suggest that the reconfiguration selected as recited in the claim must maintain a current route or location. However, the Office respectfully notes that independent claim 1 does not recite that the reconfiguration is based on maintaining a current route or location. Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Superguide Corp. v. DirectTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Office respectfully submits that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, when construing the scope of the claims, the Office is bound to consider the features being recited in the claims, but cannot incorporate the description of the Specification into the claims. See MPEP 707.07(f) Therefore, the argument is not deemed persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art rejections of independent claim 1 and, similarly, independent claims 11 and 16 are maintained. Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10, 12-14, and 17-19 are also rejected.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 5, line 2, insert “and” before “wherein”.
Claim 6, line 2, insert “and” before “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hickson et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0310532 A1) (“Hickson”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hickson teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: Hickson: Paragraph [0004] (“According to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a method of positioning an aquaculture pen includes retrieving data about the aquaculture pen disposed in a water environment, determining a forecasted location of the aquaculture pen…”)
receiving crop data associated with a mobile agricultural holding; Hickson: Paragraph [0002] (“The present disclosure relates generally to open-pen aquaculture and more particularly to a position system for an aquaculture pen.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0055] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, an objective function takes one or more parameters as input, including for example, a preferred water temperature range for a crop (e.g., animals or seaweed) in the pen, salinity, nutrient availability, water quality, the environmental impact of the pen itself, etc. Additional parameters can include for example…an estimated weight of the crop, a measure of die-off in the crop, etc., as determined from one or more images of the crop.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0058] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the retrieved data 401 can include information about a licensed area, current location(s), pen velocity(ies) (e.g., due to ocean currents, propulsion units, etc.), pen dimensions, environmental factors (e.g., weather including precipitation, wave action, etc.), crop conditions (e.g., to understand optimal temperature range, nutrient levels, feeding requirements, etc.), water quality (e.g., salinity, nutrients, effluent, etc.), among other data. It should be understood that the data is collected using one or more sensors, which can be co-located with the pen (e.g., water testing equipment, a camera capturing images of the crop) or remote (e.g., satellite imagery or independent ocean based sensors). In at least one exemplary embodiment, samples are collected by technicians and the data is determined in a laboratory.”) [The aquaculture pen reads on “a mobile agricultural holding”. The retrieved crop conditions and parameters read on “receiving crop data”.]
receiving weather data associated with the mobile agricultural holding; Hickson: Paragraph [0058] [As described above.] Hickson: Paragraph [0065] (“In at least one embodiment, the computer system 504 receives input from one or more remote sensors 507, such as weather satellites, sensor equipped buoys, other pens, etc., via the network 505.”) [The input about weather reads on “receiving weather data”.]
analyzing the crop data and the weather data to determine whether a rule is satisfied for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding; and Hickson: Paragraph [0058] [As described above.] Hickson: Paragraph [0059] (“According to one or more exemplary embodiments of the present invention, forecasting the location of the pens and the factors of interest 402 uses …, for example, weather prediction models to predict the solar energy available at various points in space and time, which can cause thermally induced variations in the tidal forces.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0060] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the prediction of the factors of interest within the feasible range of movement for the pen(s) 403 uses … the predicted path of the pen as input, together with recorded data for nutrient levels, to predict levels of one or more nutrients of interest across space (e.g., the predicted path of the pen) and time. According to at least one embodiment of the present invention, the prediction 403 outputs one or more of a maximum nutrient concentration, a volume of water where nutrient concentrations are likely to fall outside a target concentration, a positive and/or negative impact of a nutrient level on a crop in the pen, and a positive and/or negative impact of the pen and/or crop on a local environment.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0062] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, an output of the decision making at block 405 (e.g., a proposed solution to an optimization problem) includes a set of fixed locations (i.e., the potential new locations) and movements for the pen(s) across a fixed time period (e.g., 24 hours, 1 week, etc.), possibly including a recourse function to account for end effects. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the recourse function is a function of all possible final locations (i.e., determined locations) that gives an estimate of the value (on each objective function) of being in that state. For each possible final location, the predictive model measures against all components of the objective function, as well as allowing for determination of the expected energy impacts, both the predicted energy cost of moving the pen(s) as well as any predicted energy gains from renewable energy sources as well as the uncertainty in the predictions.”) [Based on the crop conditions and weather, the evaluation of possible final locations for the aquaculture pen reads on “analyzing the crop data and the weather data to determine whether a rule is satisfied for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding”.]
issuing, in response to determining that the rule is satisfied for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding, a control signal to at least one processing circuit of the mobile agricultural holding to execute a reconfiguration action, Hickson: Paragraphs [0058]-[0060] [As described above.] Hickson: Paragraph [0057] (“Referring to FIG. 4, according to an embodiment of the present invention, a method 400 for positioning an aquaculture pen includes retrieving data 401, forecasting the location of the pens (e.g., due to water currents or on a previously determined route) and factors of interest based on the data for one or more time periods of interest 402, predicting factors of interest (including advanced interpolation) within a feasible range of movement for the pen(s) 403, determining potential new location(s) within feasible range(s) based on the data and the feasible range of movement for the pen(s) 404, and at block 405, if a determined potential new location is sufficiently better than a current location, as evaluated by the objective function of interest, the pen(s) are moved/redirected to that/those location(s) 406. Otherwise, continue on current route 407.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0005] (“…the feasible range of movement and the factor of interest within the feasible range of movement for the aquaculture pen, and a propulsion unit in communication with the computer system, receiving a control signal from the computer system for positioning the aquaculture pen at the potential new location.”) [The moving of the pen to the determined new location reads on “execute a reconfiguration action”.]
wherein the reconfiguration action is selected over a second reconfiguration action based on a reward of the reconfiguration action exceeding a reward of the second reconfiguration action. Hickson: Paragraph [0062] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the recourse function is a function of all possible final locations (i.e., determined locations) that gives an estimate of the value (on each objective function) of being in that state. For each possible final location, the predictive model measures against all components of the objective function, as well as allowing for determination of the expected energy impacts, both the predicted energy cost of moving the pen(s) as well as any predicted energy gains from renewable energy sources as well as the uncertainty in the predictions.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0063] (“An optimization method such as a genetic algorithm can be used to generate and compare the potential new locations. Comparing the potential new locations in the presence of multiple objectives can be handled by any of a number of methods...”) Hickson: Paragraph [0064] (“Once one or more of the potential new locations has been selected and, if required, communicated to the pens, the pens are moved. It should be understood that one or more of the pens may already be moving, e.g., on a current, and the moving includes adjusting a velocity (e.g., speed and/or direction of travel of the pen(s)).”) Hickson: Paragraph [0070] (“A new location of a pen can be determined using a variety of methods. According to one exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the new location is determined using a genetic method (see FIG. 6, method 600) including generating an initial solution population 601, candidate solutions are evaluated 602, and a stopping criteria is evaluated 603. If the stopping criteria is not satisfied and 603, then one or more of the candidate solutions are selected as parent 604 and a new population is generated with crossover and mutation 605. This new population is then evaluated at 602. Once the stopping criteria is satisfied at 603, then a best solution among the candidate solutions is selected at 606 as the new location of the pen.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0071] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the initial solution population is generated 601 as a set of feasible locations around a current location. The set of feasible locations can be determined using parameters including, for example, available fuel, weather conditions, the licensed area for crop production and a sparsity condition enforcing a minimum distance between the feasible locations.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0072] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation of the candidate solutions 602 includes scoring each of the feasible locations. For example, a feasible location can be scored as a combination of parameters. These parameters can include, for example, a cost of adjusting a location of the pen to the feasible location, an estimated productivity at the feasible location, etc. These and other parameters are contemplated within the scope of the present invention and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0073] (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the stopping criteria 603 is a threshold. For example, the stopping criteria can be satisfied when at least one of the feasible solutions has a score greater than a score of the current location. Another exemplary stopping criteria can be satisfied when at least one of the feasible solutions has a score greater than a minimum score for movement the pen to a new location. These and other stopping criteria are contemplated within the scope of the present invention and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the feasible solution selected at 606 has a highest score among those that satisfy the stopping criteria.”) [The selected best solution among the one or more candidate solutions reads on “the reconfiguration action is selected over a second reconfiguration action”. The selected candidate solution or the feasible solution having a highest score among those that satisfy the stopping criteria reads on “based on a reward of the reconfiguration action exceeding a reward of the second reconfiguration criteria”.]
Regarding claim 2, Hickson teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Hickson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein executing the reconfiguration action includes repositioning the mobile agricultural holding from a first position to a second position. Hickson: Paragraph [0057] [As described in claim 1.]
Regarding claim 6, Hickson teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. Hickson further teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the growth condition value is a temperature value, wherein the acceptable growth value range is a temperature range. Hickson: Paragraphs [0055] and [0058] [As described in claim 1.]
Regarding independent claim 11, Hickson teaches:
A system comprising: Hickson: Paragraph [0005] (“…a system includes an aquaculture pen, a sensor disposed at the aquaculture pen, a computer system in communication with the sensor,…”)
one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage media collectively storing program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising: Hickson: Paragraph [0007] (“One or more embodiments of the invention or elements thereof can be implemented in the form of a computer program product including a computer readable storage medium with computer usable program code for performing the method steps indicated. Furthermore, one or more embodiments of the invention or elements thereof can be implemented in the form of a system (or apparatus) including a memory, and at least one processor that is coupled to the memory and operative to perform exemplary method steps. Yet further, in another aspect, one or more embodiments of the invention or elements thereof can be implemented in the form of means for carrying out one or more of the method steps described herein; the means can include (i) hardware module(s), (ii) software module(s) stored in a computer readable storage medium (or multiple such media) and implemented on a hardware processor, or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii); any of (i)-(iii) implement the specific techniques set forth herein.”)
The remaining features of the claim recite similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding independent claim 16, Hickson teaches:
A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform a method comprising: Hickson: Paragraph [0007] (“One or more embodiments of the invention or elements thereof can be implemented in the form of a computer program product including a computer readable storage medium with computer usable program code for performing the method steps indicated. Furthermore, one or more embodiments of the invention or elements thereof can be implemented in the form of a system (or apparatus) including a memory, and at least one processor that is coupled to the memory and operative to perform exemplary method steps. Yet further, in another aspect, one or more embodiments of the invention or elements thereof can be implemented in the form of means for carrying out one or more of the method steps described herein; the means can include (i) hardware module(s), (ii) software module(s) stored in a computer readable storage medium (or multiple such media) and implemented on a hardware processor, or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii); any of (i)-(iii) implement the specific techniques set forth herein.”)
The remaining features of the claim recite similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickson, in view of Bongartz et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0184153 A1) (“Bongartz”).
Regarding claim 3, Hickson teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Hickson does not teach the features of claim 3. However, Bongartz describes systems and methods for managing agricultural including floating grow fields and a respective waterway for moving them through the farm. Bongartz teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein executing the reconfiguration action includes activating an environmental control system on the mobile agricultural holding. Bongartz: Paragraph [2551] (“In step 6730, the temperature measurement may be conducted on various similar locations, e.g. with various temperature sensors each sensor being located in the same manner relative to a respective plant. The data of these temperature sensors may be used for calculating an average temperature for said similar locations or to give an overview of the temperature distribution for these various locations. Furthermore, the temperature measurement may be conducted on various different locations for the purpose of adjusting different temperature profiles, e.g. temperature sensors may be positioned at different vertical heights of the plants or even the agricultural facility. The sensor may be configured to measure the temperature of the air, soil or of parts of the plants (root, leaves, petal, etc.). Based on the data of these temperature sensors vertically different temperature profiles may be adjusted by means of the computing device 140 and the temperature influencing means.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hickson and Bongartz before them, to executing the reconfiguration action includes activating an environmental control system on the mobile agricultural holding because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on floating growing fields.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to adjust growth parameters of plants (e.g. water, nutrient, light (intensity, spectrum), humidity, temperature, air ventilation, water circulation, pesticides) and/or to change a location of a moveable agricultural growth and for a farmer to have precise and early yield and harvesting time prediction at his disposal. Bongartz Paragraphs [0038] and [0392]
Regarding claim 4, Hickson teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Hickson does not teach the features of claim 4. However, Bongartz describes systems and methods for managing agricultural including floating grow fields and a respective waterway for moving them through the farm. Bongartz teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the rule specifies that a first crop type indicated within the crop data has a set of acceptable growth conditions and wherein the rule for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding is determined to be satisfied in response to a growth condition value of the first crop type being outside of an acceptable growth value range. Bongartz: Paragraph [0117] (“… growth recipe is for instance used for delaying or speeding up the harvesting time to meet new target values arising during the production of the plants, namely while plants are already growing. Such target values can for instance be the growth rate, but also vitamin content, biomass or color of the plants.”) Bongartz: Paragraph [0842] (“An approach here is to influence the growth by applying a different illumination depending on the temperature. In particular, the growth at different locations can be synchronized by applying for instance a higher DLI value where the temperature is lower, and vice versa. However, in general, the methodology also allows application of certain lighting conditions at given local temperatures in order to reach other growth targets, like super-fast growth, or super-slow growth for instance (see also “Customer Request”).”) Bongartz: Paragraph [1587] (“The growth recipes are now used to appropriately operate the light fixtures over the planted fields (light recipe, position, form, location) such that the characteristics of the plants desired by the customer are produced. Additionally, as already described above, nutrients and other parameters may also be adapted appropriately.”) Bongartz: Paragraph [1678] (“The Controlled Agricultural System according to the 12.sup.th aspect of “Picture Taking & Evaluation”, wherein the computing device is further configured to evaluate the environmental data and/or growth data measured by the sensor device and outputs a notification if the measured data exceeds a tolerance range.”) [The tolerance range of the growth data reads on “an acceptable growth value range”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hickson and Bongartz before them for the rule specifies that a first crop type indicated within the crop data has a set of acceptable growth conditions, wherein the rule for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding is determined to be satisfied in response to a growth condition value of the first crop type being outside of an acceptable growth value range because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on floating growing fields.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to adjust growth parameters of plants (e.g. water, nutrient, light (intensity, spectrum), humidity, temperature, air ventilation, water circulation, pesticides) and/or to change a location of a moveable agricultural growth and for a farmer to have precise and early yield and harvesting time prediction at his disposal. Bongartz Paragraphs [0038] and [0392]
Regarding claim 9, Hickson teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. Hickson does not teach the features of claim 9. However, Bongartz describes systems and methods for managing agricultural including floating grow fields and a respective waterway for moving them through the farm. Bongartz teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein executing the reconfiguration action includes repositioning the mobile agricultural holding from a first position to a second position and activating an environmental control system on the mobile agricultural holding. Bongartz: Paragraph [0189] (“Adjusting the relative position of the growth area allows, as the case may be, also switching off some light sources or fixtures even though more light sources are used in total (in case of a larger growth area).”) Bongartz: Paragraph [0392] (“The Controlled Agricultural System can comprise an actuator device able to adjust growth parameters of plants (e.g. water, nutrient, light (intensity, spectrum), humidity, temperature, air ventilation, water circulation, pesticides) and/or to adjust the position and shape of a light fixture and/or to change the layout of variable building design parameters of a building or housing or cabinet of the agricultural facility and/or to close or open the roof of the agricultural facility (e.g. greenhouse) and/or to change a location of a moveable agricultural growth cabinet inside the agricultural facility.”) [Changing the location and adjusting the growth parameters of plants (e.g. water, nutrient, light (intensity, spectrum), humidity, temperature, air ventilation, water circulation, pesticides) reads on “repositioning the mobile agricultural holding from a first position to a second position and activating an environmental control system on the mobile agricultural holding”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hickson and Bongartz before them for executing the reconfiguration action includes repositioning the mobile agricultural holding from a first position to a second position and activating an environmental control system on the mobile agricultural holding because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on floating growing fields.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to adjust growth parameters of plants (e.g. water, nutrient, light (intensity, spectrum), humidity, temperature, air ventilation, water circulation, pesticides) and/or to change a location of a moveable agricultural growth and for a farmer to have precise and early yield and harvesting time prediction at his disposal. Bongartz Paragraphs [0038] and [0392]
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 4 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Hickson teaches all the claimed features of claim 16, from which claim 18 depends. Hickson does not teach the features of claim 18. However, Bongartz describes systems and methods for managing agricultural including floating grow fields and a respective waterway for moving them through the farm. Bongartz teaches:
The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the rule specifies that a first crop type indicated within the crop data has a set of acceptable growth conditions and wherein the rule for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding is determined to be satisfied in response to a growth condition value of the first crop type being outside of an acceptable growth value range. Bongartz: Paragraph [0117] (“… growth recipe is for instance used for delaying or speeding up the harvesting time to meet new target values arising during the production of the plants, namely while plants are already growing. Such target values can for instance be the growth rate, but also vitamin content, biomass or color of the plants.”) Bongartz: Paragraph [0842] (“An approach here is to influence the growth by applying a different illumination depending on the temperature. In particular, the growth at different locations can be synchronized by applying for instance a higher DLI value where the temperature is lower, and vice versa. However, in general, the methodology also allows application of certain lighting conditions at given local temperatures in order to reach other growth targets, like super-fast growth, or super-slow growth for instance (see also “Customer Request”).”) Bongartz: Paragraph [1587] (“The growth recipes are now used to appropriately operate the light fixtures over the planted fields (light recipe, position, form, location) such that the characteristics of the plants desired by the customer are produced. Additionally, as already described above, nutrients and other parameters may also be adapted appropriately.”) Bongartz: Paragraph [1678] (“The Controlled Agricultural System according to the 12.sup.th aspect of “Picture Taking & Evaluation”, wherein the computing device is further configured to evaluate the environmental data and/or growth data measured by the sensor device and outputs a notification if the measured data exceeds a tolerance range.”) [The tolerance range of the growth data reads on “an acceptable growth value range”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hickson and Bongartz before them for the rule specifies that a first crop type indicated within the crop data has a set of acceptable growth conditions, wherein the rule for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding is determined to be satisfied in response to a growth condition value of the first crop type being outside of an acceptable growth value range because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on floating growing fields.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to adjust growth parameters of plants (e.g. water, nutrient, light (intensity, spectrum), humidity, temperature, air ventilation, water circulation, pesticides) and/or to change a location of a moveable agricultural growth and for a farmer to have precise and early yield and harvesting time prediction at his disposal. Bongartz Paragraphs [0038] and [0392]
Regarding claim 19, Hickson and Bongartz teach all the claimed features of claim 18, from which claim 19 depends. Bongartz further teaches:
The computer program product of claim 18, wherein the rule specifies that a second crop type indicated within the crop data has a second set of acceptable growth conditions and wherein the rule for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding is determined to be satisfied in response to a second growth condition value of the second crop type being outside of a second acceptable growth range. Bongartz: Paragraphs [0117], [0842], [1587], and [1678] [As described in claim 18.] Bongartz: Paragraph [0009] (“With plants being organic goods having very specific needs, a farm or agricultural system discussed here can have a quite different design and setup in detail, for instance depending on the type and size of the plants grown, but also on the location of the farm (e. g. vertical farm in a city) or other local requirements.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0057] (“Referring to FIG. 4, according to an embodiment of the present invention, a method 400 for positioning an aquaculture pen includes retrieving data 401, forecasting the location of the pens (e.g., due to water currents or on a previously determined route) and factors of interest based on the data for one or more time periods of interest 402, predicting factors of interest (including advanced interpolation) within a feasible range of movement for the pen(s) 403, determining potential new location(s) within feasible range(s) based on the data and the feasible range of movement for the pen(s) 404, and at block 405, if a determined potential new location is sufficiently better than a current location, as evaluated by the objective function of interest, the pen(s) are moved/redirected to that/those location(s) 406. Otherwise, continue on current route 407.”) Hickson: Paragraph [0005] (“…the feasible range of movement and the factor of interest within the feasible range of movement for the aquaculture pen, and a propulsion unit in communication with the computer system, receiving a control signal from the computer system for positioning the aquaculture pen at the potential new location.”)
The motivation to combine Hickson and Bongartz as provided in claim 18 is incorporated herein.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickson, in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0307135 A1) (“Bhattacharya”).
Regarding claim 10, Hickson teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Hickson does not teach the features of claim 10. However, Bhattacharya describes crop transplantations. Bhattacharya teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the rule specifies that a first crop type indicated within the crop data has an acceptable sun exposure range and… Bhattacharya: Paragraph [00401] (“Step 504 includes determining one or more cultivation conditions constraints associated with cultivating the given crop via analysis of cultivation conditions data carried out by a conditions data module executing on the computing device. Cultivation conditions constraints can include (i) at least one range of rainfall amount associated with growth of the given crop, (ii) at least one range of humidity associated with growth of the given crop, (iii) at least one temperature range associated with growth of the given crop, and/or (iv) at least one range of daily sunlight amount associated with growth of the given crop.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hickson and Bhattacharya before them for the rule specifies that a first crop type indicated within the crop data has an acceptable sun exposure range because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to determine cultivation conditions constraints to generate an effective crop schedule including transplantation. Bhattacharya Paragraphs [0040]-[0043]
The additional limitation “wherein the rule for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding is determined to be satisfied if an observed sun exposure level indicated within the weather data falls outside of the sun exposure range”, in accordance with MPEP 2111.04 (II), Contingent Limitations, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” Thus, the additional claimed feature of claim 10 is not given patentable weight in view of the conditional limitations.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickson, in view of Wilcox (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0193715 A1) (“Wilcox”).
Regarding claim 14, Hickson teaches all the claimed features of claim 11, from which claim 14 depends. Hickson does not teach the features of claim 14. However, Wilcox describes biomass cultivation. Wilcox teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the rule specifies that the mobile agricultural holding is required to be repositioned in response to being located within a region of a warning flag, where the rule for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding is determined to be satisfied in response to a first position of the mobile agricultural holding being within the region of the warning flag and wherein the reconfiguration action includes repositioning the mobile agricultural holding from the first position to a second position outside of the region of the warning flag. Wilcox: Paragraph [0021] (“Referring to the drawings, FIG. 1 shows a farm 10 according to the present invention. A strong neutral-buoyancy rope 12 with two similar ropes 14 trailing back with additional (perhaps smaller diameter, but also neutral buoyancy) ropes 16 stretched between them create a support grid. In alternative embodiments, the support grid may be created using wire or rope supported by buoys at spaced intervals to provide a substantially neutrally buoyant grid. Marine plants 18 are anchored to the grid created by the rope mesh at periodic intervals (about 1 meter spacing along the ropes for California Giant Kelp with 10 meter down current spacing to accommodate the plants at harvestable size).”) Wilcox: Paragraph [0033] (“As the farm approaches the surface it senses (e.g. by acoustic sensing) the possibility of conflicting ocean systems 512 that could damage the farm such as approaching ships, and stay submerged 514 at a safe depth until the conflicting target passes. By comparing the phase of arrival of acoustic data between the robotic boats at the corners of the farm, accurate directional information can be obtained. If an approaching ship stays at constant heading, it is on a collision course. Similar acoustic sensing, and wave height sensing, can be used to check if there is a raging storm at the surface, which could damage the sails or other equipment. Also, central farm control station 28 as shown in FIG. 4 can warn farms of forecast storms a few days in advance so they know to remain submerged. Assuming there are no approaching ships and the estimated winds are acceptable, the farm will surface at about sunrise 516. The tip of the sails will first penetrate the surface, exposing the GPS receiving antennas, wind velocity and direction sensors, and communication antennas. If the measured wind speed is significantly greater than the acoustically-estimated speed, and is at an unsafe level, the robot boats can submerge again without exposing the full sail to the wind. If the wind speed and wave height are safe, then the ballast tanks can be exhausted more fully to expose the entire sail to the wind. The wind direction sensor is employed by the control computer to activate the gear drive to point the sail in the correct direction 518 as it comes out of the water, to ensure that no excessive forces are put on the sail, the keel, or the tension lines. The GPS sensors on the boats will determine the precise position and orientation of the farm 520. The communications antennas will allow information to be exchanged 522 with the farm control center, including but not limited to transmission of the status and location of the farm, logged water column sensor data, and images from the mast-heads of the farm (if bandwidth permits), and reception of updated weather forecasts, ocean current forecasts, expected movements of large ships in the area, updates on the harvest rendezvous time and location, etc. Throughout the day the boats will monitor wind speed and direction to steer the farm 524 (by changing the angle between the sail and the keel) so as to stay in the desired ocean circulation and to reach the harvesting point at the desired time. The robots will also take sensor data (including acoustic and perhaps also with a radar receiver) to sense approaching ships, so that evasive submersion 526 can be performed. If the wind speeds or wave heights rise to dangerous levels, the farm will also submerge. In any event, at the end of the day, the farm will submerge, and the process will repeat. The expected rate of ascent or descent will be approximately 0.1 m/s, so to submerge or rise 300 meters will take about 1 hour. At the end of the predetermined voyage pattern the farm will meet or travel to the harvesting station 528.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hickson and Wilcox before them for the rule to specify that the mobile agricultural holding is required to be repositioned in response to being located within a region of a warning flag, where the rule for reconfiguring the mobile agricultural holding is determined to be satisfied in response to a first position of the mobile agricultural holding being within the region of the warning flag, wherein the reconfiguration action includes repositioning the mobile agricultural holding from the first position to a second position outside of the region of the warning flag because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on floating growing fields.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to provide a system that is economical even at relatively small scale and at the demonstrated 1% efficient conversion of sunlight to stored chemical energy. Wilcox Paragraph [0010]
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 5, 8, and 21-23 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record and would be considered allowable if incorporated into the independent claims including any intervening claim.
While the prior art shows positioning an aquaculture pen includes retrieving data about the aquaculture pen disposed in a water environment, determining a forecasted location of the aquaculture pen, forecasting at least one factor of interest based on the data about the aquaculture pen for a time period of interest, predicting a factor of interest within a feasible range of movement for the aquaculture pen, determining a potential new location within the feasible range of movement using the data about the aquaculture pen, the feasible range of movement and the factor of interest within the feasible range of movement for the aquaculture pen, and moving the aquaculture pen to the potential new location (see Hickson et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0310532 A1); Bongartz et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0184153 A1); Baker et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2025/0275506 A1); Wilcox (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0193715 A1); Bhattacharya et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0307135 A1); Lee (KR 20210060019 A1); US Patent Application No. 2023/0292684 A1 to Ramsey et al.) the prior art, individually or combined, does not teach or suggest, “wherein the growth condition value is a precipitation value, wherein the acceptable growth value range is a precipitation range”, as recited in claim 5, “wherein the second reconfiguration action includes activating an environmental control system on the mobile agricultural holding,” as recited in claim 8; and “the second reconfiguration action includes issuing a command to automated agricultural processing equipment on the mobile agricultural holding”, as recited in claims 21-23. These concepts define the present application over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2023/0292684 A1 to Ramsey et al. describes an irrigation control system includes an irrigation management application which, when executed by an electronic device, causes a user interface to be displayed to a user. The user interface includes features that permit a user to do one or more of configure, monitor, program, control, adjust various components and/or operations of the irrigation management system.
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 Alicia M. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. 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.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights