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 submission and preliminary amendment filed on June 26, 2024. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16 and 18-20 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent.
Priority
Applicant claims the priority of a provisional application No. US 63/295542, filed on December 31, 2021 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2024 and 06/28/2024 appear to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the format and the length exceeds the maximum allowable number of words as specified in 37 CFR 1.72(b). The abstract in an application filed under 35 U.S.C 111 may not exceed 150 words in length, and the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said" should be avoided. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the United States patent and Trademark Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. 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 1-20 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, 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 first device or a computing device or a second device” 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”, “a first device” and “a second device”. The Specification describes that “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). 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. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); 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.
The claims recite the additional elements of “a processing device”, “a first device” and “a second device”. The Specification describes that “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). 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. The additional elements, when taken individually and as an ordered combination, at best, may perform the 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, 4, 6-11, 14, 16-23 and 25 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, ¶ 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);
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 (see ¶ 66, ¶ 148-151, ¶ 159-160); and
transmitting the growth profile to one or more (see ¶ 73-74) of:
a first device of a user (see ¶ 94);
a computing device adapted to perform one or more of: executing additional modeling or generating a recommendation of an agent to apply to the crop (see ¶ 58, ¶ 102, ¶ 181, ¶ 184); or
a second device adapted to operate a tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop.
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 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).
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 (see Abstract; ¶ 14, ¶ 37-38).
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, ¶ 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);
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 (see ¶ 66, ¶ 148-151, ¶ 159-160); and
transmitting the growth profile to one or more (see ¶ 73-74) of:
a first device of a user (see ¶ 94);
a computing device adapted to perform one or more of: executing additional modeling or generating a recommendation of an agent to apply to the crop (see ¶ 58, ¶ 102, ¶ 181, ¶ 184); or
a second device adapted to operate a tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop.
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 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).
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 (see Abstract; ¶ 14, ¶ 37-38).
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, ¶ 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);
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 (see ¶ 66, ¶ 148-151, ¶ 159-160); and
transmitting the growth profile to one or more (see ¶ 73-74) of:
a first device of a user (see ¶ 94);
a computing device adapted to perform one or more of: executing additional modeling or generating a recommendation of an agent to apply to the crop (see ¶ 58, ¶ 102, ¶ 181, ¶ 184); or
a second device adapted to operate a tool for one or more of harvesting the crop or treating the crop.
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 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).
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 (see Abstract; ¶ 14, ¶ 37-38).
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.
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.
Perry et al., (US 11263707 B2) discloses a system for performing various machine learning operations to predict crop production and to identify a set of farming operation based on geographic and agronomic information.
Mewes et al., (US 2019/0050510) discloses a method for simulating complex agricultural situations based on combinations of the predictive variables, and applies the adjustments to the primary model to induce an altered outcome.
Sinha et al., (US 2021/0110157) discloses a method for estimating crop maturity using remote sensing image of crops acquired at an image acquisition time.
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., “Crop management and phenology trends in the U.S. Corn Belt: Impacts on yields, evapotranspiration and energy balance”, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 151 (2011) 882-894, at ScienceDirect.
Araji et al., “Impacts of climate change on soybean production under different treatments of field experiments considering the uncertainty of general circulation models”, Agricultural Water Management 205 (2018) 63-71, at ScienceDirect.
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