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 .
Election/Restrictions
[Copied from Nonfinal Dated 05December2025 → ] Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 28-29, 37, 46) in the reply filed on 01October2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 30-32, 35-36, 40-44, 49-50, 53, 57-60 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01October2025.
Status of the Claims
The amendments and arguments filed 05March2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 2-27, 33-34, 38-39, 45, 47-48, 51-52, 54-56 were previously canceled. Claims 37, 49-50 are now canceled. Claims 1, 28-32, 35-36, 40-44, 46, 53, 57-60 are pending. Claims 1, 30-32, 35-36, 40-44, 53, 57-60 remain withdrawn. Claims 28-29, and 46 are under examination on the merits herein.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f) [foreign application EP21179076.1 filed 11June2021] and 35 U.S.C. 365(c) [national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/065372 filed 07June2022] is acknowledged. Claims 28-29, and 46 MAINTAIN an effective filing date of 11June2021.
Withdrawn Objections and/or Rejections
Rejections made of record in the nonfinal office action dated 05December2025 that are not otherwise discussed herein are withdrawn. In particular:
RE ¶ 5: The indefiniteness rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims (specifying what plant types are meant by “cereal crop” and specifically excluding corn as was suggested by the Office);
RE ¶ 6: The indefiniteness rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims (adding “grain” as in “grain yield” to the body of the claims); and
RE ¶ 11: The Subject Matter Eligibility rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims (now reciting a specific method by which measurement or estimation is done).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 46 REMAINS 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.
Claim 37 is removed from this rejection because, as amended 05March2026, claim 37 is now canceled.
↓Copied from Nonfinal Dated 05December2025, But-for Reference to Claim 37 ↓
As was raised in the Restriction/Unity of Invention Requirement mailed 14August2025, while 46 refers back to claim 35, neither claim 35 nor claim 1 (to which claim 35 refers) provide antecedent basis for “yield prediction”. Therefore, claim 46 is indefinite for a lack of antecedent basis. Further to what was said in the Restriction/Unity of Invention Requirement, it is believed that claim 46 was meant to refer back to claim 28—please amend the claims to correct and clarify this issue.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Dated 05March2026:
Applicant asserts that the claim amendments overcome this issue (Remarks at page 6).
That is not correct and, therefore, not persuasive. The amendment to claim 46 does not address the basis of this rejection.
Claim 46 REMAINS 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.
Claim 37 is removed from this rejection because, as amended 05March2026, claim 37 is now canceled.
This claim refers to “plot yield” prediction, “farmer’s field yield” prediction, and “row yield” prediction. None of these terms have a limited definition within the specification nor a well-recognized definition in the field. Importantly, it is not clear how to distinguish one from the other (e.g., how one may determine whether a third party’s yield prediction value falls within or outside of these claims and, specifically, whether that third party’s yield prediction falls within a “plot yield” or “farmer’s field yield” or a “row yield” prediction that falls within claim 46). To be clear, because these terms are indefinite it is not presently clear how claim 46 would further limit claim 28; but please also note the rejection above regarding antecedent basis (claim 46 presently refers back to claim 35 and not claim 28).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Dated 05March2026:
Applicant asserts that the claim amendments overcome this issue (Remarks at page 6).
That is not correct and, therefore, not persuasive. The amendment to claim 46 does not address the basis of this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 28-29, and 46 REMAIN rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ARANGUREN et al. (“Wheat Yield Estimation with NDVI Values Using a Proximal Sensing Tool” 25August2020 Remote Sens. 12(2749): 17 total pages (doi:10.3390/rs12172749)).
