DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 16/140,220, filed 09/24/2018, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it constitutes a continuation-in-part of the prior application.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CA2987761, filed on 12/06/2017.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1, 13 and 15 have been amended.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of Claims 13-14. However, Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of Claims 1-12 and 15-17.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the Examiner’s characterizations of the claims is improper, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the application’s abstract, as well as claim preambles, the invention is geared towards controlling irrigation.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the Mathematical Relationships are fully integrated into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner will further note an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provide a detailed explanation of how to perform this analysis. In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. In analyzing the specification, Examiner asserts the claims do not reflect the disclosed improvement or effectively demonstrate an improvement to existing technology as conveyed in the specification. In addition, (ref: 2106.04(d)(1)). In addition, with generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment / field of use and addition of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, that the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 as presently written recites limitations that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. In addition, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and regardless of the complexity and/or granularity of the type of data, computational data analysis without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims provide an inventive concept under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains, in light of the currently written claims, that the claim does not add additional elements that amount to significantly more. In addition, Examiner will note that the data gathering steps are performed in a conventional way and do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-12, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are directed to the abstract idea of irrigation control.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites operative moisture data connections to: i. an externally-maintained historical precipitation data source containing daily average precipitation amounts for the field site for each calendar day of at least one previous growing season; ii. an externally-maintained current precipitation data source containing daily average precipitation amounts for the field site for each calendar day of the current season; and iii. a ground moisture data source being a data source storing periodically captured moisture sample values at the rooting depth of the growing site within the current season; the method comprising :i) in respect of the current growing season: a. establishing a desired crop yield for the crop at the field site; b. using historical precipitation data values from the historical precipitation data source to identify daily average precipitation amounts for the field site for each calendar day of at least one prior growing season corresponding to the calendar dates of the current season date range, being historical daily average precipitation amounts; c. calculating the historical seasonal precipitation value (Pxist) for at least one prior growing season, being the total of historical daily average precipitation amounts corresponding to the calendar days within the current season date range;d. determining an initial moisture factor value (MF) for the selected crop, being the required amount of available water for the selected crop to establish initial crop growth, a historical yield value (Yxist) for the selected crop, and a permanent wilting point value (WP) of the field site, being the minimum amount of crop available water in the soil of the field site that is required by the crop not to wilt; ii) in a periodic monitoring loop, upon detection of the capture of a new moisture sample value in the ground moisture data source: a. calculating a raw soil water value (WRaw) within the rooting depth, being the amount of plant-available water within the rooting depth at the sample date; b. calculating a moisture based yield potential value (YP) for the crop in the growing season by: i. calculating a crop water use efficiency factor (FUE) using the formula: F=Hist UE pHist- MF ii. determining the forecast precipitation value (PF) at the field site from the calculation date to the completion date; iii. calculating the total available moisture (Mtotal) using the formula: Mtotal((WRaw - WP) +PR+PF) - MF and iv. calculating the yield potential (YP) using the formula: YP =Mtotal*FUE and c. if the calculated yield potential (YP) differs from the established desired crop yield by more than an established threshold amount, automatically, sending, without human intervention, a control signal to the at least one irrigation controller corresponding to the field site to adjust the application of water at the field site to modify the raw soil water value (WRaW) within the rooting depth; wherein the actuation of the irrigation controller(s) to apply additional or reduced water at the field site will aid in decreasing or eliminating the difference between the calculated yield potential (YP) and the established desired crop yield.
These claim limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical relationships, equations and calculations taking place. Additionally, the claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-12 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a computer, a control software component, an irrigation control interface and at least one irrigation controller. The computer, a control software component, an irrigation control interface and at least one irrigation controller are merely generic computing devices.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 11 and 12 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a computer, a control software component, an irrigation control interface, at least one irrigation controller and the generic computing elements described in the applicant's specification in at least Para 0067. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it adds insignificant extrasolution activity such as mere data gathering, and a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 1, 11 and 12, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 13-14, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 13-14 are directed to the abstract idea of irrigation control.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 13, claim 13 recites a. capturing at least one moisture reading in relation to a sample depth within a rooting depth of the field site at a sample date; b. using the at least one moisture reading and other necessary method parameters to calculate the raw soil water value (WRaw) within the rooting depth; c. calculating the total available moisture (MTotal) using the raw soil water value (WRaw), the precipitation received (PR) at the field site to date, and the forecast precipitation (PF) at the field site for the remainder of the current growing season; d. calculating the yield potential (YP) for the crop in the growing season based on the total available moisture (MTotal); and e. automatically, controlling, without human intervention, an irrigation controller at the field site based on the calculated total available moisture (MTotal) to optimize the water application for achieving the desired crop yield.
These claim limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical relationships, equations and calculations taking place. Additionally, the claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claim 14 further recites the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of an irrigation controller. The irrigation controller is merely a generic computing device.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include an irrigation controller and the generic computing elements described in the applicant's specification in at least Para 0067. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it adds insignificant extrasolution activity such as mere data gathering, and a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 13 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 15-17, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 15-17 are directed to the abstract idea of irrigation control.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 15, claim 15 recites operative moisture data connections to: i. an externally-maintained historical precipitation data source containing daily average precipitation amounts for the field site for each calendar day of at least one previous growing season; ii. an externally-maintained current precipitation data source containing daily average precipitation amounts for the field site for each calendar day of the current season; and iii. a ground moisture data source being a data source storing periodically captured moisture sample values at the rooting depth of the growing site within the current season; capable of executing the irrigation control method comprising: iii) in respect of the current growing season: a. establishing a desired crop yield for the crop at the field site; b. using historical precipitation data values from the historical precipitation data source to identify daily average precipitation amounts for the field site for each calendar day of at least one prior growing season corresponding to the calendar dates of the current season date range, being historical daily average precipitation amounts; c. calculating the historical seasonal precipitation value (PHist) for at least one prior growing season, being the total of historical daily average precipitation amounts corresponding to the calendar days within the current season date range; d. determining an initial moisture factor value (MF) for the selected crop, being the required amount of available water for the selected crop to establish initial crop growth, a historical yield value (YHist) for the selected crop, and a permanent wilting point value (WP) of the field site, being the minimum amount of crop available water in the soil of the field site that is required by the crop not to wilt; iv) in a periodic monitoring loop, upon detection of the capture of a new moisture sample value in the ground moisture data source: a. calculating a raw soil water value (WRaw) within the rooting depth, being the amount of plant-available water within the rooting depth at the sample date; b. calculating a moisture based yield potential value (YP) for the crop in the growing season by: i. calculating a crop water use efficiency factor (FUE) using the formula: F=Hist UE pHist- MF ii. determining the forecast precipitation value (PF) at the field site from the calculation date to the completion date; iii. calculating the total available moisture (MTotal) using the formula: MTotal((WRaw - WP) +PR+PF) - MF and iv. calculating the yield potential (YP) using the formula: YP =MTotal * FUE and c. if the calculated yield potential (YP) differs from the established desired crop yield by more than an established threshold amount, automatically, sending, without human intervention, a control signal to the at least one irrigation controller corresponding to the field site to adjust the application of water at the field site to modify the raw soil water value (WRaw) within the rooting depth; wherein the actuation to apply additional or reduced water at the field site will aid in decreasing or eliminating the difference between the calculated yield potential (YP) and the established desired crop yield.
These claim limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical relationships, equations and calculations taking place. Additionally, the claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claim 16-17 further recites the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a computer, a control software component, an irrigation control interface, at least one irrigation controller. The computer, a control software component, an irrigation control interface, at least one irrigation controller are merely generic computing devices.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 15-17 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a computer, a control software component, an irrigation control interface, at least one irrigation controller and the generic computing elements described in the applicant's specification in at least Para 0067. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it adds insignificant extrasolution activity such as mere data gathering, and a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 15-17, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §103 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Examiner has made note of Applicant’s brief summaries of each cited piece of art used in the previous Office Action. It is clear that each piece of art related to the agricultural field. Applicant further makes arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner will further note that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In addition, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as previously noted, that each piece of cited art is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine said cited art to teach the limitations as currently presented.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In response to Applicant's argument against the primary combination of prior art, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert et al. (US 2017/0311559 A1) in view of Ethington et al. (US 2016/0078569 A1) further in view of Appelboom et al. (US 2015/0361630 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Ebert teaches the limitations of Claim 13 which state
a. capturing at least one moisture reading in relation to a sample depth within a rooting depth of the field site at a sample date (Ebert: Para 0006 via determining plant available water level for the area of the soil; using a computer, receiving temperature and moisture data from a plurality of temperature and moisture sensors, the sensors disposed within an agricultural field, determining a volumetric water content for an area of soil contained in the field, determining a level of spatial and temporal variability within the area, including variability through a root zone of the soil, determining a plant available water level for the area of soil, and displaying results of said evaluating on an electronic interface to a user. The method may also comprise determining a soil texture and composition profile for the area of soil) ;
b. using the at least one moisture reading and other necessary method parameters to calculate the raw soil water value (WRaw) within the rooting depth (Ebert: Para 0006 via determining plant available water level for the area of the soil; using a computer, receiving temperature and moisture data from a plurality of temperature and moisture sensors, the sensors disposed within an agricultural field, determining a volumetric water content for an area of soil contained in the field, determining a level of spatial and temporal variability within the area, including variability through a root zone of the soil, determining a plant available water level for the area of soil, and displaying results of said evaluating on an electronic interface to a user. The method may also comprise determining a soil texture and composition profile for the area of soil);
However, Ebert does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 13 which state c. calculating the total available moisture (MTotal) using the raw soil water value (WRaW), the precipitation received (PR) at the field site to date, and the forecast precipitation (PF) at the field site for the remainder of the current growing season; d. calculating the yield potential (YP) for the crop in the growing season based on the total available moisture (MTotal).
Ethington though, with the teachings of Ebert, teaches of
c. calculating the total available moisture (MTotal) using the raw soil water value (WRaW), the precipitation received (PR) at the field site to date, and the forecast precipitation (PF) at the field site for the remainder of the current growing season (Ethington: Para 0057-0061 via capabilities of agricultural intelligence computer system; the agricultural intelligence computer system determines and provides soil moisture data via a display showing a client application on the user device. Soil moisture indicates the percent of total water capacity available to the crop that is present in the soil of the field. Soil moisture values are initialized at the beginning of the growing season based on environmental data in the agricultural intelligence computer system at that time, such as data from the North American Land Data Assimilation System, and field - specific data. In another embodiment, a soil analysis computing device may analyze soil samples from a plurality of fields for a grower wherein the plurality of fields includes a selected field. Once analyzed, the results may be directly provided from the soil analysis computing device to the agricultural intelligence computer system so that the soil analysis results may be provided to the grower);
d. calculating the yield potential (YP) for the crop in the growing season based on the total available moisture (MTotal) (Ethington: Para 0083 via planting advisor module; The planting advisor module receives and processes the sets of data points to simulate possible yield potentials. Possible yield potentials are calculated for various planting dates. The planting advisor module additionally utilizes additional data to generate such simulations. The additional data may include simulated weather between the planting data and harvesting date, field workability, seasonal freeze risk, drought risk, heat risk, excess moisture risk, estimated soil temperature, and/or risk tolerance. The likely harvesting date may be estimated based upon the provided relative maturity (e.g., to generate an earliest recommended harvesting date) and may further be adjusted based upon predicted weather and workability...).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ebert with the teachings of Ethington in order to have c. calculating the total available moisture (MTotal) using the raw soil water value (WRaW), the precipitation received (PR) at the field site to date, and the forecast precipitation (PF) at the field site for the remainder of the current growing season; d. calculating the yield potential (YP) for the crop in the growing season based on the total available moisture (MTotal). The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of determining potential agricultural revenue at the field level based on crop-related data and field-condition data. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods will yield predictable results.
However the combination of Ebert/Ethington, fails to disclose the limitation of Claim 13 which states e. controlling an irrigation controller at the field site based on the calculated total available moisture (MTotal) to optimize the water application for achieving the desired crop yield.
Appelboom though, with the teachings of Ebert/Ethington, teaches of
e. controlling an irrigation controller at the field site based on the calculated total available moisture (MTotal) to optimize the water application for achieving the desired crop yield (Appelboom: Para 0036, 0039 via the control system 60 continuously or periodically queries each sensor 62, 64 and 66. In one exemplary embodiment, the soil moisture sensor 62 is queried first, followed by the field water table level sensor 64 and that followed by a query of the ditch water level sensor 66. If the soil moisture sensor indicates that irrigation is required, this indicates that the soil moisture is below a preset threshold. Thereafter, the system will check the drainage ditch water level. If the water level in the drainage ditch is within or above a preset threshold, no action is taken. If the water level in the drainage ditch is below the preset threshold, the system will start irrigation, which in turn will cause the irrigation source to pump water into the drainage ditch. The control system queries the drainage ditch water level last because this indicates to the system if there is available capacity in the ditch to add water without it draining over the top of the weir plate 11 and leaving the system as drainage. Once irrigation is initiated, irrigation will continue until the ditch water level sensor 66 indicates that the water level in the drainage ditch has reached a pre-selected level. Once the water level in the drainage ditch reaches the pre-selected or threshold level, the controller 34 will shut down the irrigation system… Three sensors, sensors 62, 64 and 66, are useful because the soil moisture in the root zone is considered, in one embodiment, the most important parameter for purposes of irrigation. However, relying only on that in a subsurface irrigation system is not always the correct approach. If there is a rainfall that is enough to cause the soil moisture sensor to be within an acceptable range, but the water table in the field is low, irrigation water will still need to be added. Also, the preset thresholds for the water level in the drainage ditch are different if the system is triggered off the soil moisture sensor 62 or the water table sensor 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ebert/Ethington with the teachings of Appelboom in order to have e. controlling an irrigation controller at the field site based on the calculated total available moisture (MTotal) to optimize the water application for achieving the desired crop yield. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of automatic controls for controlling open ditch drainage. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods will yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ebert/Ethington/Appelboom teaches the limitations of Claim 14 which state
updating the irrigation control parameters in real-time based on updated moisture readings and precipitation forecasts (Appelboom: Para 0032 via Controller 34 can be pre-programmed to control the gate or gates 14 based on preset dates and/or environmental factors. The electronic programmable controller operates the linear actuator 32. It is operated on a real-time clock and calendar. Opening of the gate valve 14 can be based on cooperative extension recommendations for crop planting and harvesting time or based on selected planting and harvesting times. Generally, planting and harvesting dates are recommended for each particular crop. These dates are entered into the controller as times to open the gate valve 14 and drain water from the drainage ditches and the fields, drying them to a point that planting or harvesting equipment can easily enter and operate in the fields. Based on a selected time, for example two weeks after opening the gate valve, the controller is programmed to close the gate valve 14 so that water level in the drainage ditches and the associated fields' water tables rise to a selected or desired level. The timing of raising and lowering the water levels in the associated ditches can be customized for different crops to suit the goals of individual growers).
Distinguishable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-12 and 15-17 have been deem distinguishable over the prior art with reasoning provided below.
While Anderson (US 2007/0288167 A1) teaches of calculating of prevent soil moisture factor, current ground cover factor, current crop factor and use of soil moisture estimator; the general set of moisture factors may include, for example, pre-event soil moisture factor 34 that is based on historical weather and/or forecasted weather 34-1 and a regional soils model 34-2; a current ground cover factor 36; and a current crop factor 38. The historical weather and/or forecasted weather 34-1 for rainfall and moisture removal (e.g., evaporation rate (ETO)) can be estimated for a particular field by in situ measurement, interpolation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) measurements, Doppler radar rain estimates, etc). A single pre-event soil moisture factor 34, e.g., a single hourly rainfall or evaporation rate (ETO) value for the entire field, is available for use by fast soil moisture estimator 14. An initial pre-event soil moisture factor 34 may come froma regional soils model 34-2, such as IBIS, a human estimate, remote sensed data, etc. Current ground cover factor 36 considers the impact of crop canopy, residue, tillage practice, etc., and on a scale from zero (0) to one (1) is nearly one for bare ground. Current crop factor 38 is a measure of crop water uptake, and is related to the crop stage. For example, crops at mid-season will also take up moisture through the roots. A single value for each of current ground cover factor 36 and current crop factor 38 may be used for the whole field by fast soil moisture estimator 14 due to crop uniformity, but site- specific values may also be used, if desired.
And Ethington (US 2016/0078569 A1) teaches of capabilities of agricultural intelligence computer system; the agricultural intelligence computer system determines and provides soil moisture data via a display showing a client application on the user device. Soil moisture indicates the percent of total water capacity available to the crop that is present in the soil of the field. Soil moisture values are initialized at the beginning of the growing season based on environmental data in the agricultural intelligence computer system at that time, such as data from the North American Land Data Assimilation System, and field - specific data. In another embodiment, a soil analysis computing device may analyze soil samples from a plurality of fields for a grower wherein the plurality of fields includes a selected field. Once analyzed, the results may be directly provided from the soil analysis computing device to the agricultural intelligence computer system so that the soil analysis results may be provided to the grower. The planting advisor module receives and processes the sets of data points to simulate possible yield potentials. Possible yield potentials are calculated for various planting dates. The planting advisor module additionally utilizes additional data to generate such simulations. The additional data may include simulated weather between the planting data and harvesting date, field workability, seasonal freeze risk, drought risk, heat risk, excess moisture risk, estimated soil temperature, and/or risk tolerance. The likely harvesting date may be estimated based upon the provided relative maturity (e.g., to generate an earliest recommended harvesting date) and may further be adjusted based upon predicted weather and workability.
And Appelboom (US 2015/0361630 A1) teaches of the control system 60 continuously or periodically queries each sensor 62, 64 and 66. In one exemplary embodiment, the soil moisture sensor 62 is queried first, followed by the field water table level sensor 64 and that followed by a query of the ditch water level sensor 66. If the soil moisture sensor indicates that irrigation is required, this indicates that the soil moisture is below a preset threshold. Thereafter, the system will check the drainage ditch water level. If the water level in the drainage ditch is within or above a preset threshold, no action is taken. If the water level in the drainage ditch is below the preset threshold, the system will start irrigation, which in turn will cause the irrigation source to pump water into the drainage ditch. The control system queries the drainage ditch water level last because this indicates to the system if there is available capacity in the ditch to add water without it draining over the top of the weir plate 11 and leaving the system as drainage. Once irrigation is initiated, irrigation will continue until the ditch water level sensor 66 indicates that the water level in the drainage ditch has reached a pre-selected level. Once the water level in the drainage ditch reaches the pre-selected or threshold level, the controller 34 will shut down the irrigation system…Three sensors, sensors 62, 64 and 66, are useful because the soil moisture in the root zone is considered, in one embodiment, the most important parameter for purposes of irrigation. However, relying only on that in a subsurface irrigation system is not always the correct approach. If there is a rainfall that is enough to cause the soil moisture sensor to be within an acceptable range, but the water table in the field is low, irrigation water will still need to be added. Also, the preset thresholds for the water level in the drainage ditch are different if the system is triggered off the soil moisture sensor 62 or the water table sensor 64. In these two cases, the water level in the drainage ditch will not be allowed to drop as low as when both are within the preset thresholds. This is particularly important if the water table begins to drop due to drought. The system should keep the drainage ditch as high as possible at all times to make sure that the water table does not drop below a point that it cannot recover. If the water table and soil moisture are both within the preset thresholds, the water level in the ditch can drop lower before triggering irrigation in anticipation of more rainfall. This reduces water use and pumping costs.
Neither art, alone or in combination with other cited art teaches the limitations of Claim 1 (similary Claim 15), which state
b. calculating a moisture based yield potential value (YP) for the crop in the growing season by: i. calculating a crop water use efficiency factor (FUE) using the formula: F=Hist UE pHist-MF; iii. calculating the total available moisture (MTotal) using the formula: MTotal((WRaw - WP) +PR+PF) – MF; iv. calculating the yield potential (YP) using the formula: YP =MTotal*FUE.
Thus Claims 1-12 and 15-17 are distinguishable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sarver et al. (US 2012/0261486 A1)
Peters et al. (US 2020/0250593 A1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights