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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 08/13/2024.
Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for the following informalities.
Claim 2 recites, “…based on climate data, soil characteristics, and water resource information of an [a] region to be matched…” at lines 4-5. There is a grammatical issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites, “resource information of an [a] region to be matched” at lines 4-5. There is a grammatical issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (b)/second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites, “…based on [the] climate data, [the] soil characteristics, and [the] water resource information of an region to be matched…” at lines 4-5. Claims 3-6 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 2.
Claim 4 recites, “the prototype model” at line 12.
Claim 6 recites, “the growth environment” at line 4.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
determining crop varieties suitable for planting and livestock and poultry species suitable for breeding based on climate data, soil characteristics, and water resource information of an region to be matched;
determining planting and breeding plans based on physiological needs and growth cycles of the crop varieties and the livestock and poultry species;
designing a spatial layout based on the planting and breeding plans, and establishing organic connections between crops and livestock and poultry;
monitoring a growth situation of crops and livestock and poultry in real-time during the production process, and adjusting the planting and breeding plans based on the growth situation.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a computer (Spec ¶0128)). For example, determining, crop varieties suitable for planting and livestock and poultry species suitable for breeding, determining planting and breeding plans, designing a spatial layout and monitoring growth involve collecting and analyzing data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to determining suitable varieties and species by performing an assessment based on climate, soil and water resources; Claim 3 is directed to types of climate, soil and water characteristics or resources; Claim 4 is directed to collecting historical data and research materials and establishing a correlation model between growth of crop and livestock and poultry factors; Claim 5 is directed to applying an evaluation model to climate, soil and water information and selecting ecological complementarity crop varieties and livestock and poultry; Claim 6 is directed to analyzing growth environment requirements and ranking the ecological complementarity; Claim 7 is directed to obtaining optimal sowing time, an irrigation plan and a fertilization plan; Claim 8 is directed to designing spatial layouts; Claim 9 is directed to monitoring using IoT technology and analyzing monitored growth data and Claim 10 is directed to a circular agricultural ecosystem.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of a monitoring system using Internet of Things technology (IoT). The recitation of IoT technology is generically recited as performing monitoring activity. The Specification discloses a general-purpose computer (see ¶0128). The additional elements are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functionality.
For instance, the steps of determining crop varieties suitable for planting and livestock and poultry species suitable for breeding, determining planting and breeding plans and designing a spatial layout involve collecting and analyzing data. The step of monitoring a growth situation of crops and livestock and poultry is considered data gathering activity.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a computer). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a computer). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a computer and IoT technology are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 11-10 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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 116849170 A) in view of Rong et al. (CN 118278610 A).
Claim 1:
Wu discloses:
A method for matching crop and livestock and poultry production in the same region based on a combination of planting and breeding, comprising: (see at least Abstract, co-planting livestock in photovoltaic platoon area)
determining crop varieties suitable for planting and livestock and poultry species suitable for breeding based on climate data, soil characteristics, and water resource information of an region to be matched; (see at least pg. 2, selecting crops, livestock and poultry based on climate, soil and water; see also pgs. 5-6)
determining planting and breeding plans based on physiological needs and growth cycles of the crop varieties and the livestock and poultry species; (see at least (see also pg. 2, animal-planting co-honorable layout according to the preference of the crop to the light and plant space rotation in the planting area)
designing a spatial layout based on the planting and breeding plans, and establishing organic connections between crops and livestock and poultry; (see also pg. 2, paragraph 2, 6-8, animal-planting co-honorable layout according to the preference of the crop to the light and plant space rotation in the planting area; see also pg. 6, paragraph 1)
While Wu discloses the above limitations, Wu does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Rong does disclose:
monitoring a growth situation of crops and livestock and poultry in real-time during the production process, and adjusting the planting and breeding plans based on the growth situation. (see at least Abstract, monitoring the growth of the crop by shooting image in real time and considers influence of the livestock and poultry; see also pg. 4 see also paragraphs 4-6, current status of crop) pgs. 6-7, paragraphs 6-8 and paragraphs 1-2, ecological model)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have obvious to combine the co-planting livestock including selecting livestock, selecting plants and determining layout of Wu with the real time monitoring of crop performance of Rong assist in monitoring crop growth with considerations of influence of livestock, poultry and weather changes (Abstract).
Claim 10:
Wu and Rong disclose claim 1. Wu further discloses:
A circular agricultural ecosystem, characterized in that, wherein the circular agricultural ecosystem is established according to the method for matching crop and livestock and poultry production in the same region based on the combination of planting and breeding as claimed in claims 1. (see at least Abstract, dividing the animal planting space, selecting the animal planting, arranging the animal planting together and changing the animal planting space)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 116849170 A) in view of Rong et al. (CN 118278610 A) further in view of Du et al. (CN 11479227).
Claim 2:
While Wu and Rong disclose claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein the step of determining the crop varieties suitable for planting and the livestock and poultry species suitable for breeding based on climate data, soil characteristics, and water resource information of an region to be matched comprises:… and evaluation result represents a suitability of the region to be matched for different crop varieties and livestock and poultry species (see pg. 2, selecting specific crops and suitable livestock and poultry), Wu does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Du does disclose
obtaining a comprehensive assessment result based on the climate data, the soil characteristics, and the water resource information; (see at least Abstract, layout method for vegetation including performing suitability evaluation with consideration of soil moisture, climate and vegetation; see also pg. 2, evaluation model)
a process of obtaining the comprehensive evaluation result specifically comprises substituting the climate data, the soil characteristics, and the water resource information of the region to be matched into an evaluation model to calculate the comprehensive evaluation result; and (see at least pg. 2, paragraph 2, evaluation model; see also pgs. 2-3, suitability evaluation of target species, climate, soil moisture, etc.; see also pgs. 4-5)
the comprehensive evaluation result represents a suitability of the region to be matched for [different crop varieties and livestock and poultry species]. (see at least pg. 2, paragraph 2, evaluation model; see also pgs. 2-3, suitability evaluation of target species, climate, soil moisture, etc.; see also pgs. 4-5)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have obvious to combine the co-planting livestock including selecting livestock, selecting plants and determining layout of Wu and the real time monitoring of crop performance of Rong with the evaluation of suitability models of Du in order to determine a suitable vegetation construction (Abstract).
Claim 3:
While Wu, Rong and Du disclose claim 3, Wu further discloses and available irrigation resources (see pg. 5, para 3, irrigation), the soil characteristics comprise soil fertilization capability and crop fertilizer demand characteristics (see at least pg. 3, para, based on soil nutrient needs fertilizer is determined) neither Wu nor Rong disclose the following limitation; however, Du does disclose:
wherein the climate data comprise temperature, rainfall, and sunshine duration; the soil characteristics comprise soil fertilization capability and crop fertilizer demand characteristics; the water resource information comprises groundwater level, water quality, and available irrigation resources. (see at least pg. 6, para 4, para 6, temperature, rainfall para 6; water pg. 4, para 3; see also pg. 5, soil moisture supply)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have obvious to combine the co-planting livestock including selecting livestock, selecting plants and determining layout of Wu and the real time monitoring of crop performance of Rong with the evaluation of suitability models of Du in order to determine a suitable vegetation construction (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Liu et al. (CN 11636927) discloses through and ecological link between the planting module and the breeding module, forming a circulating sustainable closed-loop development, realizing green breeding circulation, further reducing the breeding cost, improving soil, realizing organic ecological cultivation process.
Wan et al. (CN 117097489) discloses the agricultural internet of things is to use sensing equipment to collect information about crops, livestock, weather and other environmental factors, and to transmit data to the control center for real-time monitoring and management of agricultural production processes.
Li et al. (CN 118627722 A) discloses space layout optimization of rice where the invention takes the rice plant nutrient area and the rice plant yield of the cultivation test as the data base, using the non-right-angle hyperbolic function and Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm to construct the rice plant yield model to describe the rule of the rice plant yield response nutrient area, calculating the best nutrition area and the maximum yield of the unit area.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625