↓Copied from Nonfinal Dated 05December2025, Please See Response to Arguments Section ↓
ARANGUREN et al. teach using the “RapidScan CS-45” sensing tool for measuring canopy reflectance (green biomass) and, thereby, calculating the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) of wheat plants in GS30, GS32, GS37, and GS65 Zadok’s growth stages where NDVI values are used as a proxy for crop nitrogen (N) status.1 ARANGUREN et al. teach threshold NDVI values that, if achieved at each of the GS32, GS37, and GS65 growth stages, are correlated with high grain yield.2 ARANGUREN et al. teach remote sensing to follow NDVI dynamics throughout crop growth for determining if there is a nitrogen deficiency (based on the thresholds provided by ARANGUREN et al.), apply nitrogen if needed to reach the threshold for that growth stage, and thereby optimize crop nitrogen management for achieving high yields.3 [claim 28 and 29, see the last paragraph of claim 29] Notwithstanding the indefiniteness rejections herein above, it is believed that the fields used by ARANGUREN et al. (see pages 2-3 such as Figure 1) may be reasonably interpreted as a “plot” or a “farmer’s field”, therefore, the yield prediction by ARANGUREN et al. may be reasonably interpreted as a “plot yield prediction” or “farmer’s yield prediction”. [claims 37, 46]
For the reasons set forth above, the Office believes ARANGUREN et al. anticipate these claims. However, in the event ARANGUREN et al. is interpreted as not explicitly teaching the data organization or comparison particulars of claim 29, such organization or comparison would be obvious in view of the teachings by ARANGUREN et al. at least because ARANGUREN et al. explicitly suggest the use of the disclosed thresholds for adjusting nitrogen fertilization during wheat crop growth (which inherently requires a comparison of the growing wheat crop’s biomass/canopy to the accompanying growth stage threshold and making a yield prediction such as “the crop is below the threshold, so grain yield will be low if nitrogen fertilizer is not applied”). [claim 29]
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Dated 05March2026:
Applicant asserts that ARANGUREN et al. teaches later development stages than what is being claimed with emphasis on GS65 (Remarks at the bridge of pages 8-9).
That is not persuasive because, as said in the rejection: “ARANGUREN et al. teach using the “RapidScan CS-45” sensing tool for measuring canopy reflectance (green biomass) and, thereby, calculating the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) of wheat plants in GS30, GS32, GS37, and GS65 Zadok’s growth stages where NDVI values are used as a proxy for crop nitrogen (N) status.” (emphasis added). Applicant is ignoring the entire teaching by ARANGUREN et al. (it is not limited to GS65).
Claims 28-29, and 46 REMAIN rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YUE et al. (“Mapping winter-wheat biomass and grain yield based on a crop model and UAV remote sensing” 2021 Int’l. J. of Remote Sensing 42(5):1577-1601, published online 22October2020, of record IDS 06February2024).
↓Copied from Nonfinal Dated 05December2025, Please See Response to Arguments Section ↓
YUE et al. teach measuring at least one biomass value (ground-based and remote-sensing-based) of at least two wheat varieties (ZM175 and J9843)4 at several growth stages including jointing (“S1” therein) which is generally accepted as corresponding to stage “6” on the Feekes growth scale, which corresponds to about “Z31” on the Zadok’s growth scale (= during the stem elongation phase).5 YUE et al. then used those measurements to calibrate the “AquaCrop model” (a software model which simulates plant growth)6 and thereafter estimate plant growth (i.e., biomass and grain yield at harvest) by running new measurements (including at S1) through the AquaCrop software.7 [claim 28] Notwithstanding the indefiniteness rejections hereinabove, YUE et al. teach plot yield predictions. [claims 37, 46] With respect to claims 28 and 29, and because of the calibration steps, it appears as though estimating biomass and grain yield using the AquaCrop software necessarily included comparing a measured S1 “biomass value” against a “threshold biomass value” (i.e., calibration data upon which the AquaCrop model was calibrated).8 [claim 29, see the last paragraph]. YUE et al. summarize their work as follows (page 1580):
PNG
media_image1.png
245
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the Office believes YUE et al. anticipates these claims for the reasons stated above, in the event that YUE et al. is found to not have performed the ordering or comparison bits in claim 29; these claims would at least be obvious over YUE et al. because such data ordering/organization or comparisons (between plants or comparisons to a threshold) appear to be required to fully utilize the AquaCrop model for assisting with “crop growth decision making by crop managers”9 with the specific example of water-stress or fertilizer-stress fields10. Said plainly, non-destructive biomass and grain yield estimates are only useful to growers/crop managers for conditions reporting if data from a growing plant is being compared to data obtained from a previous plant or if such data is compared to a threshold generated using data from a previous plant. In view of YUE et al., it is believed that this comparison element is at least obvious (see the following from page 1595). [claim 29]
PNG
media_image2.png
178
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To be clear, though, YUE et al. suggest that such comparison is actually occurring by the AquaCrop model11 (and, in that way, the Office is of the position that YUE et al. anticipates these claims).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Dated 05March2026:
Applicant asserts that YUE et al. teaches later development stages than what is being claimed (Remarks at page 7).
That is not persuasive because, as said in the rejection: “YUE et al. teach measuring at least one biomass value (ground-based and remote-sensing-based) of at least two wheat varieties (ZM175 and J9843) at several growth stages including jointing (“S1” therein) which is generally accepted as corresponding to stage “6” on the Feekes growth scale, which corresponds to about “Z31” on the Zadok’s growth scale (= during the stem elongation phase)” (emphasis added).
Conclusion
[Copied from Nonfinal Dated 05December2025 → ] The following prior art is made of record because it is considered pertinent to this disclosure and/or these claims (but these references are not currently the basis of an objection or rejection):
CHAWADE (WO2020/112013) regards predicting whether Yellow Rust is present in wheat plant plots and is particularly interesting because of Figure 5 which summarizes how remote sensing technologies and modeling is being used in this field (for identifying issues related to yield via remote sensing and modeling and then using that information for plant breeding decisions):
WALTER et al. (“Estimating Biomass and Canopy Height with LiDAR for Field Crop Breeding” 2019 Front. Plant Sci. 10(1145): 16 total pages (doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01145)) which regards using LiDAR to assess Above-Ground Biomass (AGB) of wheat plants (including at Z31 stage) and predict yield (emphasizing the use of these techniques by plant breeders).
HASSAN et al. (“A rapid monitoring of NDVI across the wheat growth cycle for grain yield prediction using a multi-spectral UAV platform” 2019 Plant Science 282:95-103) regarding Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) via Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) sensing across the growth cycle (including about Z30-39) of different wheat varieties/lines and predicting grain yield with that information.
MAGNEY et al. (“Proximal NDVI derived phenology improves in-season predictions of wheat quantity and quality” 2016 Agricultural & Forest Meteorology 217:46-60) regards predicting wheat crop yield, protein, biomass, and grain nitrogen at harvest using NDVI data obtained at various growth stages (including stem extension or Z31 stage).
ANDERSON et al. (US20220132737, effectively filed 29October2020 and published 05May2022) regarding remote sensing of standing crop phenotypes (in particular, corn) and modeling yield.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Rebecca STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-4:30.
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, Amjad ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-7058. 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.
/REBECCA STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
1 ARANGUREN et al. at Abstract on page 1.
2 See ARANGUREN et al. at page 13 (Section 5 “Conclusions”).
3ARANGUREN et al. at the last paragraph of Section 1 on page 2, Section 4.3 on page 12, see also section 5 on page 13.
4 YUE et al. at Section 2.1.1 on page 1580.
5 See, e.g., Corn Agronomy “Wheat Growth and Development” 23February2024, 11 total pages, at pages 2-3 and 7; available at https://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Crops/Wheat/L007.aspx.
6 See YUE et al. discussing the AquaCrop model at sections 2.3.1-2.3.2 on pages 1584-1587 including Table 4 on page 1587.
7 YUE et al. at Abstract on page 1577, section 2.1.1 on pages 1580, sections 2.2.2 to 3.2.2 on pages 1583-1592,
8 See YUE et al. at Abstract on page 1577 and sections 2.2.2-3.2.2 on pages 1583-1592, especially sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 on pages 1590-1592 including figures therein.
9 YUE et al. at the middle of page 1579.
10 See YUE et al. on page 1595.
11 YUE et al. suggest that data from a growing plant is fed into the model and the model, based on calibration data from previous plants, generates a prediction as to the condition of the growing plant such as it is likely under water-stress condition or it is likely under fertilizer-stress condition. This appears to fall within claim 29 (see the last paragraph thereof, for example).
Prosecution Insights