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 .
Objection to Claim
Claim 5 is objected to because “NVDI” appears to be a typographical error for “NDVI.” Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Carroll and Perry fail to teach determining a plant disease onset time by using both a plant disease presence prediction and a change in one or more vegetation indices. Applicant further argues that Carroll determines disease onset only from crop, environmental, and management data, that Perry uses normalized difference vegetation index information only for crop-productivity optimization, and that the proposed combination would fundamentally redesign Carroll and repurpose Perry.
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 this case, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. Carroll supplies a computer model that receives crop, management, and weather-related field data; produces a daily disease probability; determines whether disease is present; and selects a day associated with high disease risk as the likely onset day (pars. 132–146 and 149–151, daily disease probability and onset).
Perry teaches periodically obtained field information that includes a computed change in normalized difference vegetation index, together with techniques for combining time-series sensor and image information for prediction (pars. 10, 13, and 70–78, periodic vegetation-change prediction data).
Additionally, Perry teaches both that change in normalized difference vegetation index is useful field information and that field information is updated periodically and used in prediction (pars. 10 and 13, periodic NDVI-change field information).
As such this rejection is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (20190156255) in view of Perry (20210224927).
Regarding claim 1, Carroll teaches a computer-implemented method comprising (abstract):
providing first data comprising field data associated with cultivation data associated with a plant and weather data associated with a location where said plant is cultivated to a computer model (see figure 7, the abstract and par. 132),
and determining, by using said computer model, a plant disease presence prediction for said plant and an infestation associated with said plant disease (see the abstract pars. 132 and 149); and
determining, from the plant disease presence prediction outputted by the computer model (par. 151 and figure 7) and
an onset time on which said plant disease is expected to onset at said plant, (see figure 7 and pars. 149-151).
Carroll does not teach vegetation indices.
Perry teaches from second data comprising one or more vegetation indices associated with said plant (see Perry, pars. 10 and 102),
by using the plant disease presence prediction and a change in the one or more vegetation indices (pars. 10 and 102, NVDI data).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Carroll the ability use the a vegetation index data as taught by Perry. The reason is to allow the system to improve its accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, see the rejection of claim 1, where Carroll teaches determining onset time and plant disease. Also see pars. 4-5, 11 and 18 of Perry which teaches a prediction model.
Regarding claim 5, see par. 10 and 102 of Perry, NVDI.
Regarding claim 6, see par. 10 and 102 of Perry.
Regarding claim 7, see par. 10 of Perry.
Regarding claim 8, see par. 10 of Perry.
Regarding claim 9, see par. 15 and 99 of Perry.
Regarding claim 10, see par. 15 of Perry, rainfall and humidity.
Regarding claim 11, see Perry, pars. 78 and 104-105.
Regarding claim 12, see Perry, figure 2 and 3, tabular data.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 1, Carroll pars. 149-152 (disease onset) and Perry par. 5 and 14 (prediction).
Regarding claim 14, see pars. 149-152 of Carroll and prs. 5 and 14 of Perry (treatment).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are allowed because the included previously allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights