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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claims (1, 10-11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: input unit, computing unit in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims (1, 5-7) are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 1, line 8 the limitation of “an crop failure map” should be rewritten as “the crop failure map”.
Re claim 5, line 3 the “the crop failure percentage” should be rewritten as “a crop failure percentage”.
Re claim 6, line 3 the limitation of “the crop map” should be rewritten as “the crop failure map”; line 5 the limitation of “the crop failure percentage” should be rewritten as “a crop failure percentage”; line 6 the limitation of “crop map” should be rewritten as “crop failure map”.
Re claim 7, line 3 the limitation of “the crop map” should be rewritten as “the crop failure map”; In line 4 the limitation of “the crop length” should be rewritten as “a crop length”; In line 4 the limitation of “crop map” should be rewritten as “the crop failure map”; In line 5 the limitation of “the crop failure percentage” should be rewritten as “a crop failure percentage”; In line 7 the limitation of “crop map” should be rewritten as “crop failure map”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (1-3, 5-9, 11-15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (1-3, 5-9, 11-15) are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such as generating a crop failure map, the method comprising: providing annotated training data, the annotated training data comprising aerial images of zones of an agricultural field and the annotations relating to failures of the crops within the agricultural field, the crops being perennial crops, training an artificial intelligence with the annotated training data, providing field data, the field data comprising at least one aerial image of an agricultural field to be inspected, an input unit for providing annotated training data and for providing field data; and a computing unit. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are generating a crop failure map, the method comprising: providing annotated training data, the annotated training data comprising aerial images of zones of an agricultural field and the annotations relating to failures of the crops within the agricultural field, the crops being perennial crops, training an artificial intelligence with the annotated training data, providing field data, the field data comprising at least one aerial image of an agricultural field to be inspected, an input unit for providing annotated training data and for providing field data; and a computing unit. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (1-3, 5-9, 11-15) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims (1-3, 5-9, 11-15) are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer readable medium. The definition of CRM is open-ended and hence transitory embodiments are included.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) (1-11, 13-15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzalez et al. (hereinafter Gonzalez)(US Publication 2019/0188847 A1)
Re claim 1, Gonzalez discloses a method for generating a crop failure map, the method comprising: providing annotated training data, the annotated training data comprising aerial images of zones of an agricultural field and the annotations relating to failures of the crops within the agricultural field, the crops being perennial crops (See fig. 4; ¶ 104 where it teaches using AI with captured images to detect crop failure, wherein suggesting using training data in combination with the AI system in order to detect crop failure.); training an artificial intelligence with the annotated training data (See fig. 4; ¶ 104 where it teaches using AI with captured images to detect crop failure, wherein suggesting using training data in order to train the AI system.); providing field data, the field data comprising at least one aerial image of an agricultural field to be inspected (See fig. 4: 420; ¶ 79 where it teaches receiving images of the field captured by a UAV and/or satellite.); and running the trained artificial intelligence on the field data to generate an crop failure map. (See fig. 4: 470; ¶ 82-83, 93-95, 98, 104 where it teaches generating image analytics based on plant gaps; utilizes AI with captured images to detect crop failure; generate a visual representation of stressed area of the field.)
Re claim 2, Gonzalez discloses determining crop failure length by modifying the crop failure map by means of skeletonizing, line fitting and/or other means of crop failure length estimation. (See ¶ 98)
Re claim 3, Gonzalez discloses skeletonizing the crop failure map to generate a crop failure row map comprising rows of failures. (See ¶ 98)
Re claim 4, Gonzalez discloses identifying crop failure regions in the crop failure map or crop failure row map and outputting a control file usable to control an agricultural equipment for re-planting crops in the identified crop failure regions. (See ¶ 101-104)
Re claim 5, Gonzalez discloses determining the crop failure percentage from the crop failure map for a plurality of sub- zones of the agricultural field; assigning the determined crop failure percentage to the sub-zones; and generating a crop failure percentage map indicating the crop failure percentage for each of the sub-zones. (See ¶ 42-43)
Re claim 6, Gonzalez discloses determining the crop map by means of indices calculation with thresholding or artificial intelligence and determining the crop length by modifying the crop map by means of skeletonizing, line fitting and/or other means of crop length estimation, determining the crop failure percentage from the crop failure map for a plurality of sub-zones of the agricultural field and from the crop map of the same area; assigning the determined crop failure percentage to the sub-zones; and generating a crop failure percentage map indicating the crop failure percentage for each of the sub-zones. (See ¶ 42-43, 98, 104)
Re claim 7, Gonzalez discloses determining the crop map by means of excess green index (ExG) calculation with Otsu thresholding and determining the crop length by modifying the crop map by means of skeletonizing, line fitting and/or other means of crop length estimation, determining the crop failure percentage from the crop failure map for a plurality of sub-zones of the agricultural field and from the crop map of the same area; assigning the determined crop failure percentage to the sub-zones; and generating a crop failure percentage map indicating the crop failure percentage for each of the sub-zones. (See ¶ 42-43, 88, 98, 104)
Re claim 8, Gonzalez discloses wherein the sub-zones are squares and the squares have, in particular, an edge length of 10 meters or less, enabling a user to point to the location of the failure and deciding on any necessary actions. (See ¶ 42-43, 88, 98, 104)
Re claim 9, Gonzalez discloses wherein the sub-zones are squares and the squares have, in particular, an edge length of 10 m; preferably 5 m, more preferably 2 m. (See ¶ 42-43, 88, 98, 104)
Re claim 10, Gonzalez discloses providing initial annotated training data, the initial training data comprising aerial images of zones of an agricultural field and the annotations relating to failures of the crops within the agricultural field; and auto-augmenting the initial annotated training data to generate the annotated training data. (See ¶ 104)
Claims (11, 13-14) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1 above. Furthermore, see figs. 2-3.)
Re claim 15, Gonzalez discloses wherein crops are re-planted in the identified crop failure regions. (See ¶ 101)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pickett et al (US 2021/0321555 A1) disclose a virtual SPAD meter wherein it teaches identifying crop conditions.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 January 21, 2026