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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on July 30, 2026. Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on July 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The objection to the Abstract as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Remarks.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10 and 19 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 9, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that claim 1 recites more than observation, judgment, or ordinary agronomic estimation. Claim 1 computes an emergence date based on a soil temperature model “by estimating…a number of days from the planting date of the crop to reach a target growth fraction of the crop,”…is not one a grower can practically perform in the human mind.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Making estimation is a fundamental building block of human ingenuity. As such it is an abstract idea.
Even if a soil temperature model was used to perform the estimation, this soil temperature model is no more than a generic model. In order for a machine learning model to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim must be properly recited in such a way, for example: training the machine learning model in some specified way with technical details include at least one algorithm/function and a training dataset; performing the task using the trained machine learning model according to the algorithm/function with the required data; optimizing a training dataset based on a determination of the outcome satisfies the level of accuracy; and retraining/updating the machine learning model using the optimized/ feedback training dataset, to improve the functionality of the machine learning model each time when executed by the processor.
In the Remarks on page 9, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if some aspect of the claimed modeling were characterized as involving a mathematical concept, claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate any such concept into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance.
Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements including “a processing device”, and “a device adapted to operate a tool”. The Specification describes that “the computer system 200 includes a processing device (processor) 202, a main memory 204 (ROM) and dynamic random access memory (DRAM)” (see ¶ 30); “a computing device such as a personal computer (PC), laptop, mobile phone, smart phone, tablet computer, netbook computer, etc. Use devices may also be referred to as a client device or mobile device”(See ¶ 23); and “transmitting the growth profile to one or more of: a device of the user for display; a separate computing device for additional modeling or to generate a recommendation of an agent to apply to the crop; or a device adapted to operate a tool for harvesting or treating the crop” (see ¶ 138-141); and “using the growth profile at least partially as direct or indirect control parameter to control an agricultural machinery usable for treating the crop” (see ¶ 154). These additional elements, other than receiving, displaying and transmitting information, neither the claim nor the Specification provide any technical implementation details on how the device is controlling a machine to harvest or treat the crop. Besides, using the growth profile as parameter to control a machine is a form of following rules or instructions. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The courts have held that using generic computer components to implement an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24; see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (explaining that courts have identified merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as an example of when a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application).
Thus, the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or other technology. They do not implement the abstract idea in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. They do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking it to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 and MPEP sections cited therein. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if claim 1 were deemed to recite a judicial exception, the ordered combination recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the additional elements, when taken individually and as an ordered combination, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including receiving input from a user device, and transmitting the growth profile to the devices over a network. However, using a generic computer for receiving and transmitting information over a network have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant argues that Xu, Pan, and Zyskowski, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the features of “by estimating, based on the soil temperature model, a number of days from the planting date of the crop to reach a target growth fraction of the crop,” generating a growth profile “comprising predicted date at which one or more phenological stages of the crop will be reached,” and transmitting that growth profile “as a direct control parameter or an indirect control parameter to control” a harvesting/treatment tool “based at least partially on the predicted dates at which the one or more phenological stages will be reached” as recited in claim 1, 10 and 19. However, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended claims, and therefore, the newly amended claims will be fully addressed in this Office 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method for simulating plant development stages, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 10-18 are directed to a system comprising a memory device and a processing device, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, the claims recite the limitations of “receiving an input…for a crop to be grown, computing a planting date of the crop, computing an emergence date for the crop based on plant date and a soil temperature model, estimating a number of days from the planting date, simulating one or more plant development stages of the crop as a growth profile, transmitting the growth profile, generating the climate index model by modeling historical planting dates, computing the climate index for the geographic location, generating the soil temperature model based at least partially on a seeding depth for the type of crop, estimating a number of days from the planting date of the crop to reach a target growth fraction of the crop, and determining that the type of the crop corresponds to a winter crop”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processing device” for computing a planting data and “a device adapted to operate a tool” for receiving the growth profile, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claims encompass a person can manually gathering the type of a crop and geographic location, computing a planting date and an emergency date, simulating one or more plant development stages, modeling historical planting dates for the type of the crop, computing the climate index for the geographic location, estimating a number of days from the planting date of the crop to reach a target growth fraction, and predicting a number of days required to meet a target number of accumulated degree days in the mind or by a human using pen and paper, and require mathematical concepts. Thus, the claims fall within the mental processes grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. The mere nominal recitation of “by a processing device” and “a first device or a computing device or a second device” do not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make an abstract idea patent eligible. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “a processing device” and “a device”. The Specification describes that “the computer system 200 includes a processing device (processor) 202, a main memory 204 (ROM) and dynamic random access memory (DRAM)” (see ¶ 30); “a computing device such as a personal computer (PC), laptop, mobile phone, smart phone, tablet computer, netbook computer, etc. Use devices may also be referred to as a client device or mobile device”(See ¶ 23); and “transmitting the growth profile to one or more of: a device of the user for display; a separate computing device for additional modeling or to generate a recommendation of an agent to apply to the crop; or a device adapted to operate a tool for harvesting or treating the crop” (see ¶ 138-141); and “using the growth profile at least partially as direct or indirect control parameter to control an agricultural machinery usable for treating the crop” (see ¶ 154). These additional elements, other than receiving, displaying and transmitting information, neither the claim nor the Specification provide any technical implementation details on how the device is controlling a machine to harvest or treat the crop. Besides, using the growth profile as parameter to control a machine is a form of following rules or instructions. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The courts have held that using generic computer components to implement an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24; see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (explaining that courts have identified merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as an example of when a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology or technical field. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “a processing device” and “a device”. The Specification describes that “the computer system 200 includes a processing device (processor) 202, a main memory 204 (ROM) and dynamic random access memory (DRAM)” (see ¶ 30); “a computing device such as a personal computer (PC), laptop, mobile phone, smart phone, tablet computer, netbook computer, etc. Use devices may also be referred to as a client device or mobile device”(See ¶ 23); and “transmitting the growth profile to one or more of: a device of the user for display; a separate computing device for additional modeling or to generate a recommendation of an agent to apply to the crop; or a device adapted to operate a tool for harvesting or treating the crop” (see ¶ 138-141); and “using the growth profile at least partially as direct or indirect control parameter to control an agricultural machinery usable for treating the crop” (see ¶ 154). These additional elements, other than receiving, displaying and transmitting information, neither the claim nor the Specification provide any technical implementation details on how the device is controlling a machine to harvest or treat the crop. Besides, using the growth profile as parameter to control a machine is a form of following rules or instructions. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, using a generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim reciting multiple abstract ideas, i.e., the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-9 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 10-18 and 19-20 parallel claims 1-9 —similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., (US 2017/0196171, hereinafter: Xu), and in view of Pan et al., (CN 110309985, hereinafter: Pan), and further in view of Zyskowski et al., (US 2010/0306012, hereinafter: Zyskowski).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a method comprising:
receiving an input comprising a type of a crop and a geographic location for the crop to be grown (see ¶ 47-50, ¶ 55-58, ¶ 60-62, ¶ 75, ¶ 81, ¶ 146-148);
computing, by a processing device (see ¶ 49), a planting date of the crop based on a climate index model of the geographic location (see ¶ 6, ¶ 46-47, ¶ 143-144, ¶ 151, claim 12);
transmitting the growth profile to (see ¶ 73-74, ¶ 122):
a device adapted to operate a tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop, the growth profile being transmitted as a direct control parameter or an indirect control parameter to control the tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop based at least partially on the predicted dates at which the one or more phenological stages will be reached (see ¶ 52, *61, ¶ 88, ¶ 91-94, ¶ 97-99, ¶ 150-151, ¶ 188).
Xu discloses creating one or more geographic specific weather indices using one or more predicted crop stress index values (see claim 12).
Xu does not explicitly disclose a climate index model; however, Pan in an analogous art for crop yield prediction discloses
a climate index model (see Abstract; pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 10-13; pg. 4, ¶ 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weather indices of Xu with the climate index model as taught by Pan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more popular generic model, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Xu discloses creating a digital model to optimizing crop yield based on growth data; and using the number of growing degree days to define the start and end of different phenological development stages (see ¶ 15-17); Xu further discloses generating a model for estimating yield of a crop based on the planting data, relative maturity, received historical data, and the actual production history; crop type, application date and weather data (e.g., precipitation, temperature, wind, forecast, pressure, heat index) (see ¶ 46, ¶ 50).
Pan discloses a simulation model for simulating different crop varieties in the growing process based on the moisture, soil, climate and other influence factor, constructing a crop model for estimating crop yield using the physiological feature and the external environment of the crop itself (see pg. 2, ¶ 3).
Xu and Pan do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Zyskowski in an analogous art for predicting crop performance discloses
computing an emergence date for the crop based on the planting date and a soil temperature model by estimating, based on the soil temperature model, a number of days from the planting data of the crop to reach a target growth fraction of the crop (see Abstract; ¶ 8, ¶ 14, ¶ 34-38, ¶ 92, ¶ 165-166);
simulating one or more plant development stages of the crop as a growth profile based on the planting date, the emergence date, and a degree-day accumulation model, the growth profile comprising predicted dates at which one or more phenological stages of the crop will be reached (see ¶ 8, ¶ 11, ¶ 78, ¶ 84, ¶ 88-89, ¶ 92, ¶ 165-166, ¶ 221-222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Xu and in view of Pan to include teaching of Zyskowski in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the input does not specify the planting date of the crop (see ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses the method of either claim 1 or claim 2, further comprising:
computing, based on climatological winter daily maximum air temperature and climatological winter daily minimum air temperature, the climate index for the geographic location, wherein the planting date of the crop is computed from the climate index model based on the climate index (see ¶ 150, ¶ 160-163).
Xu discloses creating one or more geographic specific weather indices using the past weather data and crop management data (see ¶ 175).
Xu does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Pan discloses
generating the climate index model by modeling historical planting dates for the type of the crop as a function of climate index (see Abstract; pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 10-13; pg. 4, ¶ 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weather indices of Xu with the climate index model as taught by Pan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more popular generic model, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing, based on a climatological winter daily maximum air temperature (WTMPXH) in ° C minus a climatological winter daily minimum air temperature (WTMPNH) in ° C divided by the climatological winter daily maximum air temperature (WTMPXH) in ° C, using a first period between October 1 and March 31 in a northern hemisphere and using a second period between April 1 to September 30 in a southern hemisphere, the climate index for the geographic location, wherein the planting date of the crop is computed from the climate index model based on the climate index (see ¶ 146, ¶ 150, ¶ 157-160).
Xu discloses creating one or more geographic specific weather indices using the past weather data and crop management data (see ¶ 175).
Xu does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Pan discloses
generating the climate index model by modeling historical planting dates for the type of the crop as a function of climate index (see Abstract; pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 10-13; pg. 4, ¶ 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weather indices of Xu with the climate index model as taught by Pan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more popular generic model, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the soil temperature model based at least partially on a seeding depth for the type of the crop (see ¶ 50, ¶ 150-155, ¶ 159, ¶ 174-175).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein computing the emergence date comprises estimating, based on the soil temperature model, a number of days from the planting date of the crop to reach a target growth fraction of the crop (see ¶ ¶ 148-151, ¶ 165).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the degree-day accumulation model by predicting a number of days required to meet a target number of accumulated degree days between emergence and maturity of the type of the crop based on climatological data associated with the geographic location, wherein the target number of accumulated degree days is determined based on historical crop maturity data (see ¶ 150-151, ¶ 165); and
computing a maturity date of the crop based on the number of days and the emergence date (see ¶ 46-47, ¶ 130-133, ¶ 165).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses the method of claim 7, wherein generating the degree-day accumulation model comprises, responsive to determining that the type of the crop corresponds to a winter crop, accounting for a winter dormancy period (see ¶ 4, ¶ 50, ¶ 83, ¶ 128, ¶ 150).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
using the growth profile at least partially as a direct control parameter or an indirect control parameter to control an agricultural machinery usable to treat the crop (see ¶ 88, ¶ 99, ¶ 115).
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses a system comprising:
a memory device to store instructions (see ¶ 10); and
a processing device operatively coupled to the memory device (see ¶ 47, ¶ 49), wherein the processing device is configured to execute the instructions perform operations comprising:
receiving an input from a device of a user, from a database (see ¶ 59), or from a sensor (see ¶ 52), the input comprising a type of a crop and a geographic location for the crop to be grown (see ¶ 47-50, ¶ 55-58, ¶ 60-62, ¶ 75, ¶ 81, ¶ 146-148);
computing a planting date of the crop based on a climate index model of the geographic location (see ¶ 6, ¶ 46-47, ¶ 143-144, ¶ 151, claim 12);
transmitting the growth profile to (see ¶ 73-74, ¶ 122):
a device adapted to operate a tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop, the growth profile being transmitted as a direct control parameter or an indirect control parameter to control the tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop based at least partially on the predicted dates at which the one or more phenological stages will be reached (see ¶ 52, *61, ¶ 88, ¶ 91-94, ¶ 97-99, ¶ 150-151, ¶ 188).
Xu discloses creating one or more geographic specific weather indices using one or more predicted crop stress index values (see claim 12).
Xu does not explicitly disclose a climate index model; however, Pan in an analogous art for crop yield prediction discloses
a climate index model (see Abstract; pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 10-13; pg. 4, ¶ 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weather indices of Xu with the climate index model as taught by Pan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more popular generic model, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Xu discloses creating a digital model to optimizing crop yield based on growth data; and using the number of growing degree days to define the start and end of different phenological development stages (see ¶ 15-17); Xu further discloses generating a model for estimating yield of a crop based on the planting data, relative maturity, received historical data, and the actual production history; crop type, application date and weather data (e.g., precipitation, temperature, wind, forecast, pressure, heat index) (see ¶ 46, ¶ 50).
Pan discloses a simulation model for simulating different crop varieties in the growing process based on the moisture, soil, climate and other influence factor, constructing a crop model for estimating crop yield using the physiological feature and the external environment of the crop itself (see pg. 2, ¶ 3).
Xu and Pan do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Zyskowski in an analogous art for predicting crop performance discloses
computing an emergence date for the crop based on the planting date and a soil temperature model by estimating, based on the soil temperature model, a number of days from the planting data of the crop to reach a target growth fraction of the crop (see Abstract; ¶ 8, ¶ 14, ¶ 34-38, ¶ 92, ¶ 165-166);
simulating one or more plant development stages of the crop as a growth profile based on the planting date, the emergence date, and a degree-day accumulation model, the growth profile comprising predicted dates at which one or more phenological stages of the crop will be reached (see ¶ 8, ¶ 11, ¶ 78, ¶ 84, ¶ 88-89, ¶ 92, ¶ 165-166, ¶ 221-222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Xu and in view of Pan to include teaching of Zyskowski in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the input does not specify the planting date of the crop (see ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses the system of claim 10, the operations further comprising:
computing, based on climatological winter daily maximum air temperature and climatological winter daily minimum air temperature, the climate index for the geographic location, wherein the planting date of the crop is computed from the climate index model based on the climate index (see ¶ 150, ¶ 160-163).
Xu discloses creating one or more geographic specific weather indices using the past weather data and crop management data (see ¶ 175).
Xu does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Pan discloses
generating the climate index model by modeling historical planting dates for the type of the crop as a function of climate index (see Abstract; pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 10-13; pg. 4, ¶ 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weather indices of Xu with the climate index model as taught by Pan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more popular generic model, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses the system of claim 10, operations further comprising:
computing, based on a climatological winter daily maximum air temperature (WTMPXH) in ?C minus a climatological winter daily minimum air temperature (WTMPNH) in ?C divided by the climatological winter daily maximum air temperature (WTMPXH) in ?C, using a first period between October 1 and March 31 in a northern hemisphere and using a second period between April 1 to September 30 in a southern hemisphere, the climate index for the geographic location, wherein the planting date of the crop is computed from the climate index model based on the climate index (see ¶ 146, ¶ 150, ¶ 157-160).
Xu discloses creating one or more geographic specific weather indices using the past weather data and crop management data (see ¶ 175).
Xu does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Pan discloses
generating the climate index model by modeling historical planting dates for the type of the crop as a function of climate index (see Abstract; pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 10-13; pg. 4, ¶ 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weather indices of Xu with the climate index model as taught by Pan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more popular generic model, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Xu discloses the system of claim 10, the operations further comprising:
generating the soil temperature model based at least partially on a seeding depth for the type of the crop (see ¶ 50, ¶ 150-155, ¶ 159, ¶ 174-175).
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses the system of claim 10, wherein computing the emergence date comprises estimating, based on the soil temperature model, a number of days from the planting date of the crop to reach a target growth fraction of the crop (see ¶ ¶ 148-151, ¶ 165).
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses the system of claim 10, the operations further comprising:
generating the degree-day accumulation model by predicting a number of days required to meet a target number of accumulated degree days between emergence and maturity of the type of the crop based on climatological data associated with the geographic location, wherein the target number of accumulated degree days is determined based on historical crop maturity data (see ¶ 150-151, ¶ 165); and
computing a maturity date of the crop based on the predicted number of days and the emergence date (see ¶ 46-47, ¶ 130-133, ¶ 165).
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses the system of claim 16, wherein generating the degree-day accumulation model comprises, responsive to determining that the type of the crop corresponds to a winter crop, accounting for a winter dormancy period (see ¶ 4, ¶ 50, ¶ 83, ¶ 128, ¶ 150).
Regarding claim 18, Xu discloses the system of claim 10, the operations further comprising:
using the growth profile at least partially as a direct control parameter or an indirect control parameter to control an agricultural machinery usable to treat the crop (see ¶ 88, ¶ 99, ¶ 115).
Regarding claim 19, Xu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing device (see claim 11), cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving an input comprising a type of a crop and a geographic location for the crop to be grown (see ¶ 47-50, ¶ 55-58, ¶ 60-62, ¶ 75, ¶ 81, ¶ 146-148);
computing a planting date of the crop based on a climate index model of the geographic location (see ¶ 6, ¶ 46-47, ¶ 143-144, ¶ 151, claim 12);
transmitting the growth profile to one or more (see ¶ 73-74) of:
a device adapted to operate a tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop, the growth profile being transmitted as a direct control parameter or an indirect control parameter to control the tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop based at least partially on the predicted dates at which the one or more phenological stages will be reached (see ¶ 52, *61, ¶ 88, ¶ 91-94, ¶ 97-99, ¶ 150-151, ¶ 188).
Xu discloses creating one or more geographic specific weather indices using one or more predicted crop stress index values (see claim 12).
Xu does not explicitly disclose a climate index model; however, Pan in an analogous art for crop yield prediction discloses
a climate index model (see Abstract; pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 10-13; pg. 4, ¶ 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weather indices of Xu with the climate index model as taught by Pan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more popular generic model, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Xu discloses creating a digital model to optimizing crop yield based on growth data; and using the number of growing degree days to define the start and end of different phenological development stages (see ¶ 15-17); Xu further discloses generating a model for estimating yield of a crop based on the planting data, relative maturity, received historical data, and the actual production history; crop type, application date and weather data (e.g., precipitation, temperature, wind, forecast, pressure, heat index) (see ¶ 46, ¶ 50).
Pan discloses a simulation model for simulating different crop varieties in the growing process based on the moisture, soil, climate and other influence factor, constructing a crop model for estimating crop yield using the physiological feature and the external environment of the crop itself (see pg. 2, ¶ 3).
Xu and Pan do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Zyskowski in an analogous art for predicting crop performance discloses
computing an emergence date for the crop based on the planting date and a soil temperature model by estimating, based on the soil temperature model, a number of days from the planting data of the crop to reach a target growth fraction of the crop (see Abstract; ¶ 8, ¶ 14, ¶ 34-38, ¶ 92, ¶ 165-166);
simulating one or more plant development stages of the crop as a growth profile based on the planting date, the emergence date, and a degree-day accumulation model, the growth profile comprising predicted dates at which one or more phenological stages of the crop will be reached (see ¶ 8, ¶ 11, ¶ 78, ¶ 84, ¶ 88-89, ¶ 92, ¶ 165-166, ¶ 221-222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Xu and in view of Pan to include teaching of Zyskowski in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Xu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, the operations further comprising:
computing, based on climatological winter daily maximum air temperature and climatological winter daily minimum air temperature, the climate index for the geographic location, wherein the planting date of the crop is computed from the climate index model based on the climate index (see ¶ 150, ¶ 160-163).
Xu discloses creating one or more geographic specific weather indices using the past weather data and crop management data (see ¶ 175).
Xu does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Pan discloses
generating the climate index model by modeling historical planting dates for the type of the crop as a function of climate index (see Abstract; pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 10-13; pg. 4, ¶ 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weather indices of Xu with the climate index model as taught by Pan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more popular generic model, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colin et al., (US 2018/0012167) discloses a method for crop management uses variety data and growing degree units on the phenological stage and optimal soil moisture percentage to predict crop growth, to water the crops and to manage agricultural systems by suggesting planting dates required to meet harvest goal.
Lin et al., (TW 2021141402) discloses a method for choosing a planting date according to historical climate data and a planting historical climate data which can achieve the effect of improving yield and quality of crop.
Rhino et al., (JP 2023524716) discloses a method for estimating crop pest risk and/or crop disease risk based on farm definition data and input data associated with the farm area.
Zhou (CN 106897938) discloses a method capturing information of a particular growth condition of agricultural products, and transmitting the information to a second computer terminal.
Osborne et al., (US 9880140 B2) discloses a modeling framework for estimating crop growth and development over the course of an entire growing season generates a continuing profile of crop development from any point prior to and during a growing season until a crop maturity data is reached.
Bulaevskaya et al., (US 2023/0035413) discloses a method for applying treatments to crops in fields and calculating a growth stage of a crop in a field on a defined date based on planting data and weather data for crop.
Sacks et al., “Agricultural and Forest Meteorology”, Denter for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of WI-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 151 (2011), pg. 882-894.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
