DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is specifically challenged that the amended limitations are tied to specific physical components and data transformations, such as, sensor-derived measurements collected by a machine operating in a real-world agricultural environment. The steps recited in claim 1 require computerized processing circuitry, stored instructions, sensor implementation, and geospatial data management that cannot practically be performed by a human, even with the help of pen and paper. The claimed map generation process improves computer-based rendering of geographic data by dynamically constructing layered visualizations that cannot be done mentally and that improve graphical performance and interpretability of agricultural field data for improving the application of agricultural products.
To begin, the examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments, however respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the claim is still directed to collecting sensor data, processing the retrieved data, and displaying the results as a map. For example, despite the recitation involving computerized processing circuity and sensor implementation, the “index” limitation is still considered to be data collection where generic sensor data is received and organized, which renders it as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Inclusion of sensors, processing circuitry, memory, and an output display does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, as these elements represent generic computer components performing their routine functions. See MPEP. 2106.05(f). The amendment incorporating a “determining” step further adds an additional abstract idea that is not integrated into practical application, as thresholds are analyzed and a simple judgement is made regarding the measured field characteristics indicative of the sensor data. The data collection, analysis, and presentation of results, in the form of a generated map, further constitute the claim reciting an abstract idea.
Regarding applicant’s reference to McRO v. Bandai Namco Games, 37 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where data-driven rules improved computer animation, the examiner would like to note that the present application is not related as the claims do not recite any specific rules, algorithms, or technological improvements that enhance computer functionality. The claims merely require receiving data, indexing/sorting it, and displaying the results via a generated map compiled with the data. The argued improvement of computer-based map rendering involves an improved abstract idea (e.g., improved calculating, improved mental process) that the examiner argues is not sufficient enough to make a claim that is directed to an abstract idea eligible. As such the rejection is maintained.
In light of applicant’s remarks and the amendment, regarding the claim interpretation of claims 1, 2, 6-14, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C 112(f) have been considered and are persuasive. As such, the claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Yes, the claims are directed towards a system which fall within at least one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1)
Claim 1
A field monitoring and husbandry system configured for mounting with one or more of an agricultural vehicle or an agricultural implement, the system comprising:
at least one field sensor configured for mounting to the agricultural vehicle or the agricultural implement, the at least one field sensor configured to measure one or more field characteristics within an agricultural field
a measurement indexing module in communication with the at least one field sensor, the measurement indexing module configured to index measurements of the at least one field sensor with one or more associated portions of the agricultural field
a field husbandry controller in communication with the at least one field sensor, the field husbandry controller includes:
a map generation module configured to generate a map of at least the measurements of the at least one field sensor indexed with the one or more associated portions of the field
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute mental processes because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. Highlighted above, the “index” step merely consists of a process of analyzing, grouping, and/or organizing information and presented as a logical step applied after the data from the field sensor has been received. It encompasses a person categorizing, or grouping the information from the sensor acquisition according to which measurement was associated with a specific portion of the agricultural field. In addition, the “generate” step is equivalent to a person perceiving the indexed/sorted data associated with each portion of the field and drawing/creating a map of the agricultural field with the measurements. As such, claim 1 recites mental processes.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2
Claim 1
A field monitoring and husbandry system configured for mounting with one or more of an agricultural vehicle or an agricultural implement, the system comprising:
at least one field sensor configured for mounting to the agricultural vehicle or the agricultural implement, the at least one field sensor configured to measure one or more field characteristics within an agricultural field
a measurement indexing module in communication with the at least one field sensor, the measurement indexing module configured to index measurements of the at least one field sensor with one or more associated portions of the agricultural field
a field husbandry controller in communication with the at least one field sensor, the field husbandry controller includes:
a map generation module configured to generate a map of at least the measurements of the at least one field sensor indexed with the one or more associated portions of the field
The examiner submits that the above identified additional limitation does not integrate the previously discussed abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the “measure one or more field characteristics within an agricultural field,” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving, obtaining, measuring or acquiring information for use in the store and processing step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The recited facilities (field sensor, measurement indexing module, field husbandry controller, and map generation module) are generic components meant to implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely “apply” the mental judgements in a general-purpose vehicle control environment. Thus, it is clear that the abstract ideas have not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above. The additional elements such as a controller and system to perform the step amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. General application of an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed towards abstract ideas, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding some of the other examples of additional limitations in the dependent claims such as, “compare the one or more…” (claim 2), “index the measure one or more yield values…” (claim 4), “select a favored yield,” (claim 9), and “update at least one of the one or more,” (claim 14), “index a second set of field characteristics,” (claim 17), “determine a rate of change” (claim 19) the examiner submits that these limitations are additional abstract ideas that can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, determining steps, in the context of the claims, encompasses a person looking at data collected (acquired, obtained, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally, or using a pen and paper. Similar to the analysis of claim 1, the “index” steps merely consists of a process of analyzing, grouping, and/or organizing information and presented as a logical step applied after the data from the field sensor has been received and the “generate” step is equivalent to a person perceiving the indexed/sorted data associated with each portion of the field and drawing/creating a map of the agricultural field with the measurements.
Furthermore, some other examples of additional limitations in the dependent claims, such as, “comparator…” (claim 2), “yield monitor,” (claim 6), and “measurement indexing module,” (claim 7), “field husbandry controller,” (claim 13), “field sensor” (claim 20) are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner submits that these elements are merely generic computer components that are meant to implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely “apply” the mental judgements in a general-purpose vehicle control environment.
As such, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zemenchik Robert et al. (WO2015164791A1), hereinafter referred to as Robert.
Regarding claim 1, Robert discloses: a field monitoring and husbandry system configured for mounting with one or more of an agricultural vehicle or an agricultural implement (see at least Robert, Fig.1; ¶¶ [0015] which discloses a system and method or sensor-based crop management positioned proximate to or in contact with a surface of an agricultural field while mounted on a vehicle), the system comprising:
processing circuity (see at least Robert, Fig.4, ¶¶ [0025] which includes processing circuity and memory capable of storing and executing instructions)
memory, including instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations (see at least Robert, Fig.4, ¶¶ [0025] which includes processing circuity and memory capable of storing and executing instructions) including operations to:
index the one or more field characteristics measured by the at least one field sensor with associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, Fig.1; ¶¶ [0018], [0022] which discloses the sensor that is positioned between the vehicle and the agricultural implement relative to the direction of travel; the sensor is capable of measuring and outputting data indicative of a property/characteristic of an agricultural field; Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0016] discloses the general process of soil analysis where multiple sensors measure specific characteristics indicative of the agricultural field portions; [0023]-[0024] discloses the sensor monitoring the swaths of soil in a direction of travel where the sensing devices are aligned with the agricultural features and configured to monitor and measure a swath/portion of the agricultural field and output signals indicative of various properties; each sensing device is configured to monitor a swath of the agricultural field and transmit data associated with each portion)
determine, for each portion of the agricultural field, one or more field thresholds, each of the one or more field thresholds separately indexed with the respective associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, Fig.2, ¶¶ [0020] which discloses the sensing devices that are capable of determining/analyzing multiple properties of the agricultural field, or independent (separate) analysis of multiple portions of the agricultural field)
a field husbandry controller in communication with the at least one field sensor, the field husbandry controller includes: (see at least Robert, Fig.4, Item 52) a map generation module configured to:
generate a map including at least one of the one or more field characteristics measured by the at least one field sensor indexed with the associated portions of the agricultural field or the one or more field thresholds separately indexed with the respective associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0028]-[0029] discloses the generation of three-dimensional field maps from the data acquisition; for example, certain characteristics obtained may be sorted and used to aid agricultural operations according to the analyzed swaths/portions)
output the map for display (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0028]-[0029] discloses the outputting of three-dimensional field maps from the data acquisition; for example, certain characteristics obtained may be sorted and used to aid agricultural operations according to the analyzed swaths/portions)
Regarding claim 2, Robert discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the operation further includes operations to:
compare the one or more field characteristics measured with the at least one field sensor and an associated field threshold of the one or more field thresholds, each of the compared one or more field characteristics (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0021], [0031] discloses comparing the soil properties/characteristics from sensor data acquisition of swaths against pre-set ranges such as threshold minimums and maximums to determine whether adjustments to agricultural operations would improve efficiencies or yields)
the associated field threshold indexed to a corresponding portion of the respective associated portions (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0021], [0031] discloses comparing the soil properties/characteristics from sensor data acquisition of associated portions/swaths against pre-set ranges such as threshold minimums and maximums to determine whether adjustments/applications to agricultural operations would improve efficiencies or yields; ¶¶ [0021] discloses an example of one field threshold indexed with one associated portion of the agricultural field such as soil nitrogen levels; more examples of thresholds indexed to certain portions of the agricultural field include thresholds of salinity, nitrogen levels, clay content, moisture content, etc.)
generate an application rate of one or more agricultural products based on the comparison for the corresponding portion (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0031] discloses the general determination of adjustments/applications to improve efficiencies or yields based on comparing the measured soil properties against pre-set values)
Regarding claim 3, Robert discloses: the system of claim 2, wherein the one or more field thresholds includes a plurality of field thresholds, and the associated field threshold includes a first field threshold of the plurality of field thresholds (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0031] discloses the first threshold of the pre-set values associated with soil properties, the threshold minimum)
Regarding claim 4, Robert discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more associated portions of the agricultural field includes:
a plurality of associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, Fig. 3, which discloses portions/swathes of the associated portions measured by the sensors, Items 30a-30l, in the direction of travel of the vehicle)
the one or more field characteristics includes at least one or more field characteristics for each associated portion of the plurality of associated portions (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0018] discloses one or more field characteristics associated with each swath measured by sensors such as salinity, nitrogen level, moisture content etc.)
Regarding claim 5, Robert discloses: the system of claim 4, wherein the one or more field characteristics includes two or more field characteristics for each associated portion of the plurality of associated portions (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0018]-[0019] discloses two or more field characteristics associated with each swath measured by sensors such as salinity, nitrogen level, moisture content etc.)
Regarding claim 6, Robert discloses: the system of claim 2, wherein the operations further includes operations:
measure one or more yield values for the associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0019] discloses the generation of yield maps which measure one or more yield values associated with each swath/portion of measured from sensor data acquisition of an agricultural field and is indicative of a variety of field properties; rates of operation may be adjusted accorded to the measured yield and field characteristics to increase overall efficiency along with yields)
Regarding claim 7, Robert discloses: the system of claim 6, wherein the operations further includes operations to:
index the measured one or more yield values from the one or more associated portions with the associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0016] discloses the general process of soil analysis where multiple sensors measure specific characteristics indicative of the agricultural field portions; [0023]-[0024] discloses the sensor monitoring the swaths of soil in a direction of travel where the sensing devices are aligned with the agricultural features and configured to monitor and measure a swath/portion of the agricultural field and output signals indicative of various properties; each sensing device is configured to monitor a swath of the agricultural field and transmit data associated with each portion)
Regarding claim 15, Robert discloses: the system of claim 2, further comprising:
an applicator interface configured to couple with an agricultural product applicator (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0027] discloses the controller and sensor being communicatively coupled to the interface module)
Regarding claim 16, Robert discloses: the system of claim 15, further comprising the agricultural product applicator in communication with the applicator interface (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0026] discloses an interface module in communication with the control system)
Regarding claim 17, Robert discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the measured field characteristics indexed with the one or more associated portions of the agricultural field are included in a first set of field characteristics, the operations further includes operations to:
index a second set of field characteristics with the one or more associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0021], [0031] discloses comparing the soil properties/characteristics from sensor data acquisition of associated portions/swaths against pre-set ranges such as threshold minimums and maximums to determine whether adjustments/applications to agricultural operations would improve efficiencies or yields; [0020] discloses that in certain embodiments the sensor includes multiple sensing devices to enable analysis and sorting of multiple properties of the agricultural field and or independent analysis of multiple swaths)
Regarding claim 18, Robert discloses: the system of claim 17, wherein the operations further include operations to:
compare the first set of field characteristics with the second set of field characteristics to determine a field characteristic deviation for the one or more associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0021], [0031] discloses comparing the soil properties/characteristics from sensor data acquisition of swaths against pre-set ranges such as threshold minimums and maximums to determine whether adjustments to agricultural operations would improve efficiencies or yields)
Regarding claim 19, Robert discloses: the system of claim 17, wherein the operations further include operations to:
determine a rate of change between the first set of field characteristics and the second set of field characteristics for the one or more associated portions of the agricultural field (see at least Robert, [0023]-[0024] discloses the sensor monitoring the swaths of soil in a direction of travel where the sensing devices are aligned with the agricultural features and configured to monitor and measure a swath/portion of the agricultural field and output signals indicative of various properties; each sensing device is configured to monitor a swath of the agricultural field and transmit data associated with each portion; ¶¶ [0028]-[0029] discloses the generation of three dimension field maps from the data acquisition; for example, certain characteristics obtained may be sorted and used to aid agricultural operations according to the analyzed swaths/portions)
Regarding claim 20, Robert discloses: the system of claim 17, wherein the at least one field sensor includes:
a first field sensor and a second field sensor (see at least Robert, Fig.2, Item “14” ¶¶ [0020] discloses multiple sensing devices)
the agricultural implement includes a first agricultural implement and a second agricultural implement (see at least Robert, Fig.2, ¶¶ [0009] discloses an agricultural implement mounted forward and rearwards of a vehicle)
the first field sensor is configured for coupling with the first agricultural implement (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0015] discloses the sensor system, comprising multiple sensing devices, being communicatively couped to the controller and agricultural implement)
the second field sensor is configured for coupling with the second agricultural implement (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0015] discloses the sensor system, comprising multiple sensing devices, being communicatively couped to the controller and agricultural implement)
the first field sensor is configured to measure the first set of field characteristics (see at least Robert, Fig.1; ¶¶ [0018], [0022] which discloses the sensor that is positioned between the vehicle and the agricultural implement relative to the direction of travel; the sensor is capable of measuring and outputting data indicative of a property/characteristic of an agricultural field)
the second field sensor is configured to measure the second set of field characteristics (see at least Robert, Fig.1; ¶¶ [0018], [0022] which discloses the sensors positioned between the vehicle and the agricultural implement relative to the direction of travel; the sensor is capable of measuring and outputting data indicative of a property/characteristic of an agricultural field)
Regarding claim 21, Robert discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the agricultural implement includes one or more of a tiller, a plow, a planter, a cultivator, a harvester, a swather, a combine, a sprayer, or a trailer (see at least Robert, ¶¶ [0015] discloses examples of the agricultural implements such as but not limited to a planter and seeder)
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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemenchik Robert et al. (WO2015164791A1), hereinafter referred to as Robert in view of Ochs Yanhong et al. (US20060015374A1), hereinafter referred to as Yanhong.
Regarding claim 8, Robert is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yanhong teaches: the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more yield values includes a first yield value indexed with a first associated portion of the one or more associated portions (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019] discloses one or more yield values including a field yield value of one or more associated portions of an agricultural field)
the one or more yield values includes a second yield value indexed with a second associated portion of associated portions (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019] discloses one or more yield values including a second yield value including a second yield value of a second associated portion of an agricultural field)
the operations further includes operations to:
associate the first yield value with measured field characteristics of the first associated portion (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019], [0067]-[0071]discloses the first and second received values associated with a performance metric or standard measured from the field)
associate the second yield value with measured field characteristics of the second associated portion (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019] discloses the data processor which determines a difference or variation between the first yield and the second yield; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield or another performance metric or standard)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robert to include the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more yield values includes a first yield value indexed with a first associated portion of the one or more associated portions, the one or more yield values includes a second yield value indexed with a second associated portion of the one or more associated portions, the field husbandry controller is configured to associate the first yield value with measured field characteristics of the first associated portion, and the field husbandry controller is configured to associate the second yield value with measured field characteristics of the second associated portion as taught by Yanhong. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Robert includes yield maps with values pertaining to different measured swathes of the field, however, a first and second yield value are not explicitly stated. Incorporating the teachings of Yanhong into Robert would allow for an improvement to the base device where the yield values generated on the three-dimension maps can be used to further optimize application and production to facilitate target goals such as yield or overall planting efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Robert is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yanhong teaches: the system of claim 8, wherein the operations further includes operations to:
compare the first yield value with the second yield value (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019] discloses the data processor which determines a difference or variation between the first yield and the second yield; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield or another performance metric or standard)
select a favored yield value corresponding to one of the first yield value or the second yield value and associated measured field characteristics based on the comparison (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019] discloses the data processor determining a difference or variation between the first and second yield, additionally, it makes available the variance, or an indicator; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield, or another performance metric or standard)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robert to include compare the first yield value with the second yield value and the field husbandry controller is configured to select a favored yield value corresponding to one of the first yield value or the second yield value and associated measured field characteristics based on the comparison as taught by Yanhong. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Robert includes yield maps with values pertaining to different measured swathes of the field, however, a first and second yield value are not explicitly stated. Incorporating the teachings of Yanhong into Robert would allow for an improvement to the base device where the yield values generated on the three-dimension maps can be used to further optimize application and production to facilitate target goals such as yield or overall planting efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, Robert is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yanhong teaches: the system of claim 9, wherein the first yield value is greater than the second yield value, and the operation further includes operations to:
select the first yield value as the favored yield value (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020] discloses the data processor determining a difference or variation between the first and second yield, additionally, it makes available the variance, or an indicator that is transmitted to a data processing system; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield, or another performance metric or standard)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robert to include the system of claim 9, wherein the first yield value is greater than the second yield value, and the field husbandry controller is configured to select the first yield value as the favored yield value as taught by Yanhong. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Robert includes yield maps with values pertaining to different measured swathes of the field, however, a first and second yield value are not explicitly stated. Incorporating the teachings of Yanhong into Robert would allow for an improvement to the base device where the yield values generated on the three-dimension maps can be used to further optimize application and production to facilitate target goals such as yield or overall planting efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Robert is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yanhong teaches: the system of claim 9, wherein the operations further includes operations to:
update at least one of the one or more field thresholds indexed to the one or more associated portions of the agricultural field based on the measured field characteristics for the associated portions of the agricultural field associated with the favored yield value (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020] discloses the data processor determining a difference or variation between the first and second yield, additionally, it makes available the variance, or an indicator that is transmitted to a data processing system; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield, or another performance metric or standard; ¶¶ [0049], [0083] discloses transmitting the difference relative to updated minimum threshold percentages relative to the first and second yield)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robert to include the system of claim 9, wherein the field husbandry controller includes a threshold setting module configured to update at least one of the one or more field thresholds indexed to the one or more associated portions of the field based on the measured field characteristics for the associated portions of the field associated with the favored yield value as taught by Yanhong. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Robert includes yield maps with values pertaining to different measured swathes of the field, however, a first and second yield value are not explicitly stated. Incorporating the teachings of Yanhong into Robert would allow for an improvement to the base device where the yield values generated on the three-dimension maps can be used to further optimize application and production to facilitate target goals such as yield or overall planting efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Robert is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yanhong teaches: the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more yield values includes a first yield value indexed with a first associated portion of the associated portions
a first field threshold of the one or more field thresholds is indexed with the first associated portion (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020] discloses the data processor determining a difference or variation between the first and second yield, additionally, it makes available the variance, or an indicator that is transmitted to a data processing system; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield, or another performance metric or standard; ¶¶ [0049], [0083] discloses transmitting the difference relative to updated minimum threshold percentages relative to the first and second yield)
the one or more yield values includes a second yield value indexed with a second associated portion of the one or more associated portions (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020] discloses the data processor determining a difference or variation between the first and second yield, additionally, it makes available the variance, or an indicator that is transmitted to a data processing system; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield, or another performance metric or standard; ¶¶ [0049], [0083] discloses transmitting the difference relative to updated minimum threshold percentages relative to the first and second yield)
a second field threshold of the one or more field thresholds is indexed with the second associated portion (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020], [0049], [0083])
the operations further includes operations to:
associate the first yield value with the first field threshold (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020], [0049], [0083])
associate the second yield value with the second field threshold (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020], [0049], [0083])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robert to include a first field threshold of the one or more field thresholds is indexed with the first associated portion, the one or more yield values includes a second yield value indexed with a second associated portion of the one or more associated portions, and associate the first yield value with the first field threshold as taught by Yanhong. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Robert includes yield maps with values pertaining to different measured swathes of the field, however, a first and second yield value are not explicitly stated. Additionally, two thresholds indexed to different characteristics of a measured associated field are also taken into consideration. It is possible that yield is included in that determination, however it is not explicitly provided as an example. Incorporating the teachings of Yanhong into Robert would allow for an improvement to the base device where the yield values generated on the three-dimension maps can be used to further optimize application and production to facilitate target goals such as yield or overall planting efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Robert is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yanhong teaches: the system of claim 12, wherein the operations further includes operations to:
compare the first yield value with the second yield value (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020] discloses the data processor determining a difference or variation between the first and second yield, additionally, it makes available the variance, or an indicator that is transmitted to a data processing system; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield, or another performance metric or standard)
select a favored yield value corresponding to one of the first yield value or the second yield value and associated field thresholds based on the comparison (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020] discloses the data processor determining a difference or variation between the first and second yield, additionally, it makes available the variance, or an indicator that is transmitted to a data processing system; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield, or another performance metric or standard)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robert to include compare the first yield value with the second yield value and the field husbandry controller is configured to select a favored yield value corresponding to one of the first yield value or the second yield value and associated field thresholds based on the comparison as taught by Yanhong. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Robert includes yield maps with values pertaining to different measured swathes of the field, however, a first and second yield value are not explicitly stated. Incorporating the teachings of Yanhong into Robert would allow for an improvement to the base device where the yield values generated on the three-dimension maps can be used to further optimize application and production to facilitate target goals such as yield or overall planting efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Robert is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yanhong teaches: the system of claim 13, wherein the operations further includes operations to:
update at least one of the one or more field thresholds indexed to the one or more associated portions of the field based on field thresholds associated with the favored yield value (see at least Yanhong, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020] discloses the data processor determining a difference or variation between the first and second yield, additionally, it makes available the variance, or an indicator that is transmitted to a data processing system; the indicator may indicate whether the first yield meets, falls below, or exceeds expectations with respect to the second yield, or another performance metric or standard; ¶¶ [0049], [0083] discloses transmitting the difference relative to updated minimum threshold percentages relative to the first and second yield)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robert to include the system of claim 13, wherein the field husbandry controller includes a threshold setting module configured to update at least one of the one or more field thresholds indexed to the one or more associated portions of the field based on field thresholds associated with the favored yield value as taught by Yanhong. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Robert includes yield maps with values pertaining to different measured swathes of the field, however, a first and second yield value are not explicitly stated. Incorporating the teachings of Yanhong into Robert would allow for an improvement to the base device where the yield values generated on the three-dimension maps can be used to further optimize application and production to facilitate target goals such as yield or overall planting efficiency.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664