DETAILED ACTION
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 16-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 16, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 16-39 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner will analyze Claim 16, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim 17.
The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method for preparing a treatment product for treating a plot of land by a localized spray system.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 16 limitation of a step of generating a vegetation forecast map, wherein a vegetation forecast map is generated from an earlier vegetation map and from a plant growth model that models the growth of the plants being cultivated in the plot of land; the vegetation forecast map and the earlier vegetation map being a graphical representation of the plot of land at a forecasted treatment date and at a date prior to the forecasted treatment date, respectively; each map spatially dividing the plot of land into a set of vegetation areas; each vegetation area being associated with a vegetation indicator representative of a state for the cultivated plants present in said vegetation area; a step of generating a spraying forecast map, wherein a spraying forecast map is generated from the vegetation forecast map; the spraying forecast map being a graphical representation of the plot of land spatially dividing the plot of land into a set of spraying areas; and each spraying area spatially corresponding to a vegetation area and being associated with a quantity of treatment product to be sprayed as a function of the vegetation indicator of the corresponding vegetation area and a step of determining a total quantity of treatment product required to treat the plot of land, wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas, are directed to an abstract. The claim is related to mental process and mathematical concept by having an agronomist to evaluate a farm and determine/calculate/estimate the amount of the product need to treat the farm.
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
A spray system and agriculture machine are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the claims do not amount to significantly more.
The Examiner finds that Claims 18-39 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for analyzing image to forecast a treatment plan.
Thus, claims 16-39 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 35 and 36 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 35 and 36 defines a program embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a non-transitory computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). That is, the scope of the presently claimed a program can range from paper on which the program is written, to a program simply contemplated and memorized by a person.
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 16 19, 21, 22, 24, 31, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERS et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0246549) in view of Lindores (Pub. No. US 2012/0101861).
Regarding claim 16, PETERS teaches a method for preparing a treatment product (Plant protection agent) for treating a plot of land (field) by a localized spraying system carried by an agricultural machine, the method comprising:
a step of generating a vegetation forecast map (digital image), wherein a vegetation forecast map (digital image) is generated from an earlier vegetation map (earlier digital image) and from a plant growth model (prediction model) that models the growth of the plants (condition in the field) being cultivated in the plot of land [Para. 138, and 162; and Para. 44 “the digital image of the field can indicate the vegetation status of the crop plants cultivated in the field at the time when the image was taken”]; the vegetation forecast map and the earlier vegetation map being a graphical representation of the plot of land (field) at a forecasted treatment [Para. 42 “The digital image can be read into a computer system and displayed on a screen connected to the computer system. A user of the computer system recognizes the recorded field or portions of the recorded field in the image on the screen. The “digital image” is therefore a digital representation of the field”; Para. 138 “an earlier digital image is received and a prediction model is added, which then preferably calculates the conditions in the field for the time (or period) of the planned agricultural measure. In this case, the planning takes place not directly based on the digital image, but based on data that correspond to a digital image at the time of prediction”. Since the claim doesn’t explicitly define what “forecast” mean, the cited portion of the prior art reads on the limitation]; each map spatially dividing the plot of land (field) into a set of vegetation areas (pixels/ checkerboard pattern) [Para. 34, 46, 155, 156, fig. 2 and related description]; each vegetation area (pixel) being associated with a vegetation indicator representative (vegetation index) of a state (vegetation state) for the cultivated plants present in said vegetation area [Para. 44-47 and 170]; a step of generating a spraying forecast map (application map), wherein a spraying forecast map is generated from the vegetation forecast map [Para. 116-117, 57, and 58]; the spraying forecast map being a graphical representation of the plot of land (field) spatially dividing the plot of land into a set of spraying areas [Para. 117 “An application map is a representation of the field or a portion of the field in which application of one or a plurality of plant protection agents and/or nutrients is to be carried out. The application map indicates on which partial areas of the field and in what amounts one or a plurality of selected plant protection agents and/or nutrients are to be applied, for example in order to prevent the spread of harmful organisms and/or control harmful organisms and/or to ensure that the crop plants are given an optimum supply of nutrients”]; each spraying area (pixel) spatially corresponding to a vegetation area (pixel) and being associated with a quantity (amount) of treatment product (plant protection agent) to be sprayed as a function of the vegetation indicator (leaf/vegetation area index) of the corresponding vegetation area [Para. 163-165]; and a step of determining a total quantity (total required amount) of treatment product required to treat the plot of land (field), wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities (required amount) of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas (partial areas) [para 108 and abstract].
However, PETERS doesn’t explicitly teach forecasted treatment date and at a date prior to the forecasted treatment date, respectively.
Lindores teaches the vegetation forecast map (ndvi map) and the earlier vegetation map (map of actual plant progress) being a graphical representation of the plot of land (filed) at a forecasted treatment date (when) and at a date prior to the forecasted treatment date (times t1 and t2), respectively [Para. 41 “A processor uses the measured plant metrics and database information to create customized field prescription maps that show where, when and how much fertilizer, pesticide or other treatment should be applied to a field to maximize crop yield.”; 42, 43; Para. 53 “Results from the model are used to generate an NDVI map 520 for any desired time.”; para.54 “NDVI measurements 605 and 610 are obtained by a ground-based system at times t1 and t2 respectively, while NDVI measurement 614 is obtained from a satellite image at a later time t3.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to enable PETERS to determine forecasted treatment date and date before treatment, feature as taught by Lindores; because the modification improves specific crop treatment planning by turning measured and forecast plant growth conditions into more accurate guidance on where, when and how much treatment to apply across a field.
Regarding claims 19, PETERS teaches wherein the plant growth model is arranged (prediction model/plant growth model) to determine a vegetation indicator (growth state/conditions in the field) in each vegetation area (field area/pixel area) at a second date (time of the planned agricultural measure/time point t=0) from a vegetation indicator in that area at a first date (earlier point in time/ time point t<0), prior to the second date, and agronomic data relating to said vegetation area, or in which the biotic stressor evolution model is arranged to determine a biotic stress indicator in each biotic stress area at a second date from a biotic stress indicator in this area at a first date, prior to the second date, and agronomic data (local weather/soil state/cultivation measures) relating to said biotic stress area [Para. 138-145, and 161].
Regarding claim 21, PETERS teaches wherein the agronomic data comprises meteorological data (weather) covering a period between said earlier date and said forecasted treatment date, a date of earlier tillage, physicochemical parameters of the soil (soil type / soil texture /organic carbon / mineral nitrogen content), a date of sowing of the cultivated plants, data relating to an earlier application of a treatment product (fertilizer date), and/or data relating to a crop previously cultivated on the plot of land (crop rotation/ crop residues) [Para. 148].
Regarding claims 22, PETER teaches wherein, during the step of generating a vegetation forecast map, the vegetation forecast map is generated from a plurality of earlier vegetation maps and from the plant growth model [Para. 138, 162 and 44], the earlier vegetation maps being a graphical representation of the plot of land at different distinct dates prior to the forecasted treatment date, or wherein, during the step of generating a biotic stressor presence forecast map [Para. 138, 162 and 44] the biotic stressor presence forecast map is generated from a plurality of earlier maps showing the presence of the biotic stressor and from the evolution model that models the evolution of the biotic stressor, the earlier maps showing the presence of the biotic stressor being a graphical representation of the plot of land at different distinct dates, prior to the forecasted treatment date [Para. 34, 46, 155, 156, fig. 2 and related description].
Regarding claim 24, PETERS teaches wherein each earlier vegetation map (earlier digital image) or each earlier map showing the presence of the biotic stressor is generated from at least one satellite image (digital image in the form of a satellite image) and/or from images acquired during a passage of an image acquisition system through the plot of land on the earlier date in question [Para. 138, 139 and 170].
Regarding claim 31, PETERS teaches further comprising a step of filling a tank (provided and loaded into an application device/container of the application device) of the localized spraying system with the total quantity of treatment product [Para.63 and 173].
Regarding claim 33 PETERS teaches wherein the treatment product is a bio- stimulation (nutrients/growth regulators) product or a biocontrol product (plant protection agents/herbicides) [para. 4, and 59].
Regarding claims 35 and 37, PETERS teaches computer-readable recording medium and computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, lead the computer to implement the method of claim 16 [Para. 41, 42, and 131-134. It’s clear that a computer system that performs the function has a processor and program that is stored a computer readable medium].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERS et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0246549) in view of Lindores (Pub. No. US 2012/0101861) further in view of Paterson et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0103211).
Regarding claim 26, PETER in view of Lindores doesn’t teach the claim limitation,
However, Paterson teaches wherein the step of determining the total quantity of treatment product comprises [Para. 13, and 14]: a sub-step of determining a margin of estimation error, wherein a margin of estimation error is determined as a function of a reliability index associated with the plant growth model or with the biotic stressor evolution model [Para. 17]; and a sub-step of calculating the total quantity of treatment product, wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas and of the margin of estimation error [Para. 20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS in view of Lindores to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Paterson; because the modification improves spray application accuracy and safety.
Claims 28, 30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERS et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0246549) in view of Lindores (Pub. No. US 2012/0101861) further in view of CHABALLIER et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0407304).
Regarding claim 28, PETER in view of Lindores doesn’t teach the claim limitation.
However, CHABALLIER teaches wherein the step of determining the total quantity of treatment product comprises: a sub-step of determining a functional safety margin, wherein a functional safety margin is determined based on parameters of the localized spraying system and/or meteorological data at the forecasted treatment date [Para. 40 and 41], and a sub-step of calculating the total quantity of treatment product, wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas and of the functional safety margin [Para. 40 and 41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS in view of Lindores to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by CHABALLIER; because the modification improves site specific crop treatment planning by turning measured and forecast plant growth conditions in to more accurate guidance on where, when and how much treatment to apply across a field.
Regarding claim 30, PETER in view of Lindores doesn’t teach the claim limitation.
However, CHABALLIER teaches wherein the parameters of the localized spraying system comprise a distance between adjacent spray nozzles, a spray width corresponding to a ground width covered by each spray nozzle, a travel speed of the agricultural machine, a reliability index of the travel speed, and/or a latency in the establishment of a nominal flow rate through each spray nozzle [Para. 36-46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS in view of Lindores to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by CHABALLIER; because the modification improves site specific crop treatment planning by turning measured and forecast plant growth conditions in to more accurate guidance on where, when and how much treatment to apply across a field.
Regarding claims 38, PETER in view of Lindores doesn’t teach the claim limitation,
However, CHABALLIER teaches a filling system for filling a tank of a localized spraying system carried by an agricultural machine, the filling system comprising: a hydraulic circuit designed to removably connect a reservoir containing a treatment product to the tank of the localized spraying system, a measuring means arranged to measure a quantity of treatment product injected into the tank, and a data processing device configured to implement the method according to claim 16 [Para. 49 and 50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS in view of Lindores to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by CHABALLIER; because the modification improves site specific crop treatment planning by turning measured and forecast plant growth conditions in to more accurate guidance on where, when and how much treatment to apply across a field.
Claims 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 32, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERS et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0246549 (first and second embodiment)) in view of Lindores (Pub. No. US 2012/0101861).
Regarding claim 17, PETERS teaches a method for preparing a treatment product (Plant protection agent) for treating a plot of land (field) by a localized spraying system carried by an agricultural machine, the method comprising:
a step of generating a vegetation forecast map (digital image), wherein a vegetation forecast map (digital image) is generated from an earlier vegetation map (earlier digital image) and from a plant growth model (prediction model) that models the growth of the plants (condition in the field) being cultivated in the plot of land [Para. 138, and 162; and Para. 44 “the digital image of the field can indicate the vegetation status of the crop plants cultivated in the field at the time when the image was taken”]; the vegetation forecast map and the earlier vegetation map being a graphical representation of the plot of land (field) at a forecasted treatment [Para. 42 “The digital image can be read into a computer system and displayed on a screen connected to the computer system. A user of the computer system recognizes the recorded field or portions of the recorded field in the image on the screen. The “digital image” is therefore a digital representation of the field”; Para. 138 “an earlier digital image is received and a prediction model is added, which then preferably calculates the conditions in the field for the time (or period) of the planned agricultural measure. In this case, the planning takes place not directly based on the digital image, but based on data that correspond to a digital image at the time of prediction”. Since the claim doesn’t explicitly define what “forecast” mean, the cited portion of the prior art reads on the limitation]; each map spatially dividing the plot of land (field) into a set of vegetation areas (pixels/ checkerboard pattern) [Para. 34, 46, 155, 156, fig. 2 and related description]; each vegetation area (pixel) being associated with a vegetation indicator representative (vegetation index) of a state (vegetation state) for the cultivated plants present in said vegetation area [Para. 44-47 and 170]; a step of generating a spraying forecast map (application map), wherein a spraying forecast map is generated from the vegetation forecast map [Para. 116-117, 57, and 58]; the spraying forecast map being a graphical representation of the plot of land (field) spatially dividing the plot of land into a set of spraying areas [Para. 117 “An application map is a representation of the field or a portion of the field in which application of one or a plurality of plant protection agents and/or nutrients is to be carried out. The application map indicates on which partial areas of the field and in what amounts one or a plurality of selected plant protection agents and/or nutrients are to be applied, for example in order to prevent the spread of harmful organisms and/or control harmful organisms and/or to ensure that the crop plants are given an optimum supply of nutrients”]; each spraying area (pixel) spatially corresponding to a vegetation area (pixel) and being associated with a quantity (amount) of treatment product (plant protection agent) to be sprayed as a function of the vegetation indicator (leaf/vegetation area index) of the corresponding vegetation area [Para. 163-165]; and a step of determining a total quantity (total required amount) of treatment product required to treat the plot of land (field), wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities (required amount) of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas (partial areas) [para 108 and abstract].
However, PETERS (first embodiment) doesn’t explicitly teach performing all claim limitations, above, for “biotic stressor”.
PETERS (second embodiment) teaches determination of a requirement is preferably carried out using sensors in and/or over the field that register the presence of a harmful organism (biotic stressor) in the field and/or register the presence of environmental conditions conducive to the spread of a harmful organism. The use of traps that are set up at various locations in the field can also make an infestation with harmful organisms detectable [Para. 78, and 79]; using for determination a requirement prediction model, e.g. for predicting pest infestations [Para. 80]; the required amount can also depend on the size of the leaf area. This can for example be the case in prophylactic treatment of the crop plant with a plant protection agent if there is a risk of infestation with a pathogen or fungus that primarily infests the leaves [Para. 99] and it is conceivable that the digital image shows that an area of the field is infested with a harmful organism, while other areas are not (yet) affected. In such a case, rapid intervention may be necessary in order to prevent further spreading [rate of presence growth biometric stressor] of the harmful organism. The planning can be such that the infested area is treated with a pest control agent as rapidly as possible. Areas immediately adjacent to the infested area are preferably also included in the treatment, while unaffected areas far away do not have to be treated [Para. 111].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS (first embodiment) by adding biometric stressor sensors to perform all claim steps for biotic stressor in addition to vegetation, feature as taught by PETERS (second embodiment); because the modification improves rapid intervention to prevent further spreading of the harmful organism when infestation is detected on one side of the field.
However, PETERS (first embodiment) in view of PETERS (second embodiment) doesn’t explicitly teach forecasted treatment date and at a date prior to the forecasted treatment date, respectively.
Lindores teaches the vegetation forecast map (ndvi map) and the earlier vegetation map (map of actual plant progress) being a graphical representation of the plot of land (filed) at a forecasted treatment date (when) and at a date prior to the forecasted treatment date (times t1 and t2), respectively [Para. 41 “A processor uses the measured plant metrics and database information to create customized field prescription maps that show where, when and how much fertilizer, pesticide or other treatment should be applied to a field to maximize crop yield.”; 42, 43; Para. 53 “Results from the model are used to generate an NDVI map 520 for any desired time.”; para.54 “NDVI measurements 605 and 610 are obtained by a ground-based system at times t1 and t2 respectively, while NDVI measurement 614 is obtained from a satellite image at a later time t3.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS (first embodiment) in view of PETERS (second embodiment) to provide forecasted treatment date and date before treatment, feature as taught by Lindores; because the modification improves site specific crop treatment planning by turning measured and forecast plant growth conditions in to more accurate guidance on where, when and how much treatment to apply across a field.
Regarding claim 18, PETERS (first and second embodiment) teaches all claim limitations above. Furthermore, Lindores teaches wherein, during the step of generating a biotic stressor presence forecast map, the biotic stressor presence forecast map biotic stressor is generated, in addition, from information relating to a rate of presence and/or a rate of the biotic stressor growth biotic stressor in one or more surrounding plots of land [para. 41, 53, and 57].
Regarding claim 36, PETERS (first embodiment) teaches computer-readable recording medium and computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, lead the computer to implement the method of claim 16 [Para. 41, 42, and 131-134. It’s clear that a computer system that performs the function has a processor and program that is stored a computer readable medium].
Regarding claim 20, PETERS (first embodiment) teaches wherein the plant growth model is arranged to determine a vegetation indicator in each vegetation area at a second date from a vegetation indicator in that area at a first date, prior to the second date, and agronomic data relating to said vegetation area, or in which the biotic stressor evolution model is arranged to determine a biotic stress indicator in each biotic stress area at a second date from a biotic stress indicator in this area at a first date, prior to the second date, and agronomic data relating to said biotic stress area [Para. 138-145, 161, and 111].
Regarding claim 23, PETERS (first embodiment) teaches wherein, during the step of generating a vegetation forecast map, the vegetation forecast map is generated from a plurality of earlier vegetation maps and from the plant growth model [Para. 138, 162, and 44], the earlier vegetation maps being a graphical representation of the plot of land at different distinct dates prior to the forecasted treatment date, or wherein [Para. 138, 162, and 44], during the step of generating a biotic stressor presence forecast map, the biotic stressor presence forecast map is generated from a plurality of earlier maps showing the presence of the biotic stressor and from the evolution model that models the evolution of the biotic stressor, the earlier maps showing the presence of the biotic stressor being a graphical representation of the plot of land at different distinct dates, prior to the forecasted treatment date [Para. 34, 46, 155, 156, fig. 2 and related description].
Regarding claim 25, PETERS (first embodiment) teaches wherein each earlier vegetation map or each earlier map showing the presence of the biotic stressor is generated from at least one satellite image and/or from images acquired during a passage of an image acquisition system through the plot of land on the earlier date in question [Para. 138, 139, and 170].
Regarding claim 32, PETERS (first embodiment) teaches further comprising a step of filling a tank of the localized spraying system with the total quantity of treatment product [Para. 63 and 173].
Regarding claim 34, PETERS (first embodiment) teaches wherein the treatment product is a bio- stimulation product or a biocontrol product [Para. 4 and 59].
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERS et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0246549 (first and second embodiments) in view of Lindores (Pub. No. US 2012/0101861) further in view of Paterson et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0103211).
Regarding claim 27, PETERS (first and second embodiments) in view of Lindores doesn’t teach the claim limitation.
However, Paterson teaches wherein the step of determining the total quantity of treatment product comprises [Para. 13, and 14]: a sub-step of determining a margin of estimation error, wherein a margin of estimation error is determined as a function of a reliability index associated with the plant growth model or with the biotic stressor evolution model [Para. 17]; and a sub-step of calculating the total quantity of treatment product, wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas and of the margin of estimation error [Para. 20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS (first and second embodiments) in view of Lindores to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Paterson; because the modification improves spray application accuracy and safety.
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERS et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0246549 (first and second embodiments)) in view of Lindores (Pub. No. US 2012/0101861) further in view of CHABALLIER et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0407304).
Regarding claim 29, PETER in view of Lindores doesn’t teach the claim limitation.
However, CHABALLIER teaches wherein the step of determining the total quantity of treatment product comprises: a sub-step of determining a functional safety margin, wherein a functional safety margin is determined based on parameters of the localized spraying system and/or meteorological data at the forecasted treatment date [Para. 40 and 41], and a sub-step of calculating the total quantity of treatment product, wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas and of the functional safety margin [Para. 40 and 41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS (first and second embodiments) in view of Lindores to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by CHABALLIER; because the modification improves site specific crop.
Regarding claim, 39, PETER (first and second embodiment) in view of Lindores doesn’t teach the claim limitation,
However, CHABALLIER teaches a filling system for filling a tank of a localized spraying system carried by an agricultural machine, the filling system comprising: a hydraulic circuit designed to removably connect a reservoir containing a treatment product to the tank of the localized spraying system, a measuring means arranged to measure a quantity of treatment product injected into the tank, and a data processing device configured to implement the method according to claim 16 [Para. 49 and 50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify PETERS (first and second embodiments) in view of Lindores to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by CHABALLIER; because the modification improves site specific crop treatment planning by turning measured and forecast plant growth conditions in to more accurate guidance on where, when and how much treatment to apply across a field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666