Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/11/2023. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 5, 7, 8, and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Using claim 5 for illustration, the use of “about” in this claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what would constitute as “about one square foot” and/or “about ten acres”. For example it is unclear whether half a square foot or 12 acres qualifies to fall within this range. Claims 7, 8 and 14 all utilize the term “about” in a similar fashion and thus are also rejected for using a relative term.
Claim 15 recites a sensor “to be pulled across the surface of the soil area by the vehicle” but also recites “the sensor support comprises a self-propelled vehicle or towed vehicle that is coupled to the vehicle”. A self-propelled vehicle cannot be pulled by another vehicle as the self-propelled vehicle is capable of moving itself. These limitations are contradictory and the examiner has interpreted this claim to recite as follows and also recommends the applicant to amend this claim to recite:
“The system of Claim 1, further comprising a sensor support that is configured to physically support the at least one sensor a towed vehicle that is coupled to the vehicle.”
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case, the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A system comprising:
a vehicle that is configured to travel over a soil area;
a location device that is configured to provide geographic location data corresponding to the vehicle;
at least one sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to a physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area; and
a computer that is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and to the location device, that is configured to receive the geographic location data and the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil, and to generate location associated data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area (A person can receive location data and soil characteristic data and make associations between the two received data).
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A system comprising:
a vehicle that is configured to travel over a soil area;
a location device that is configured to provide geographic location data corresponding to the vehicle;
at least one sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to a physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area; and
a computer that is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and to the location device, that is configured to receive the geographic location data and the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil, and to generate location associated data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area (A person can receive location data and soil characteristic data and make associations between the two received data).
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a vehicle that is configured to travel over a soil area” the examiner submits that this limitation merely applies the judicial exception to a vehicle.
Regarding the additional limitations “a location device that is configured to provide geographic location data corresponding to the vehicle” and “at least one sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to a physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area” the examiner submits that these limitations are merely pre-solution activities of gathering data.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a computer that is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and to the location device” the examiner submits that this limitation merely applies the judicial exception to a generic computer.
Additionally, the limitation “receive the geographic location data and the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil” only further narrow the pre-solution activity limitations mentioned previously.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea and, therefore does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations “a vehicle that is configured to travel over a soil area”, “a location device that is configured to provide geographic location data corresponding to the vehicle”, “at least one sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to a physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area”, “a computer that is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and to the location device” and “receive the geographic location data and the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil” as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of “a vehicle that is configured to travel over a soil area”, “a location device that is configured to provide geographic location data corresponding to the vehicle”, “at least one sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to a physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area”, “a computer that is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and to the location device” and “receive the geographic location data and the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)
“a vehicle that is configured to travel over a soil area” and “a computer that is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and to the location device”… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014); and
“a location device that is configured to provide geographic location data corresponding to the vehicle”, “at least one sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to a physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area” and “receive the geographic location data and the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil”… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claim 1 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-16 merely narrow the pre-solution activity of gathering data. Therefore, is also rejected under U.S.C. 101.
Claims 18 and 19 merely narrow the limitations that apply the judicial exception to a vehicle. Therefore, are rejected under U.S.C. 101.
Claims 17 and 20 recite subject matter that falls within mental processes. Therefore, are also rejected under U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-9, 11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHAN et al. (US 2017/0336507 A1).
Regarding claim 1, CHAN discloses a system comprising:
a vehicle that is configured to travel over a soil area ([0024] Referring to FIG. 2, a soil characteristic mapping and planting system 200 is shown according to an exemplary embodiment. System 200 includes a ground-driven vehicle 201 and a planting device 202.”);
a location device that is configured to provide geographic location data corresponding to the vehicle ([0024]; “Vehicle 201 includes GPS receiver 203 and a ground or soil sensor, shown as ground penetrating radar unit 204.”);
at least one sensor that is caused to move above a surface of the soil area as the vehicle travels thereon and to generate data relating to a physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area ([Fig. 2A] & [0024]; “Vehicle 201 includes GPS receiver 203 and a ground or soil sensor, shown as ground penetrating radar unit 204.”); and
a computer that is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and to the location device ([Fig. 2B]; Processing Circuit 221 coupled to GPS receiver 203 and Radar Unit 204), that is configured to receive the geographic location data and the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil, and to generate location associated data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil corresponding to the soil area ([0024]; “Further, system 200 is configured to generate a map of soil 206 by pairing location data from GPS receiver 203 with soil characteristic data from radar unit 204.”).
Regarding claim 2, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil correlates to a degree of soil compaction. ([0025]; “The utilization of high-frequency radio waves enables radar unit 204 to scan soil 206 at a high resolution such that it can detect soil characteristics (e.g., soil composition, soil density), the presence of soil water 209, the depth of the soil water 209, the amount of soil water 209, the presence and type of minerals present in soil 206, the presence and amount of humus in soil 206, and other soil characteristics (i.e., intrinsic characteristics).”)
Regarding claim 3, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the data relating to the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristic of the soil comprises soil moisture. ([0025]; “The utilization of high-frequency radio waves enables radar unit 204 to scan soil 206 at a high resolution such that it can detect soil characteristics (e.g., soil composition, soil density), the presence of soil water 209, the depth of the soil water 209, the amount of soil water 209, the presence and type of minerals present in soil 206, the presence and amount of humus in soil 206, and other soil characteristics (i.e., intrinsic characteristics).”)
Regarding claim 4, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the soil area comprises a plurality of soil area elements, wherein each soil area element corresponds to a specific geographic location and a corresponding location associated soil compaction data value. ([0029]; “The map includes a collection of data points coupled to location information, that when processed, may be reproduced into a visual representation of the map (e.g., for viewing by an operator through a display) or a set of data and location points for use by a system controller (e.g., to determine proper seed placement).”)
Regarding claim 5, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, CHAN discloses each soil area element includes an area that is in a range from about one square foot to about ten acres. ([Fig.1]; It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the range would be within the parameters listed because soil characteristics would vary within this range and farmers would need that information when tilling/planting/etc. Typically plants are typically planted within the range of one square food to 10 acres and know the varying soil characteristics within this range in highly beneficial.)
PNG
media_image1.png
460
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the at least one sensor comprises a ground penetrating radar (GPR). ([Fig. 2A] & [0024]; “Vehicle 201 includes GPS receiver 203 and a ground or soil sensor, shown as ground penetrating radar unit 204.”)
Regarding claim 7, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the GPR is configured to operate in a frequency range of about 10MHz to about 5 GHz. ([0025]; “For example, the radio waves may have frequencies between 300 MHz and 3000 MHz or in excess of 3000 MHz.”)
Regarding claim 8, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the GPR is configured to operate in a frequency range of about 100MHz to about 800 MHz. ([0025]; “For example, the radio waves may have frequencies between 300 MHz and 3000 MHz or in excess of 3000 MHz.”)
Regarding claim 9, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the GPR is configured to operate in a plurality of frequency ranges. ([0038]; “If a high resolution is desired, the radar unit of the system utilizes high-frequency radio waves during the mapping process (e.g., in excess of 1000 MHz). In other situations, it may be desirable to have a low resolution map created (e.g., a map indicating the presence and location of large objects beneath the surface of the soil, but not other soil characteristics such as soil composition). For example, a low resolution map may be desirable if the map will only be needed to identify large objects located under the soil's surface. If a low resolution is desired, the radar unit of the system utilizes low-frequency radio waves during the mapping process (e.g., less than 1000 MHz).”)
Regarding claim 11, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, CHAN discloses the GPR comprises a non ground-coupled antenna. ([0025]; “In one embodiment, radar unit 204 is a non-insertion soil-penetrating radar unit.”)
Regarding claim 13, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the at least one sensor comprises a non-invasive sensor relative to the surface of the soil area. ([Fig. 2A]; Depicts the radar 204 recording data over the soil. [0025]; “In one embodiment, radar unit 204 is a non-insertion soil-penetrating radar unit.”)
Regarding claim 14, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the at least one sensor is configured to move in a range from at the surface of the soil area to about six feet above the surface of the soil area. ([0053]; “Referring to FIG. 7, an air-based soil characteristic detection system 700 is shown in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. System 700 includes airplane 701 having radar unit 702 and GPS receiver 703.”)
Regarding claim 15, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses a sensor support that is configured to physically support the at least one sensor and to be pulled across the surface of the soil area by the vehicle ([0035]; “Mapping unit 402 includes GPS receiver 403 and a soil sensor, shown as ground penetrating radar unit 404 coupled to the housing of mapping unit 402.”), wherein the sensor support comprises a self-propelled vehicle that is separate from the vehicle or towed vehicle that is coupled to the vehicle. ([0035]; “System 400 includes vehicle 401 (shown as a pickup truck) and mapping unit 402. Mapping unit 402 is an attachment to vehicle 401 (e.g., configured to fit into a bed of a pickup truck, towed by another vehicle, etc.).”)
Regarding claim 16, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the location associated soil compaction data comprises elevation data corresponding to the soil compaction. ([0025]; “Radar unit 204 provides feedback signals that include data pertaining to detected soil characteristics to controller 220 (as shown in FIG. 2B), where the data is processed into a three-dimensional map of soil 206.”)
Regarding claim 17, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the vehicle comprises a self-driving vehicle ([0047]; “In some instances, the planting vehicle may be at least partially autonomous and capable of navigating a predefined planting pattern based on location feedback from the on-board GPS sensor and computerized control of the vehicle's throttle and steering mechanisms.”) and is configured to traverse the soil area in a path that is defined by a coverage plan that is based on the geographic location data ([0047]; “The planting pattern is created through processing of the provided planting parameters and provided map data. The controller of the system determines where seeds should be placed according to the planting parameters (e.g., in rows, in areas having high nutrient counts, within percolation distance from a water supply, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 18, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the vehicle comprises an airborne vehicle and is configured to fly over the soil area based on self-generated lift. ([0053]; “Referring to FIG. 7, an air-based soil characteristic detection system 700 is shown in accordance with an exemplary embodiment.”)
Regarding claim 19, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, CHAN discloses the airborne vehicle is configured to fly over the soil area in a pattern that is defined by a coverage plan that is based on the geographic location data. ([0038]; “Referring to FIG. 4C, a method 420 of operating a stand-alone soil mapping system (e.g., system 400) is shown…In some configurations, the vehicle is at least partially autonomous and is capable of navigating a predefined mapping pattern based on location feedback from the on-board GPS sensor and computerized control of the vehicle's throttle and steering mechanisms.”
[0053]; “System 700 functions in a similar manner to system 200 and system 400.”
Note: Since CHAN discloses that the system 700 functions in a similar manner as system 400, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the airborne system 700 would be capable of operating in an autonomous manner.)
Regarding claim 20, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, CHAN discloses the computer is further configured to generate a tillage prescription plan for the soil area that is based on the location associated soil compaction data. ([0049]; “The map data may be used for future soil processing (e.g., fertilization, watering, harvesting, tilling, etc.).”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of CHAN as evidenced by TROXLER (WO 2014/153263 A1).
Regarding claim 10, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally TROXLER discloses the GPR is configured to simultaneously operate in the plurality of frequency ranges. ([0009]; “The first frequency reflection measures the permittivity in a sample volume corresponding to at least a portion of both the surface and more substantially below, the second frequency reflection responds to the permittivity in a sample volume corresponding at least a portion of the shallow or surface layer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CHAN with TROXLER. This modification would have been obvious because both CHAN and TROXLER cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (surface scanning using ground penetrating radar) and it would have been beneficial to utilize low and high frequencies simultaneously. It is known in the art that higher frequencies provide improved resolution of data while lower frequencies are capable of penetrating the ground further. Therefore, gathering data from multiple frequencies simultaneously leads to better overall data.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of CHAN as evidenced by Rojhani et al. (A Compact TEM Horn Antenna for Ground Penetrating Radar; hereafter Rojhani).
Regarding claim 12, CHAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally Rojhani discloses the non ground-coupled antenna comprises a horn antenna and/or an array antenna. (pg. 1, [0004]; “In this work, a compact TEM horn antenna for GPR applications has been designed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CHAN with Rojhani. This modification would have been obvious because both CHAN and Rojhani cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (surface scanning using ground penetrating radar) and it would have been beneficial to utilize horn antennas as horn antennas provide wide bandwidth, high gain, and good efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668