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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-27 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in the previous office action.
Claim 16, drafted by the examiner and considered to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on applicant’s argument of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
A computer-implemented method for providing a variable fertilizer recommendation for a crop, the method comprising steps of:
a. determining at least one agricultural field comprising at least one crop;
b. determining a crop nutrient status for the at least one crop in the at least one agricultural field, wherein determining the crop nutrient status for the at least one crop in the at least one agricultural field comprises:
i. determining a baseline value and an in-field variability for the crop nutrient status of the at least one agricultural field;
ii. wherein determining the baseline value and the in-field variability comprises:
1. receiving remote data, the remote data comprising image data of the at least one agricultural field;
2. generating at least one first vegetation index indicative of a crop nutrition status based on the image data and determining the baseline value based on the at least one first vegetation index;
3. generating at least one second vegetation index indicative of a crop nutrition status based on the image data and determining the in-field variability based on the at least one second vegetation index;
4. wherein the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value is defined as SX = f (RXXX(1), RXXX(2) RXXX(i) RXXX(n)), wherein RXXX(i) for i=1 n represent a plurality of reflectance data related to a given wavelength, comprised in the remote data, and f is a predetermined mathematical relation,
5. wherein the at least one second vegetation index for determining the in-field variability is defined as SX' = f' (RXXX(1), RXXX(2), RXXX(i), , RXXX(n)) wherein f is a same mathematical relation as present for the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value, wherein the at least one RXXX(i) included in the at least one second vegetation index for determining the in- field variability replaces at least one of the reflectance data included in the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value and the at least one RXXX(i) represents reflectance data related to a different wavelength from the at least one reflectance data replaced;
iii. determining the crop nutrient status based on the baseline value and on the in-field variability;
c. determining the variable fertilizer recommendation for the at least one agricultural field based on the determined crop nutrient status, wherein the variable fertilizer recommendation is configured to be implemented by an agricultural apparatus to carry out a corresponding fertilizer application.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious a computer-implemented method for providing a variable fertilizer recommendation for a crop, the method comprising steps of: a. determining at least one agricultural field comprising at least one crop; b. determining a crop nutrient status for the at least one crop in the at least one agricultural field, wherein determining the crop nutrient status for the at least one crop in the at least one agricultural field comprises: i. determining a baseline value and an in-field variability for the crop nutrient status of the at least one agricultural field; ii. wherein determining the baseline value and the in-field variability comprises: 1. receiving remote data, the remote data comprising image data of the at least one agricultural field; 2. generating at least one first vegetation index indicative of a crop nutrition status based on the image data and determining the baseline value based on the at least one first vegetation index; 3. generating at least one second vegetation index indicative of a crop nutrition status based on the image data and determining the in-field variability based on the at least one second vegetation index; 4. wherein the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value is defined as SX = f (RXXX(1), RXXX(2) RXXX(i) RXXX(n)), wherein RXXX(i) for i=1 n represent a plurality of reflectance data related to a given wavelength, comprised in the remote data, and f is a predetermined mathematical relation, 5. wherein the at least one second vegetation index for determining the in-field variability is defined as SX' = f' (RXXX(1), RXXX(2), RXXX(i), , RXXX(n)) wherein f is a same mathematical relation as present for the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value, wherein the at least one RXXX(i) included in the at least one second vegetation index for determining the in- field variability replaces at least one of the reflectance data included in the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value and the at least one RXXX(i) represents reflectance data related to a different wavelength from the at least one reflectance data replaced; iii. determining the crop nutrient status based on the baseline value and on the in-field variability; c. determining the variable fertilizer recommendation for the at least one agricultural field based on the determined crop nutrient status, wherein the variable fertilizer recommendation is configured to be implemented by an agricultural apparatus to carry out a corresponding fertilizer application.
Raun et al. (WO 03/009669) shows the use of NDVI and reflectance-based fertilizer decision making, but does not disclose generating at least one first vegetation index indicative of a crop nutrition status based on the image data and determining the baseline value based on the at least one first vegetation index, generating at least one second vegetation index indicative of a crop nutrition status based on the image data and determining the in-field variability based on the at least one second vegetation index, wherein the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value is defined as SX = f (RXXX(1), RXXX(2) RXXX(i) RXXX(n)), wherein RXXX(i) for i=1 n represent a plurality of reflectance data related to a given wavelength, comprised in the remote data, and f is a predetermined mathematical relation, wherein the at least one second vegetation index for determining the in-field variability is defined as SX' = f' (RXXX(1), RXXX(2), RXXX(i), , RXXX(n)) wherein f is a same mathematical relation as present for the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value, wherein the at least one RXXX(i) included in the at least one second vegetation index for determining the in-field variability replaces at least one of the reflectance data included in the at least one first vegetation index for determining the baseline value and the at least one RXXX(i) represents reflectance data related to a different wavelength from the at least one reflectance data replaced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the previous rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights