DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Drawings
The drawings (fig. 6) are objected to because The items s1(crop property), s2(equivalent areas), s2a(soil sampling location data), s3(the soil data SD), s4 (soil property map SPM) and s5 (treatment instruction data) inside the boxes should be changed to corresponding texts.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “determining unit, first and second receiving unit and a generating unit (as cited in claims 11),” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function based on fig. 1 of current discloser PgPub, where it discloses such units are functional steps and executed by processor.
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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-15 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-10 fall within category of process; For example, each of claims 11-15 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863));
Regarding Claims 1-10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of a determining equivalent areas.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following bold limitations:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, crop property distribution data of an agricultural field comprising at least one crop related parameter;
determining equivalent areas;
receiving soil data with respect to at least one soil parameter for each of the equivalent areas; and
generating a soil property map the agricultural field based on the soil data and the equivalent areas.
The bold limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and/ or a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements . Therefore, the bold limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determining equivalent areas having a crop related parameter value within a certain range in the crop property distribution data” combination of a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and/ or a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements.
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example,1st additional first element is “receiving, by a processing device, crop property distribution data of an agricultural field comprising at least one crop related parameter; receiving soil data with respect to at least one soil parameter for each of the equivalent areas;” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For example, 2nd additional first element is “generating a soil property map the agricultural field based on the soil data and the equivalent areas” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or post solution activity and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 3rd additional element is “processing device”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “processing device”, generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-10
Dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-10 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea (bold) or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity(italicized), mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment(under line).
For examples: (2-10 (e.g., data gathering and or pre/post solution activity and /or field of use))
2. further comprising generating treatment instruction data for an agricultural equipment based at least in part on the soil property map.
3. the crop property distribution data comprises biomass distribution data and the crop related parameter value comprises a biomass value.
4. the biomass distribution data is received from at least one of a data base, a current measurement, or a user input.
5. the biomass distribution data is derived from historical biomass distribution data, wherein the historical biomass distribution data] is from one of not less than 2 years,
6. providing soil sampling location data in the agricultural field based at least in part on the equivalent areas, wherein
7. the soil sampling location data comprises one of between one and ten soil sampling locations for each equivalent area,
8. providing soil sampling timing data with reference to a time one or more soil samples of the soil data
9. providing soil sampling method data.
10. wherein the soil data relates to one or more of: soil organic matter, total carbon content, organic carbon content, inorganic carbon content, soil humus content, boron content, phosphorus content, potassium content, nitrogen content, sulfur content, calcium content, iron content, aluminum content, chlorine content, molybdenum content, magnesium content, nickel content, copper content, zinc content, Manganese content, pH value of [[the]] soil in the agricultural field or [[the]] a sub-field zone, soil quality, soil sandiness, soil moisture, soil humidity, soil temperature, soil surface temperature, soil density, soil texture, soil conductivity, water holding capacity, clay content, silt content, and/or or sand content of the soil.
Regarding Claims 11-15
Claims 11-15 contains language similar to claim 1-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(1) as being anticipated by
Tasha et al. (CA 2663917).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 13. Tasha teaches a method comprising(fig.1- 2):
receiving, by a processing device(fig.1), crop property distribution data of an agricultural field comprising at least one crop related parameter(Input Data set(crop yield data sets): fig.1; distribution 40: fig.2);
determining equivalent areas having a crop related parameter value within a range in the crop property distribution data(calculate distribution 5-8 NDVI zones within vegetation map 50 : fig. 2);
receiving soil data with respect to at least one soil parameter for each of the equivalent areas(70: fig. 2); and
generating a soil property map
Regarding Claims 2, 12 and 15. Tasha further teaches generating treatment instruction data for agricultural equipment based at least in part on the soil property map (131, 132, 133: fig.2).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14. Tasha further teaches wherein the crop property distribution data comprises biomass distribution data and the crop related parameter value comprises a biomass value(a NDVI distribution within and about said geo-referenced production area, said NDVI distribution correlated to a plurality of biomass density ranges distributed within and about the geo-referenced production area: claim 1; fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4. Tasha further teaches the biomass distribution data is received from at least one of a data base, a current measurement, or a user input( estimations of a` normalized difference vegetable indeg'(i.e., NVDI) based on biomass extrapolations derived from multispectral satellite imagery: line 12-15, page 3).
Regarding Claim 5. Tasha further teaches the biomass distribution data is derived from historical biomass distribution data, wherein the historical biomass distribution data is from one of not less than 2 years, not less than 4 years not less than 8 years, or not less than 10 years (hyperspectral satellite imagery collected in previous years: line 10-11, page 9).
Regarding Claim 6. Tasha further teaches providing soil sampling location data in the agricultural field based at least in part on the equivalent areas, wherein at least one of soil sampling route data for a soil sampling device to navigate through the agricultural field is provided or soil sampling map data for the agricultural field is provided(fig.6; page 14, l. 1-10, claim 31; [0010]).
Regarding Claim 7. Tasha further teaches the soil sampling location data comprises one of between one and ten soil sampling locations for each equivalent area,
Regarding Claim 8. Tasha further teaches providing soil sampling timing data with reference to a time one or more soil samples of the soil data are to be obtained(the suitable real-time crop production parameter inputs are exemplified by crop seeding date, crop development stage exemplified by tillering, leaf-stage data and the like, the results of supplementary analyses performed on soil samples collected at one or more selected post-seeding time periods: [0011]).
Regarding Claim 9. Tasha further teaches providing soil sampling method data(fuzzy k-means, soil sampling suitable numbers of sites within each soil management zone throughout the agricultural field is derived 60. Soil samples are then collected and analyzed for selected macronutrients and micronutrients, and at least some of soil pH, soil EC, soluble salts, texture, mineral composition and organic matter content 70 :[0010], [0014]).
Regarding Claim 10. Tasha further teaches wherein the soil data relates to one or more of: soil organic matter, total carbon content, organic carbon content, inorganic carbon content, soil humus content, boron content, phosphorus content, potassium content, nitrogen content, sulfur content, calcium content, iron content, aluminum content, chlorine content, molybdenum content, magnesium content, nickel content, copper content, zinc content, Manganese content, pH value of [[the]] soil in the agricultural field or a sub-field zone, soil quality, soil sandiness, soil moisture, soil humidity, soil temperature, soil surface temperature, soil density, soil texture, soil conductivity, water holding capacity, clay content, silt content, and/or or sand content of the soil([0010]).
Examiner Notes
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 13, Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(1) as being anticipated by Casas et al. (US 20200184214), see figs. 1, 3, 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 2024/0169453: disclose More specifically, the field health advisor module receives and processes field image data to determine, identify, and provide index values of biomass health. The index values of biomass health may range from zero (indicating no biomass) to 1 (indicating the maximum amount of biomass). In an example embodiment, the index value has a specific color scheme, so that every image has a color-coded biomass health scheme (e.g., brown areas show the areas in the field with the lowest relative biomass health).
b) US 20240138291 A1: A system and method for providing a fertilizer recommendation for an agronomic field based on a direct measurement of a crop nutrient level at a measurement location, including receiving field and remote data. Optional approaches include adjusting the fertilizer recommendation based on at least one of the received field, farm and/or weather data. Alternatively, based on field data, at least one measurement region for carrying out a measurement for providing a fertilizer recommendation is determined. Optional approaches include receiving remote data, farm data and/or weather data to manage the improve the measurement region determination.
c) US 20230136009: disclose he present invention relates to a method (10) to control weeds comprising the steps of: a) acquiring geopositional information of planted crop seeds on an agricultural field and generating a crop seed map, b) acquiring soil elevation data and the corresponding geopositional information of the soil elevation on the agricultural field where the crop seeds have been planted or are being planted at at least two different time points and generating soil surface profile maps of the agricultural field, the soil surface profile maps showing the soil surface profiles at the at least two different time points, c) comparing the soil surface profile maps and the crop seed map to identify differences in the soil elevation profile that are not associated with seed growth of the planted seeds on the agricultural field, d) generating a weed control agent spray map on the basis of the differences in the identified soil elevations on the agricultural field that are not associated with seed growth of the planted crop seeds on the agricultural field.
d) US 20220110250: disclose a predictive map generator that generates a functional predictive agricultural map of the field, that maps predictive values of the agricultural characteristic to the different geographic locations in the field, based on the values of the soil property in the prior information map and based on the value of the agricultural characteristic detected by the in-situ sensor.
e) US 20220078964: A fertilization map generating system according to Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2011-254711 includes a hot-water extracted nitrogen amount calculation unit that obtains a relationship between a reflectance of natural light and a hot-water extracted nitrogen amount at a survey point, based on image data and environmental light amount data in an agricultural field, each of which is obtained by remote sensing, and soil sampling data obtained by analyzing fertilizer components contained in soil, a reflectance calculation unit that calculates a reflectance of natural light in the agricultural field for each predetermined mesh based on the data obtained by the remote sensing, and a first thematic map creation unit that creates a hot-water extracted nitrogen map in mesh units of the agricultural field, based on the relationship between the reflectance of natural light and the hot-water extracted nitrogen amount at the survey point, and data of the reflectance of natural light for each mesh.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights