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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma at the end of line 8 should be changed to a semicolon.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma at the end of line 9 should be changed to a semicolon.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma at the end of line 8 should be changed to a semicolon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of seedlines" in lines 9-10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the number of seedlines" in line 10.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the number of seedlines" in lines 9-10.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected due to their dependence on Claims 1 and 12.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 1 recites a method, Claim 12 recites a system, and Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, the claims are to a method, a machine, and a manufacture, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for autonomous crop maintenance and seedline tracking, the method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a density of one or more crops in a region [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
generating, by the processor, a kernel density estimation (KDE) of the one or more crops [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
identifying, by the processor, local minima in the density of the crops [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
determining, by the processor, a persistence of each local minimum of the local minima [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
selecting, by the processor, a subset of the local minima based on the persistence [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper],
clustering, by the processor, the crops into a number of clusters corresponding to the number of seedlines based on locations of the subset of the local minima [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
determining, by the processor, a position of each cluster along an axis of the seedline [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
determining, by the processor, seedline locations of the number of seedlines based on the position of each cluster [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and
generating, by the processor, one or more virtual bands around the seedline locations [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed by a human using pen and paper].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., a processor that performs the steps of the abstract idea).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the abstract idea is performed. The processor is merely generic computer hardware for implementing the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements identified in Step 2A do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements identified in Step 2A are not unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; and simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Independent Claims 12 and 20 recite the same steps as Claim 1, and are also not patent eligible. Claim 12 additionally recites a processor and a memory comprising instructions, which is merely generic computer hardware for implementing the abstract idea. Claim 20 additionally recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is merely generic computer hardware for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-11 and 13-19 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and are also not patent eligible. Dependent Claim 8 merely generally recites the concept of maintaining crops, without actually requiring any maintaining of the crops to be performed, or connecting the maintaining of the crops to the abstract idea.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Schmidt et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0338235) teaches using kernel density estimation (KDE) to determine concentrations of events in an area (see Abstract and paragraph [0085]).
Isoda (WO-2020209217-A1) teaches using KDE to determine low densities in a region (page 15, 3rd paragraph from the bottom).
Leathart et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0342792) teaches plotting a heat map using KDE that may highlight low density areas (paragraph [0102]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable pending addressing of the 35 U.S.C 112 rejections, the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections, and the claim objections, because the recited Claim features in independent Claims 1, 12, and 20 were not found in the prior art. While the references cited in the Prior Art of Record section above do teach using KDE to analyze and produce density data, they do not teach “determining, by a processor, a density of one or more crops in a region; generating, by the processor, a kernel density estimation (KDE) of the one or more crops; identifying, by the processor, local minima in the density of the crops; determining, by the processor, a persistence of each local minimum of the local minima; selecting, by the processor, a subset of the local minima based on the persistence, clustering, by the processor, the crops into a number of clusters corresponding to the number of seedlines based on locations of the subset of the local minima; determining, by the processor, a position of each cluster along an axis of the seedline; determining, by the processor, seedline locations of the number of seedlines based on the position of each cluster; and generating, by the processor, one or more virtual bands around the seedline locations” as is recited in independent Claim 1. Independent Claims 12 and 20 recite similar steps as those recited in Claim 1, and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights