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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US Publication 2024/0057508 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2021/0321554 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Allgaier teaches an agricultural system, comprising: interface circuitry (Allgaier: Para. 13; network interface); machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions (Allgaier: Para. 33; storage medium may store instructions) to: determine a first agricultural operation to be performed on a plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 33, 38; performing agricultural data analysis and agricultural operations; weather store with current and historical weather data, weather predictions module with weather predictions for different regions, and at least one processing system for executing instructions for controlling and monitoring different operations); cause performance of the first agricultural operation at a first row on the plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 34; monitor A of a first machine collects as applied data at various points in the field); receive a record of the performance of the first agricultural operation, the record of the performance of the first agricultural operation to include first information related to a first location of the performance of the first agricultural operation at the first row of the plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 57; collecting as applied data as a first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application); determine a second agricultural operation to be performed on the plot of land, the determination of the second agricultural operation based on the first information (Allgaier: Para. 7; file from the first device provides prescriptions, boundaries, and coverage data directly to the second device of the second machine and thus influences control and operation of the agricultural operation that is being performed with the second machine and the second implement); ………. ; and receive a record of the performance of the second agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 33; implements can include flow devices for controlling and monitoring applications of crops and soil within associated fields).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach cause performance of the second agricultural operation at the first location within the first row ……….. the record of the performance of the second agricultural operation to include second information related to a second location of the second agricultural operation performed within the first row.
However Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches cause performance of the second agricultural operation at the first location within the first row (Liu: Para. 74-75; if the identified area does correspond to the field map (e.g., it was planted during the prior planting operation), operation proceeds to block 582 in which the control section is turned on or activated) ……….. the record of the performance of the second agricultural operation to include second information related to a second location of the second agricultural operation performed within the first row (Liu: Para. 43, 74-75; data identifies prior machine operations (georeferenced to their corresponding locations) performed in the field; machine uses this data to determine which areas of the field are to be operated upon; determines whether the area in the path of the selected control section was planted during the prior planting operation; identified area does correspond to the field map (e.g., it was planted during the prior planting operation), operation proceeds to block 582 in which the control section is turned on or activated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) with a reasonable expectation of success because a proper buffer zone provides deactivation of sections located outside the buffer zone (Liu: Para. 77).
Regarding claim 4, Allgaier teaches the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the first agricultural operation and the second agricultural operation include, respectively, at least one of cover cropping, mulching, slurry injection, tilling, planting, mechanical weed control, band spraying, or harvesting (Allgaier: Para. 29; agricultural operation e.g., planting, fluid application).
Regarding claim 6, Allgaier teaches the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein, before performance of the first agricultural operation, one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: determine a first setting of an agricultural vehicle to perform the first agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 34; monitor A of a first machine collects as applied data at various points in the field).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach apply the first setting of the agricultural vehicle based on a distance of the agricultural vehicle from the plot of land.
However Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches apply the first setting of the agricultural vehicle based on a distance of the agricultural vehicle from the plot of land (Liu: Para. 64; machine is controlled to spray within a specified distance e.g., five feet, ten feet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) with a reasonable expectation of success because a proper buffer zone provides deactivation of sections located outside the buffer zone (Liu: Para. 77).
Regarding claim 8, Allgaier teaches at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least: determine a first agricultural operation to be performed on a plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 33, 38; performing agricultural data analysis and agricultural operations; weather store with current and historical weather data, weather predictions module with weather predictions for different regions, and at least one processing system for executing instructions for controlling and monitoring different operations); cause performance of the first agricultural operation at a first row on the plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 34; monitor A of a first machine collects as applied data at various points in the field); receive a record of the performance of the first agricultural operation, the record of the performance of the first agricultural operation to include first information related to a first location of the performance of the first agricultural operation at the first row of the plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 57; collecting as applied data as a first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application); determine a second agricultural operation to be performed on the plot of land, the determination of the second agricultural operation based on the first information (Allgaier: Para. 7; file from the first device provides prescriptions, boundaries, and coverage data directly to the second device of the second machine and thus influences control and operation of the agricultural operation that is being performed with the second machine and the second implement); …… ; and receive a record of the performance of the second agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 33; implements can include flow devices for controlling and monitoring applications of crops and soil within associated fields).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach cause performance of the second agricultural operation at the first location within the first row ……. the record of the performance of the second agricultural operation to include second information related to a second location of the second agricultural operation performed within the first row.
However Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches cause performance of the second agricultural operation at the first location within the first row (Liu: Para. 74-75; if the identified area does correspond to the field map (e.g., it was planted during the prior planting operation), operation proceeds to block 582 in which the control section is turned on or activated) ……. the record of the performance of the second agricultural operation to include second information related to a second location of the second agricultural operation performed within the first row (Liu: Para. 43, 74-75; data identifies prior machine operations (georeferenced to their corresponding locations) performed in the field; machine uses this data to determine which areas of the field are to be operated upon; determines whether the area in the path of the selected control section was planted during the prior planting operation; identified area does correspond to the field map (e.g., it was planted during the prior planting operation), operation proceeds to block 582 in which the control section is turned on or activated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) with a reasonable expectation of success because a proper buffer zone provides deactivation of sections located outside the buffer zone (Liu: Para. 77).
Regarding claim 11, Allgaier teaches the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the first agricultural operation and the second agricultural operation include, respectively, at least one of cover cropping, mulching, slurry injection, tilling, planting, mechanical weed control, band spraying, or harvesting (Allgaier: Para. 29; agricultural operation e.g., planting, fluid application).
Regarding claim 13, Allgaier teaches the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8, wherein, before performance of the first agricultural operation, one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: determine a first setting of an agricultural vehicle to perform the first agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 34; monitor A of a first machine collects as applied data at various points in the field).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, before performance of the first agricultural operation, one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to apply the first setting of the agricultural vehicle based on a distance of the agricultural vehicle from the plot of land.
However Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, before performance of the first agricultural operation, one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to apply the first setting of the agricultural vehicle based on a distance of the agricultural vehicle from the plot of land (Liu: Para. 64; machine is controlled to spray within a specified distance e.g., five feet, ten feet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) with a reasonable expectation of success because a proper buffer zone provides deactivation of sections located outside the buffer zone (Liu: Para. 77).
Regarding claim 15, Allgaier teaches a method comprising: determining a first agricultural operation to be performed on a plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 33, 38; performing agricultural data analysis and agricultural operations; weather store with current and historical weather data, weather predictions module with weather predictions for different regions, and at least one processing system for executing instructions for controlling and monitoring different operations); causing performance of the first agricultural operation at a first row on the plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 34; monitor A of a first machine collects as applied data at various points in the field); receiving a record of the performance of the first agricultural operation, the record of the performance of the first agricultural operation to include first information related to a first location of the performance of the first agricultural operation at the first row of the plot of land (Allgaier: Para. 57; collecting as applied data as a first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application); determining a second agricultural operation to be performed on the plot of land, the determination of the second agricultural operation based on the first information (Allgaier: Para. 7; file from the first device provides prescriptions, boundaries, and coverage data directly to the second device of the second machine and thus influences control and operation of the agricultural operation that is being performed with the second machine and the second implement); ……… ; and receiving a record of the performance of the second agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 33; implements can include flow devices for controlling and monitoring applications of crops and soil within associated fields).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach causing performance of the second agricultural operation at the first location within the first row …….. the record of the performance of the second agricultural operation to include second information related to a second location of the second agricultural operation performed within the first row.
However Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches causing performance of the second agricultural operation at the first location within the first row (Liu: Para. 74-75; if the identified area does correspond to the field map (e.g., it was planted during the prior planting operation), operation proceeds to block 582 in which the control section is turned on or activated) …….. the record of the performance of the second agricultural operation to include second information related to a second location of the second agricultural operation performed within the first row (Liu: Para. 43, 74-75; data identifies prior machine operations (georeferenced to their corresponding locations) performed in the field; machine uses this data to determine which areas of the field are to be operated upon; determines whether the area in the path of the selected control section was planted during the prior planting operation; identified area does correspond to the field map (e.g., it was planted during the prior planting operation), operation proceeds to block 582 in which the control section is turned on or activated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) with a reasonable expectation of success because a proper buffer zone provides deactivation of sections located outside the buffer zone (Liu: Para. 77).
Regarding claim 17, Allgaier teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first agricultural operation and the second agricultural operation include, respectively, at least one of cover cropping, mulching, slurry injection, tilling, planting, mechanical weed control, band spraying, or harvesting (Allgaier: Para. 29; agricultural operation e.g., planting, fluid application).
Regarding claim 18, Allgaier teaches the method of claim 15, wherein to determine the first agricultural operation further includes determining a third agricultural operation, wherein a third location of the third agricultural operation on the first row is determined based on the second information related to the second location of the second agricultural operation, the third location being different than the second location. is determined based on the second information related to the second location of the second agricultural operation, the third location being different than the second location (Allgaier: Para. 29, 52, 57; first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application; operations may include configuration of the machine or implement; prescription data can control various parameters; during an agricultural operation (e.g., planting, fluid application, vision scouting of crops, weeds, and field conditions) and combining into a unified file; applied data (e.g., seeding information, such as percent singulation, skips, multiples, downforce, applied fluids, depth measurements, agronomic measurements, etc.) as a first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application (e.g., planting, fluid application, etc.) on a first region of the field).
Regarding claim 19, Allgaier teaches the method of claim 15, further including, before performance of the first agricultural operation: determining a first setting of an agricultural vehicle to perform the first agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 34; monitor A of a first machine collects as applied data at various points in the field).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach applying the first setting of the agricultural vehicle based on a distance of the agricultural vehicle from the plot of land.
However Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches applying the first setting of the agricultural vehicle based on a distance of the agricultural vehicle from the plot of land (Liu: Para. 64; machine is controlled to spray within a specified distance e.g., five feet, ten feet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) with a reasonable expectation of success because a proper buffer zone provides deactivation of sections located outside the buffer zone (Liu: Para. 77).
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US Publication 2024/0057508 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2021/0321554 A1) and in further view of Wu et al. (US Publication 2019/0150357 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Allgaier teaches the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the second information related to the second location includes data collected based on a condition external to an operation of an agricultural vehicle and related to the performance of the second agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 62; first electronic device may be integrated with an apparatus (e.g., drone, image capture device) associated with the first machine that captures images), ……… during performance of the second agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 62; first electronic device may be integrated with an apparatus (e.g., drone, image capture device) associated with the first machine that captures images before, during, or after the application pass).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the condition external to the operation of the agricultural vehicle includes at least one of an elevation of the plot of land or an angle of the agricultural vehicle.
However Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the condition external to the operation of the agricultural vehicle includes at least one of an elevation of the plot of land or an angle of the agricultural vehicle (Wu: Para. 124; vehicle tasks (e.g. adjusting a tilt or the image sensor units, adjusting the spray angle by adjusting the boom height or rotating the spray nozzles) relate to a three-dimensional issue, and the ground elevation or altitude should be considered in addition to the two-dimensional area or location on the ground).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) and the remote measurement of elevation (Wu: Para. 124) with a reasonable expectation of success because the ground elevation plays a role in determining the best action to take or how the elevation affects the crop yield (Wu: Para. 124).
Regarding claim 5, Allgaier teaches the agricultural system of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine a third agricultural operation, wherein a third location of the third agricultural operation on the first row is determined based on the second information related to the second location of the second agricultural operation, the third location being different than the second location (Allgaier: Para. 29, 52, 57; first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application; operations may include configuration of the machine or implement; prescription data can control various parameters; during an agricultural operation (e.g., planting, fluid application, vision scouting of crops, weeds, and field conditions) and combining into a unified file; applied data (e.g., seeding information, such as percent singulation, skips, multiples, downforce, applied fluids, depth measurements, agronomic measurements, etc.) as a first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application (e.g., planting, fluid application, etc.) on a first region of the field).
Regarding claim 9, Allgaier teaches the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8,wherein the second information related to the second location includes data collected based on a condition external to an operation of an agricultural vehicle and related to the performance of the second agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 62; first electronic device may be integrated with an apparatus (e.g., drone, image capture device) associated with the first machine that captures images), ……… during performance of the second agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 62; first electronic device may be integrated with an apparatus (e.g., drone, image capture device) associated with the first machine that captures images before, during, or after the application pass).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the condition external to the operation of the agricultural vehicle includes at least one of an elevation of the plot of land or an angle of the agricultural vehicle.
However Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the condition external to the operation of the agricultural vehicle includes at least one of an elevation of the plot of land or an angle of the agricultural vehicle (Wu: Para. 124; vehicle tasks (e.g. adjusting a tilt or the image sensor units, adjusting the spray angle by adjusting the boom height or rotating the spray nozzles) relate to a three-dimensional issue, and the ground elevation or altitude should be considered in addition to the two-dimensional area or location on the ground).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) and the remote measurement of elevation (Wu: Para. 124) with a reasonable expectation of success because the ground elevation plays a role in determining the best action to take or how the elevation affects the crop yield (Wu: Para. 124).
Regarding claim 12, Allgaier teaches the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine a third agricultural operation, wherein a third location of the third agricultural operation on the first row is determined based on the second information related to the second location of the second agricultural operation, the third location being different than the second location (Allgaier: Para. 29, 52, 57; first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application; operations may include configuration of the machine or implement; prescription data can control various parameters; during an agricultural operation (e.g., planting, fluid application, vision scouting of crops, weeds, and field conditions) and combining into a unified file; applied data (e.g., seeding information, such as percent singulation, skips, multiples, downforce, applied fluids, depth measurements, agronomic measurements, etc.) as a first agricultural implement traverses a field and performs an agricultural operation or application (e.g., planting, fluid application, etc.) on a first region of the field).
Regarding claim 16, Allgaier teaches the method of claim 15,wherein the second information related to the second location includes data collected based on a condition external to an operation of an agricultural vehicle and related to the performance of the second agricultural operation (Allgaier: Para. 62; first electronic device may be integrated with an apparatus (e.g., drone, image capture device) associated with the first machine that captures images), ……. during performance of the second agricultural operation(Allgaier: Para. 62; first electronic device may be integrated with an apparatus (e.g., drone, image capture device) associated with the first machine that captures images before, during, or after the application pass).
Allgaier doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the condition external to the operation of the agricultural vehicle includes at least one of an elevation of the plot of land or an angle of the agricultural vehicle.
However Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the condition external to the operation of the agricultural vehicle includes at least one of an elevation of the plot of land or an angle of the agricultural vehicle (Wu: Para. 124; vehicle tasks (e.g. adjusting a tilt or the image sensor units, adjusting the spray angle by adjusting the boom height or rotating the spray nozzles) relate to a three-dimensional issue, and the ground elevation or altitude should be considered in addition to the two-dimensional area or location on the ground).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) and the remote measurement of elevation (Wu: Para. 124) with a reasonable expectation of success because the ground elevation plays a role in determining the best action to take or how the elevation affects the crop yield (Wu: Para. 124).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US Publication 2024/0057508 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2021/0321554 A1) and in further view of Lee et al. (US Publication 2022/0067027 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Allgaier and Liu don’t explicitly teach wherein the record of the first agricultural operation further includes yield and nutrient data.
However Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the record of the first agricultural operation further includes yield and nutrient data (Lee: Para. 5, 52, 76, 82, 93; soil data extracted from the one or more fields; yield sensors for harvester apparatus that send yield measurement data to the cab computer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) and the elevation, angle, nutrient data, and yield (Lee: Para. 86, 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because accurate correlation of datasets from different passes, based on geo-location, is crucial to derive accurate calculations of yield or other performance factors (Lee: Para. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Allgaier and Liu don’t explicitly teach wherein the record of the first agricultural operation further includes yield and nutrient data.
However Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the record of the first agricultural operation further includes yield and nutrient data (Lee: Para. 5, 52, 76, 82, 93; soil data extracted from the one or more fields; yield sensors for harvester apparatus that send yield measurement data to the cab computer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) and the elevation, angle, nutrient data, and yield (Lee: Para. 86, 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because accurate correlation of datasets from different passes, based on geo-location, is crucial to derive accurate calculations of yield or other performance factors (Lee: Para. 5).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US Publication 2024/0057508 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2021/0321554 A1) and in further view of Rupp et al. (US Publication 2015/0302305 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Allgaier and Liu don’t explicitly teach wherein the first agricultural operation is deposition of a slurry band and the second agricultural operation is planting of a seed, wherein the seed is planted at a location of the slurry band based on a reading from a sensor of the location of the slurry band.
However Rupp, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first agricultural operation is deposition of a slurry band and the second agricultural operation is planting of a seed, wherein the seed is planted at a location of the slurry band based on a reading from a sensor of the location of the slurry band (Rupp: Para. 85; action includes what to do and how to do it e.g., when to do it is a precondition; dispensing particular one or more materials i.e. a gas, a liquid, a slurry, a solid; solids include one or more of seed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) and the slurry as a precondition before seeding (Rupp: Para. 85) with a reasonable expectation of success because data driven agricultural operation control maximizes crop yield and overall efficiency of executing one or more steps of an agricultural lifecycle (Rupp: Para. 87).
Regarding claim 14, Allgaier and Liu don’t explicitly teach wherein the first agricultural operation is deposition of a slurry band and the second agricultural operation is planting of a seed, wherein the seed is planted at a location of the slurry band based on a reading from a sensor of the location of the slurry band.
However Rupp, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first agricultural operation is deposition of a slurry band and the second agricultural operation is planting of a seed, wherein the seed is planted at a location of the slurry band based on a reading from a sensor of the location of the slurry band (Rupp: Para. 85; action includes what to do and how to do it e.g., when to do it is a precondition; dispensing particular one or more materials i.e. a gas, a liquid, a slurry, a solid; solids include one or more of seed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) and the slurry as a precondition before seeding (Rupp: Para. 85) with a reasonable expectation of success because data driven agricultural operation control maximizes crop yield and overall efficiency of executing one or more steps of an agricultural lifecycle (Rupp: Para. 87).
Regarding claim 20, Allgaier and Liu don’t explicitly teach wherein the first agricultural operation is deposition of a slurry band and the second agricultural operation is planting of a seed, wherein the seed is planted at a location of the slurry band based on a reading from a sensor of the location of the slurry band.
However Rupp, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first agricultural operation is deposition of a slurry band and the second agricultural operation is planting of a seed, wherein the seed is planted at a location of the slurry band based on a reading from a sensor of the location of the slurry band (Rupp: Para. 85; action includes what to do and how to do it e.g., when to do it is a precondition; dispensing particular one or more materials i.e. a gas, a liquid, a slurry, a solid; solids include one or more of seed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second agricultural operation that is based on the first agricultural operation’s data (Allgaier: Para.37) with the distance buffer zone (Liu: Para. 64) and the slurry as a precondition before seeding (Rupp: Para. 85) with a reasonable expectation of success because data driven agricultural operation control maximizes crop yield and overall efficiency of executing one or more steps of an agricultural lifecycle (Rupp: Para. 87).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights