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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 10/21/25, Applicant, on 1/21/26, amended claims. Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
The objection to the Specification is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the Title.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/26 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a first acquisition unit, second acquisition unit, determination unit in claims 1 and 2;
“output unit” in claim 9”;
“output control unit” in claim 12.
Specification [0062] as published states “ the measurement device 10 and the assistance device 20 can be configured by, for example, a computer including a CPU (processor), a memory, a storage, and the like. In this case, the configuration illustrated in FIG. 2 is realized by loading a program stored in the storage into the memory and executing the program by the CPU.” FIG. 2 shows each of units in FIG. 2. Accordingly, the “units” in claims 1, 2, and 9 [see 201, 202, 204 in FIG. 2] are interpreted as “a computer executing a stored program” to perform each function recited in the limitations. [0060] as published explains the “output unit 204” can also be called “output control unit”, which is recited in claim 12. Accordingly, claim 12 has the same corresponding structure for its unit (a computer executing a stored program) performing its recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 8-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the determination unit determines the cultivation work by referencing data in which a correspondence between the evaluation value and the cultivation work is defined in advance.” Examiner is unable to find support for this limitation, support for “correspondence.” Paragraph [0052] and FIG. 5D state “Referring to the logic data illustrated in FIG. 5D, the work determination unit 203 determines that the additional work is “none” when the evaluation value is 0 or more. Furthermore, when the evaluation value is less than 0 and −0.5 or more, the work determination unit 203 determines that the additional work is “irrigating only 1 L/m.sup.2”. Moreover, when the evaluation value is less than −0.5, the work determination unit 203 determines that the additional work is “additional fertilizing of only 1 kg/m.sup.2”. Note that the logic data may be a function that outputs additional work when the evaluation value is input.” Paragraph [0054] as published states “work determination unit 203 determines the additional work with reference to the logic data indicating a relationship between the evaluation value and the cultivation work as illustrated in FIG. 10A.” Even if the “correspondence” was intended to refer to the “relationship” in [0052, 0054-0055], the current claim covers scope beyond the originally filed disclosure. FIGS. 5D (alternative [1] of “determination unit” limitation with “change rate” in [0051-0053]), 10A (alternative [2] of “determination unit” limitation with “measurement data” in [0054-0056]), 10D (alternative [3] of “determination unit” limitation with “integrated value” in [0057]) and corresponding disclosure appears to include that sometimes the “evaluation value” is “0 or more” and then for cultivation work, “none” is determined. However, the claim covers embodiments of “any correspondence” still requiring “cultivation work.” Examiner suggests at minimum removing “correspondence”, as it is not supported; as well as ensuring that the claim does not have scope for “any evaluation value” requiring “cultivation work.” Examiner is not sure what to exactly suggest.
Independent claims 2 and 14 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-7, 9-12, and 15 depend from claims 1, 2, and 14 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the determination unit determines the cultivation work by referencing data in which a correspondence between the evaluation value and the cultivation work is defined in advance.” The term “correspondence” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “correspondence” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is constructed such that any “evaluation value” relative to any “reference data” result in a “correspondence”. When is there a “correspondence” that results in some/different “cultivation work”? Examiner is not sure what to exactly suggest. It appears from the disclosure that the mathematical result, of being a positive/negative value from the subtraction calculation, is how some cultivation work is recommended – based on whether the result of the subtraction is positive/negative. See e.g. FIGS. 5D, 10D, 11B.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the determination unit determines the cultivation work with reference to data in which work according to the evaluation value is
determined in advance." Based on the amended dependencies, the limitation “in advance” does not make logical sense. It is unclear how it is “in advance,” since claim 1 and claim 6 are acquiring current measurement data. The specification makes it unclear what should be recited here as [0053] as published states “Here, the logic data is generated in advance, for example, in accordance with a relationship between the past cultivation work of a skilled person and the leaf area.” It is unclear what is intended in claim 1. Examiner is not sure what to suggest but recommends Applicant identify portions of the specification relied upon. Applicants have yet to explain what the limitation is intended to mean, relative to other operations in the claim. It is unclear at which time things are occurring in the claim. The cultivation work is a recommendation to a user – so it always is “in advance” of the user performing the “cultivation work.”
Independent claims 2 and 14 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-7, 9-12, and 15 depend from claims 1, 2, and 14 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the claim 1 is directed to an apparatus which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claim 1 recites–
“An assistance device comprising:
a first acquisition … configured to acquire reference data that is data of standard time-series change of a state of a specific crop (e.g. [0048] – “standard” can be “ideal”, such as a goal/target);
a second acquisition … configured to acquire measurement data obtained by measuring a time-series change in a state of the specific crop cultivated by a user; and
a determination … configured to determine cultivation work to be performed by the user with respect to cultivation of the specific crop 1) based on an evaluation value obtained by subtracting a change rate of the state in the reference data from a change rate of the state in the measurement data, 2) based on an evaluation obtained by subtracting a value of the state in the reference data from a value of the state in the measurement data, or 3) based on an evaluation value obtained by subtracting an integrated value of a time-series change of the state in the reference data from an integrated value of a time-series change of the state in the measurement data,
wherein the determination… determines the cultivation work by referencing data in which a correspondence between the evaluation value and the cultivation work is defined in advance.”
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “mathematical relationships” and “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing relationships between people – including… teaching, and following rules or instructions) and “mathematical relationships” because the claims acquire reference data for a standard time-series change of a state of a crop, [0048] as published indicated the reference data can be “ideal” data such as “representative value (average, median, or minimum value)”, then measure a change in a time-series state of a crop cultivated by a user, and then determine cultivation work “to be performed by the user” based on one of three alternatives – each requiring mathematical relationships, e.g. subtraction comparisons (which value is higher or lower) based on reference data and measurement data – either 1) change rate in comparison by subtraction, 2) based on evaluation value subtraction comparison from a value in measurement data, or 3) based on evaluation value in comparison by subtraction for an integrated value (which [0057 as published] gives examples of a “cumulative value” of time-series change). The “cultivation work to be performed by a user” is viewed as recommendation instructions to a user, hence the “in advance” [in last limitation] is so the user can get the recommended instructions on what to do [as best understood]. Examiner also notes that [0110] as published states that a user can manually measure leaf area or temperature and input it to the measurement device or assistance device. As best understood, the mathematical result, of being a positive/negative value from the subtraction calculation, is how some cultivation work is recommended – based on whether the result of the subtraction is positive/negative. See e.g. FIGS. 5D, 10D, 11B. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as it is directed to using mathematical relationships to help give instructions to a user for how to help the crop they are growing/cultivating.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites Additional elements that are:
“An assistance device comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire reference data that is data of standard time-series change of a state of a specific crop;
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data obtained by measuring a time-series change in a state of the specific crop cultivated by a user; and
a determination unit configured to …..”;
wherein the determination unit”
(As stated in the “Claim Interpretation” section above, the “units” are interpreted here as a computer executing a stored program” to perform each function recited in the limitations. The additional elements of “computer executing a stored program” is considered “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (See MPEP 2106.05f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer, processor, feasible automatic operation, are treated as MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding independent claim 2, it is directed to an apparatus at step 1, which is a statutory category. Claim 2 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one, 2a, prong 2, and step 2b. The main difference in claim 2, is that instead of acquiring measurement data, it is “estimating” data. This is part of the abstract idea, of following instructions and performing analysis to give further instructions to a user on what is recommended.
Independent claim 14 is directed to a method at step 1, which is a statutory category. Instead of reciting units, claim 14 preamble says “method executed by a computer.” Claim 14 also recites “standard time-series change”, instead of “reference” in claim 1. This is still part of the abstract idea as stated above. Claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2 and step 2b.
Claim 3 narrows the abstract idea by making the estimate based on a predetermined relationships between information about the environment (Applicant’s [0076] as published – gives examples for “information about the environment” as temperature, humidity, illuminance, sunlight ). This narrows the abstract idea for the analysis conducted and improving the instructions to a person.
Claim 4 narrows the abstract idea by describing the specific state of the crop and what is measured (e.g. height, length, width, “number of buds/flowers/fruits”).
Claim 5 narrows the abstract idea by describing a leaf has an orientation (see Applicant’s [0100] as published - an amount of change in leaf orientation (angular velocity of leaf rotation) can be estimated as the degree of vegetative growth of the crop 40.)
Claim 6 narrows the abstract idea by using a ‘number of elapsed days’ for reference date.
Claim 7 narrows the abstract idea by using a ‘date of planting’ for reference date.
Claim 9 narrows the abstract idea by determining whether or not the crop is in a dormant state based on different analyses. Claim 9 also has an additional element of “an output unit configured to output” a result to a user. This is considered to be a “display” and is considered MPEP 2106.05f (apply it [abstract idea] on a computer) and MPEP 2106.05h (field of use).
Claim 10 narrows the abstract idea by determining whether or not the crop is in a dormant state based on different analyses and then determining different cultivation work recommended based on the dormant state determination.
Claim 11 narrows the abstract idea by instructing a user to perform either temperature or illuminance changes.
Claim 12 also has an additional element of “an output control unit” to give a display or sound to notify a user of work the user is recommended to perform. This output ( “display”/sound of an alert) is considered MPEP 2106.05f (apply it [abstract idea] on a computer) and MPEP 2106.05h (field of use).
Claim 15 recites additional elements of non-transitory computer readable program storing a program to execute each step of the method. This is considered MPEP 2106.05f (apply it [abstract idea] on a computer).
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
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 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 1-4, 6, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 2016/0179779) in view of Nakagawa (WO 2019208538).
Concerning claim 1, Shimazu discloses:
An assistance device (Shimazu – see par 52 - The cultivation assistance device 9 includes a goal storage unit 1, a guidance content storage unit 2, a growth prediction data storage unit 3, a growth data selection unit 4, a growth data storage unit 5, a current value storage unit 6, a guidance content selection unit 7; see par 53 - The current value collection unit 8 is connected with a sensor 12 which obtains data of a crop group to be cultivated with the assistance of the cultivation assistance device 9. The sensor 12 is located in, for example, the farm of a farmer who receives assistance service offered by the device) comprising:
a first acquisition unit (Shimazu – see par 52 - The cultivation assistance device 9 includes a goal storage unit 1… a growth data selection unit 4; see par 59 - The growth data selection unit 4, … are formed with electronic devices such as logic circuits. The growth data selection unit 4, the guidance content selection unit 7, or the current value collection unit 8 may be implemented with software executed by a processor (not illustrated) of the cultivation assistance device 9.) configured to acquire reference data that is data of standard time-series change of a state of a specific crop (Shimazu – see par 37 - Examples of this definition may include “the sugar content is 14 degrees Brix” and “the size is an LL size.” The practical farmer then takes a measure to bring growing fruits close to the “ideal situation.” See par 38 - the practical farmer pictures a time-series growth change in his or her mind based on the past instances. Examples of this change may include “a species having a sugar content of 13 degrees Brix in December has a sugar content of 12 degrees Brix in November, 11 degrees Brix in October, 10 degrees Brix in September, . . . ” The practical farmer experimentally knows that a sugar content of 13 degrees Brix can hardly be reached in December if the sugar content has not reached 11 degrees Brix in October. Thus, the practical farmer compares the current conditions with the past experiences every month to determine whether the fruit is growing steadily; see par 61 - The goal storage unit 1 stores a specific attribute of a shipped crop and its target attribute value, which are determined as an ideal situation for the shipped crop by the farmer, together with the species, the region, and the shipment time of the shipped crop)
a second acquisition unit (Shimazu – see par 19 - A recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute… processing of acquiring the measured value for the crop to be cultivated; see par 59 - The growth data selection unit 4, the guidance content selection unit 7, and the current value collection unit 8 are formed with electronic devices such as logic circuits. The growth data selection unit 4, the guidance content selection unit 7, or the current value collection unit 8 may be implemented with software executed by a processor (not illustrated) of the cultivation assistance device 9) configured to acquire measurement data obtained by measuring a time-series change in a state of the specific crop cultivated by a user (Shimazu – see par 57 - The current value collection unit 8 receives, from the sensor 12, data of a crop group to be cultivated with the assistance of the cultivation assistance device 9 and accumulates the received data in the current value storage unit 6. The accumulated data includes the measured values of the attributes stored in the goal storage unit 1. see par 65 - Records are created for each time point set at a predetermined interval from the beginning of cultivation until the harvest time for a product of a specific species which is cultivated in a specific region and shipped at a specific time, and the time item of each record specifies any of the plurality of set time points); and
a determination unit configured to determine cultivation work to be performed by the user with respect to cultivation of the specific crop 1) based on an evaluation value obtained by subtracting a change rate of the state in the reference data from a change rate of the state in the measurement data (Shimazu – see par 39 - the third strategy, the practical farmer compares the rate of maturation in his or her own field with those of other farmers in the same production district. The practical farmer determines whether the rate of maturation in his or her own field is more rapid or slower than or equal to an average and changes the level of growth promotion. Since the weather varies each year, farm products in the present year do not necessarily grow in the same state as in the last year even when the practical farmer cultivates them in the same field. Thus, the practical farmer compares the state of his or her own field with farm products cultivated by an adjacent farmer in the same production district (e.g. “reference data”), to evaluate the state of his or her own field free from the influence of the weather), 2) based on an evaluation obtained by subtracting a value of the state in the reference data from a value of the state in the measurement data, or 3) based on an evaluation value obtained by subtracting an integrated value of a time… change of the state in the reference data from an integrated value of a time… change of the state in the measurement data (Applicant’s [0057] as published states “ the work determination unit 203 may determine the additional work on the basis of a difference between an integrated value (cumulative value) of the time-series change”
Shimazu discloses the limitations based on broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification – See FIG. 1, par 53 - The guidance content selection unit 7 is connected with a terminal device 11. see par 58 - The guidance content selection unit 7 compares the data accumulated in the current value storage unit 6 with the growth prediction data stored in the growth data storage unit 5, obtains a guidance content (disclosing “cultivation work to be performed”) stored in the guidance content storage unit 2 in accordance with their difference between these two data, and displays this guidance content on, for example, the terminal device 11. The guidance content selection unit 7 may control, for example, an irrigation controller (not illustrated) in accordance with the guidance content. see par 63 - When the data of the current value storage unit 6 satisfies a conditional expression in the condition item of the guidance content storage unit 2, the guidance content selection unit 7 presents the value of a corresponding guidance content item. Referring to FIG. 2, the condition items include (1=<Predicted Difference), (−1<Predicted Difference<1), and (Predicted Difference=<−1). The above-mentioned condition items respectively mean that (the value of the predicted difference is 1 or more), that (the value of the predicted difference is −1 (exclusive) to 1 (exclusive)), and that (the value of the predicted difference is −1 or less). see par 75 - The guidance content selection unit 7 calculates the difference between the measured value item and the estimated value at a corresponding time in the growth data storage unit 5 and stores this difference in a corresponding predicted difference item. The guidance content selection unit 7 then extracts a guidance part item at the corresponding time in the growth data storage unit 5, extracts a guidance content for solving the obtained difference value, and outputs it to the terminal device 11);
To any extent Shimazu does not disclose “time-series,” Nakagawa discloses:
a determination unit configured to determine cultivation work to be performed by the user with respect to cultivation of the specific crop 1) based on an evaluation value obtained by subtracting a change rate of the state in the reference data from a change rate of the state in the measurement data, 2) based on an evaluation obtained by subtracting a value of the state in the reference data from a value of the state in the measurement data, or 3) based on an evaluation value obtained by subtracting an integrated value of “a time series change” of the state in the reference data from an integrated value of “a time series change” of the state in the measurement data (Nakagawa – See page 2, Description, 2nd paragraph - NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) is used, and an index representing the growth status of the crop in the field is calculated using an image of the field ; see page 5, 1st paragraph - The work contents are, for example, work items such as watering, fertilizer application and agricultural chemical application, and details of operation such as watering amount (watering time), fertilizer amount, agricultural chemical amount, application position and application time zone, etc; see page 8, 4th paragraph - The work content extraction unit 106 calculates a value indicating the similarity between the NDVI time-series change of the crop region currently growing in the field of the field ID indicated by the request data and the NDVI time-series change of the other crop regions; see page 11, 2nd paragraph - the server device 10 (work content extraction unit 106) extracts the work content performed on the crop region where the similarity is equal to or higher than a predetermined level (step S34); see page 11, 4th paragraph - when extracting the work contents of the field where the growth situation of the crop is similar, not only the current growth situation but also the field where the growth curve from the start of growth to the current time is similar are extracted. This presents the user with work details that have been performed in a field that is more likely to require similar work compared to extracting work details in a field that is similar only in the current growth situation).
Shimazu and Nakagawa disclose:
wherein the determination unit determines the cultivation work by referencing data in which a correspondence between the evaluation value and the cultivation work is defined in advance (As best understood in light of the 112b rejection – Shimazu discloses – Shimazu – see par 40 - The device and the like according to the present invention incorporate the strategic model of the practical farmer and define an “ideal situation” in advance. In response to input of “the current state of a crop” in the process of cultivation, this device and the like generate and output a measure to be taken at that time. see par 44 - a measure to correct a discrepancy of an attribute value at each time from the growth prediction graph when this occurs is recorded in advance by a cultivation expert. The measure may be, for example, presented as follows:… “Focus attention on lowering the size and acidity by irrigation with more water when the current sugar content is 12 degrees Brix.” see par 63 - When the data of the current value storage unit 6 satisfies a conditional expression in the condition item of the guidance content storage unit 2, the guidance content selection unit 7 presents the value of a corresponding guidance content item. Referring to FIG. 2, the condition items include (1=<Predicted Difference), (−1<Predicted Difference<1), and (Predicted Difference=<−1). The above-mentioned condition items respectively mean that (the value of the predicted difference is 1 or more), that (the value of the predicted difference is −1 (exclusive) to 1 (exclusive)), and that (the value of the predicted difference is −1 or less); see par 75 - content storage unit 2 referred to from the guidance part item and finds a record having a condition item matching the value of the predicted difference item. The guidance content selection unit 7 outputs data described in the guidance content item of the found record, for example, a statement describing the guidance content.
As best understood in light of the 112b rejection – Nakagawa discloses – Nakagawa - see page 14, 5th paragraph - In the example of FIG. 17 (showing expected NDVI past the current time of day 10, 50, etc), NDVI in the fields A21, A22, and A23 when 10 days have elapsed is n21, n22, and n23 (n21> n22> n23), respectively. Assuming that the NDVI on the 50th day is n20, the elongation of NDVI in each field is represented by (n21-n20), (n22-n20), (n23-n20); see page 14, 7th paragraph - work content extraction unit 106 calculates the NDVI elongation by referring to the graphs of the curves FA21, FA22, and FA23 stored in the graph storage unit 108, and the correction associated with the calculated NDVI elongation in the correction table. Multiply each similarity value by a coefficient. As a result, it is possible to make it easier to refer to the work contents in the field where the growth has greatly progressed due to the work performed at the time corresponding to the current time of the designated crop region).
Both Shimazu and Nakagawa are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing crop data/measurements and making recommendations for farming/agricultural practices (see Shimazu Abstract; Nakagawa Abstract; page 5, 1st paragraph). Shimazu discloses calculates differences between measured value items and estimated values at corresponding time (See par 75). Nakagawa improves upon Shimazu by looking at similarities in time-series in changes of crop regions growing (see page 8) to extract work content (e.g. watering, fertilizer, chemical application) and work details based on the similarity (See page 5, 11). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include using a time series comparison between reference data and measured/current data to efficiently improve upon the general time interval for administering agricultural practices in Shimazu.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cultivation assistance in Shimazu to further compare time-series of growth between fields to determine work details as disclosed in Nakagawa, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning independent claim 2, Shimazu and Nakagawa disclose:
An assistance device (Shimazu – see par 52 - The cultivation assistance device 9 …) comprising:
an acquisition unit (Shimazu – see par 52 - The cultivation assistance device 9 includes a goal storage unit 1… a growth data selection unit 4; see par 59 - The growth data selection unit 4, … are formed with electronic devices such as logic circuits. The growth data selection unit 4, the guidance content selection unit 7, or the current value collection unit 8 may be implemented with software executed by a processor (not illustrated) of the cultivation assistance device 9) configured to acquire reference data that is data of standard time-series change of a state of a specific crop (Shimazu [similar to claim 1 above] – see par 37-38, 61);
an estimation unit (Shimazu – see par 19 - A recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute… processing of acquiring the measured value for the crop to be cultivated; see par 59 - The growth data selection unit 4, the guidance content selection unit 7, and the current value collection unit 8 are formed with electronic devices such as logic circuits. The growth data selection unit 4, the guidance content selection unit 7, or the current value collection unit 8 may be implemented with software executed by a processor (not illustrated) of the cultivation assistance device 9) configured to estimate, as measurement data, a time-series change in a state of the specific crop cultivated by the user based on information about an environment in which the specific crop is cultivated by the user (Shimazu – see par 57 - The current value collection unit 8 receives, from the sensor 12, data of a crop group to be cultivated with the assistance of the cultivation assistance device 9 and accumulates the received data in the current value storage unit 6. The accumulated data includes the measured values of the attributes stored in the goal storage unit 1; see par 65 - Records are created for each time point set at a predetermined interval from the beginning of cultivation until the harvest time for a product of a specific species which is cultivated in a specific region and shipped at a specific time, and the time item of each record specifies any of the plurality of set time points; see par 68 - The basic table 31 illustrated in FIG. 3 stores four growth prediction data. The growth estimation items of individual growth prediction data include the IDs of the additional table 32. In, for example, the top growth prediction data, “Table 12” is stored as the value of the growth estimation item. Table 12 stores a plurality of records including three items: the time, the estimated value, and the guidance part. see par 69 - The growth data selection unit 4 checks the growth prediction data in the growth prediction data storage unit 3 and selects and outputs one growth prediction data matching the species, region, shipment time, attribute, and target attribute value items in the goal storage unit 1. In practice, the growth data selection unit 4 performs selection after refinement using three items: the “species,” the “shipment time,” and the “region.”); and
The remaining limitations are the same as claim 1, and are thus rejected for the same reasons as above over Shimazu and Nakagawa.
It would have been obvious to combine Shimazu and Nakagawa for the same reasons as claim 1.
Concerning independent claim 14, Shimazu and Nakagawa disclose:
An assistance method executed by a computer (Shimazu – see par 59 - cultivation assistance device 9 is implemented in a computer), the assistance method comprising:
The remaining limitations are similar to claim 1 and 2. Shimazu and Nakagawa disclose the limitations for the same reasons as above.
Concerning claim 3, Shimazu and Nakagawa disclose:
The assistance device according to claim 2, wherein the estimation unit estimates the measurement data with reference to data in which a relationship between the information about the environment and the state of the specific crop is predetermined (Applicant’s [0076] as published - temperature, humidity, illuminance, sunlight) (Shimazu – see par 38 - For example, the practical farmer pictures a time-series growth change in his or her mind based on the past instances. Examples of this change may include “a species having a sugar content of 13 degrees Brix in December has a sugar content of 12 degrees Brix in November, 11 degrees Brix in October, 10 degrees Brix in September, . . . ” The practical farmer experimentally knows that a sugar content of 13 degrees Brix can hardly be reached in December if the sugar content has not reached 11 degrees Brix in October. Thus, the practical farmer compares the current conditions with the past experiences every month to determine whether the fruit is growing steadily, and takes a measure to correct too rapid growth or too slow growth if the fruit is growing too rapidly or too slowly. see par 39- In the third strategy, the practical farmer compares the rate of maturation in his or her own field with those of other farmers in the same production district. Thus, the practical farmer compares the state of his or her own field with farm products cultivated by an adjacent farmer in the same production district, to evaluate the state of his or her own field free from the influence of the weather. The same production district shows similar weathers. If the present year's weather is colder than usual, farm products are more likely to be growing at a relatively low rate not only in the field of the practical farmer but also in other fields of the same production district; see par 75 - . The guidance content selection unit 7 calculates the difference between the measured value item and the estimated value at a corresponding time in the growth data storage unit 5 and stores this difference in a corresponding predicted difference item. The guidance content selection unit 7 then extracts a guidance part item at the corresponding time in the growth data storage unit 5, extracts a guidance content for solving the obtained difference value, and outputs it to the terminal device 11. At this time, the guidance content selection unit 7 checks a conditional expression in the condition item of the guidance content storage unit 2 referred to from the guidance part item and finds a record having a condition item matching the value of the predicted difference item. The guidance content selection unit 7 outputs data described in the guidance content item of the found record, for example, a statement describing the guidance content.
See also Nakagawa see page 13, 2nd paragraph - For example, when the environment such as temperature and precipitation during the first 10 days is difficult to grow, when the substantial growth starts after the 10th day, the work content is referred to; page 13, 3rd paragraph - This can be referred to the work contents when the above environment is low and normally grows in 50 days but takes 60 days. When using these comparison methods, the similarity calculation unit 107calculates a similarity value using the start date or the comparison period of the comparison period in which the similarity is the highest. Thereby, compared with the case where the comparison period is fixed, it is possible to make it easier to refer to work contents for crops grown in different periods such as temperature and precipitation.)
Obvious to combine Shimazu and Nakagawa for the same reasons as claim 1.
Concerning claim 4, Shimazu discloses measuring attributes of fruit may include “sugar content, acidity, size” (See par 42). Shimazu discloses analyzing state of amount of sugar content for fruit (See par 43 – “a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 14 degrees Brix at the time of shipment, a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 12 degrees Brix at the time of shipment, and a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 10 degrees Brix at the time of shipment”).
Nakagawa discloses:
The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the state of the specific crop includes at least one of a leaf area, a leaf area index, a height of a stump, a number of leaves, a length of a specific leaf, a width of a specific leaf, a number of buds, a number of flowers, and a number of fruits (Nakagawa See page 19, 5th paragraph – index indicating growth includes : plant height and number of stems (disclosing alternative of “number of leaves/buds”). In short, any value maybe used as an index representing the growth status as long as it represents the growth status of the crop and can be calculated from the captured crop region image.).
It would have been obvious to combine Shimazu and Nakagawa for the same reasons as claim 1. In addition, Shimazu discloses measuring attributes of fruit may include “sugar content, acidity, size” (See par 42) and analyzing state of amount of sugar content for fruit (See par 43 – “a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 14 degrees Brix at the time of shipment, a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 12 degrees Brix at the time of shipment, and a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 10 degrees Brix at the time of shipment”). Nakagawa improves upon Shimazu by indicating number of stems growing. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include further number of stems growing to efficiently improve upon the measured attributes of fruit in Shimazu.
Concerning claim 6, Shimazu discloses “device and the like compare the attribute value during the current period of time with the value of the growth prediction graph, and select and present a measure to solve a discrepancy between these values to the farmer when the discrepancy occurs (see FIG. 8)” (See par 46) and values of sugar content for different months where if 11 degrees Brix of sugar content not reached in October, farmer knows goal of 13 degrees Brix can’t be reached in December (See par 38).
Nakagawa discloses:
The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein
the reference data and the measurement data indicate a state of the specific crop corresponding to a number of elapsed days from a reference date (Nakagawa page 13, 2nd-3rd paragraph - Further, the similarity calculation unit 107 may compare periods having different lengths. Specifically, the time series change for 60 days from the first day to the 60th day may be converted into a time series change for 50 days and then compared. This can be referred to the work contents when the above environment is low and normally grows in 50 days but takes 60 days. When using these comparison methods, the similarity calculation unit 107 calculates a similarity value using the start date or the comparison period of the comparison period in which the similarity is the highest. Thereby, compared with the case where the comparison period is fixed, it is possible to make it easier to refer to work contents for crops grown in different periods such as temperature and precipitation.)
Obvious to combine Shimazu and Nakagawa for the same reasons as claim 1.
Concerning claim 12, Shimazu and Nakagawa disclose:
The assistance device according to claim 1, further comprising an output control unit configured to control a display or a speaker to notify the user of the cultivation work determined by the determination unit (Shimazu – see par 58, 75 - the guidance content selection unit 7 compares the data accumulated in the current value storage unit 6 with the growth prediction data stored in the growth data storage unit 5, obtains a guidance content stored in the guidance content storage unit 2 in accordance with their difference between these two data, and displays this guidance content on, for example, the terminal device 11).
Concerning claim 15, Shimazu and Nakagawa disclose:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute each step of the assistance method according to claim 14 (Shimazu – see par 19 - A recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute… see par 59 - The growth data selection unit 4, … are formed with electronic devices such as logic circuits. The growth data selection unit 4, the guidance content selection unit 7, or the current value collection unit 8 may be implemented with software executed by a processor (not illustrated) of the cultivation assistance device).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 2016/0179779) in view of Nakagawa (WO 2019208538), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Kunigome (JP 2013005725).
Concerning claim 5, Shimazu discloses measuring attributes of fruit may include “sugar content, acidity, size” (See par 42) and analyzing state of amount of sugar content for fruit (See par 43 – “a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 14 degrees Brix at the time of shipment, a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 12 degrees Brix at the time of shipment, and a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 10 degrees Brix at the time of shipment”). Nakagawa discloses looking at plant height and number of stems (See page 19, 5th paragraph).
Kunigome discloses:
The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the state of the specific crop includes a leaf orientation (see Applicant’s [0100] as published - an amount of change in leaf orientation (angular velocity of leaf rotation) can be estimated as the degree of vegetative growth of the crop 40
Kunigome discloses the limitations based on broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification – see page 5, 1st paragraph - For example, in the determination based on the leaf state, the number of leaves, the size of the leaf, the projected area of the overgrown leaf, the wilting condition (angle, aspect ratio), and the like can begiven; see page 9 - The degree of leaf wilting can easily detect stress such as lack of moisture. In the wilted state, the leaf tip faces downward, and therefore, it can be detected from the angle formed by the horizontal plane and the leaf surface).
Shimazu, Nakagawa, and Kunigome are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing crop data/measurements (See Shimazu Abstract, par 104; Nakagawa Abstract; page 5, 1st paragraph; Kunigome Abstract). Shimazu discloses measuring attributes of fruit may include “sugar content, acidity, size” (See par 42) and analyzing state of amount of sugar content for fruit (See par 43 – “a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 14 degrees Brix at the time of shipment, a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 12 degrees Brix at the time of shipment, and a growth prediction graph for a fruit having a sugar content of 10 degrees Brix at the time of shipment”); and Nakagawa discloses looking at plant height and number of stems (See page 19, 5th paragraph). Kunigome improves upon Shimazu and Nakagawa by analyzing leaf angle positions to detect need for more water/moisture. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include analyzing leaf angle positions to efficiently improve upon the measured fruit in Shimazu and the work details for crops growing in Nakagawa.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cultivation assistance in Shimazu to further compare time-series of growth between fields to determine work details as disclosed in Nakagawa, and to further include analyzing leaf angle positions as disclosed in Kunigome, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 2016/0179779) in view of Nakagawa (WO 2019208538), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Ben-Ner (US 2021/0136996).
Concerning claim 7, Shimazu discloses for FIG. 2 growth prediction data that time is on a month-by-month basis but starting point is not limited to June (See par 66). Nakagawa discloses having a growth start data (page 8, last three paragraphs).
Ben-Ner discloses:
The assistance device according to claim 6, wherein the reference date includes a date of planting of the specific crop (Ben-Ner –see par 47 -present invention relates to systems, methods, and/or code instructions (i.e., stored in a data storage device and executable by one or more hardware processors) for providing a client terminal with instructions for applying one or more agricultural practices to a target field, optionally, the interval of time for applying the agricultural practice(s), for example, in terms of phenological stage, degree days, and/or calendar date. see par 120 - Planting date: denoting the date of planting of the crop, may be used to define the growing season.).
Shimazu, Nakagawa, and Ben-Ner are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing crop data/measurements (See Shimazu Abstract, par 104; Nakagawa Abstract; page 5, 1st paragraph; Ben-Ner Abstract). Shimazu discloses for FIG. 2 growth prediction data that time is on a month-by-month basis but starting point is not limited to June (See par 66). Nakagawa discloses having a growth start data (page 8, last three paragraphs). Ben-Ner improves upon Shimazu and Nakagawa by having a “planting date”. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include planting date to efficiently improve upon the guidance for cultivation of fruit in Shimazu and the work details for crops growing in Nakagawa.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guidance for cultivation of fruit in Shimazu to further compare time-series of growth between fields to determine work details as disclosed in Nakagawa, and to further include a planting date as disclosed in Ben-Ner, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 2016/0179779) in view of Nakagawa (WO 2019208538), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Sibley (US 20210185942).
Concerning claim 9, Shimazu discloses having records from beginning of cultivation until a harvest time (See par 65, 85). Nakagawa has a time series change from growth start to the “end” of the same crop (See page 8, 2nd to last paragraph).
Sibley discloses:
The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein
the determination unit further determines whether or not the specific crop is in a dormant state based on a change rate of the state accompanying a time-series change in the reference data and a change rate of the state accompanying a time-series change in the measurement data (Sibley – for “dormant state” – see par 79, FIG. 2B - Dormant data 264a may include data associated with an identified dormant fruit bud, including image data acquired or otherwise sensed at one or more points in time as physical data 262b. Silver tip data 264b may include data associated with a stage of growth relative to a fruit bud transitioning to a “silver tip” stage of growth, including one or more images thereof as physical data 262b.)
the assistance device further comprises an output unit configured to output a determination result as to whether or not the specific crop is in a dormant state (Sibley – see par 79, FIG. 2B - Dormant data 264a may include data associated with an identified dormant fruit bud, including image data acquired or otherwise sensed at one or more points in time as physical data 262b; see par 177, FIG. 25 - an agricultural treatment delivery system may granularly, with micro-precision, monitor agricultural objects over time (e.g., through stages-of-growth), whereby an agricultural object may be a basic unit or feature of a tree (e.g., a leaf, a blossom, a bud, a limb, etc.); see par 185 - Diagram 2600 depicts a portion of a limb, for example, in late winter or early spring (e.g., in the northern hemisphere) during a “dormant” stage of growth. As shown, the limb may include fruit buds 2621a, leaf buds 2621c, one or more spurs 2621b, and one or more shoots 2621d. Also shown is a fruit bud 2622 in a dormant state. One or more policies may cause agricultural projectile delivery system 2611 to inspect one or more portions of a limb to determine whether a treatment may be applied. For example, a foliar growth hormone may be applied as one or more agricultural projectiles to a spur to encourage growth).
Shimazu, Nakagawa, and Sibley are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing crop data/measurements (See Shimazu Abstract, par 104; Nakagawa Abstract; page 5, 1st paragraph; Sibley Abstract). Shimazu discloses having records from beginning of cultivation until a harvest time (See par 65, 85). Nakagawa has a time series change from growth start to the “end” of the same crop (See page 8, 2nd to last paragraph). Sibley improves upon Shimazu and Nakagawa by stating there is a “dormant state” observed (See par 79, 177, 185). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include observing dormant stage of growth to efficiently improve upon the records from beginning of cultivation until harvest time in Shimazu and the work details for crops growing in Nakagawa.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guidance for cultivation of fruit in Shimazu to further compare time-series of growth between fields to determine work details as disclosed in Nakagawa, and to further include assessing using sensors a dormant state for crops as disclosed in Sibley, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning claim 10, Shimazu and Nakagawa and Sibley disclose:
The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein
the determination unit
determines whether or not the specific crop is in a dormant state based on a change rate of the state accompanying a time-series change in the reference data and a change rate of the state accompanying a time-series change in the measurement data (same as cl. 9 above - Sibley – for “dormant state” – see par 79, FIG. 2B - Dormant data 264a may include data associated with an identified dormant fruit bud, including image data acquired or otherwise sensed at one or more points in time as physical data 262b. Silver tip data 264b may include data associated with a stage of growth relative to a fruit bud transitioning to a “silver tip” stage of growth, including one or more images thereof as physical data 262b), and
determines the cultivation work to be performed by the user regarding cultivation of the specific crop based on whether or not the specific crop is in a dormant state (Sibley – see par 79, FIG. 2B - Dormant data 264a may include data associated with an identified dormant fruit bud, including image data acquired or otherwise sensed at one or more points in time as physical data 262b; see par 177, FIG. 25 - an agricultural treatment delivery system may granularly, with micro-precision, monitor agricultural objects over time (e.g., through stages-of-growth), whereby an agricultural object may be a basic unit or feature of a tree (e.g., a leaf, a blossom, a bud, a limb, etc.); see par 185 - Diagram 2600 depicts a portion of a limb, for example, in late winter or early spring (e.g., in the northern hemisphere) during a “dormant” stage of growth. As shown, the limb may include fruit buds 2621a, leaf buds 2621c, one or more spurs 2621b, and one or more shoots 2621d. Also shown is a fruit bud 2622 in a dormant state. One or more policies may cause agricultural projectile delivery system 2611 to inspect one or more portions of a limb to determine whether a treatment may be applied. For example, a foliar growth hormone may be applied as one or more agricultural projectiles to a spur to encourage growth.)
Obvious to combine Shimazu and Nakagawa and Sibley for the same reasons as claim 9.
Concerning claim 11, Shimazu discloses when giving irrigating with more water based on a discrepancy between attribute value and growth prediction (See par 44) and providing different guidance content based on difference between measured values and growth prediction (See par 62-63, FIG. 2). Nakagawa discloses considering average sunshine duration and average temperature as “conditions” and weather information which leads extracted “work content” (See page 16, 2nd-4th paragraphs).
Sibley discloses:
The assistance device according to claim 10, wherein in a case of determining that the specific crop is in a dormant state, the determination unit determines cultivation work that controls temperature and illuminance as the cultivation work to be performed by the user regarding the cultivation of the specific crop (Sibley – see par 85 - predicted data 282 may include predicted action data 282c and any other predicted data 282d, which may facilitate navigation and positioning of an emitter to apply a treatment optimally (e.g., emitting an agricultural projectile within a range of accuracy and/or a range of precision), for example, as a function of context (e.g., season, stage of growth, associated biotic and abiotic conditions, time of day, amount of sunlight, etc.). See par 162 - In some alternative examples, payloads 2192 emitted by windage emitter 2017 and emitter 2013 may be associated with heating/cooling (“H/C”) elements 2190 to apply or extract different amounts of thermal energy. In examples in which cameras 2041a and 2041b are configured to detect infrared light, payloads 2192 may be elevated or cooled to different temperatures for application to agricultural objects at night time (e.g., without sunlight). As such, one or more agricultural treatments may be applied to agricultural objects at any time of the day regardless of the presence of sunlight; see par 192 - Obscurant wall 3320 forms a dynamic (e.g., temporary) enclosure as a light barrier to reduce an amount of light from backlight source 3302 (such as sun) relative to the agricultural object 3399.).
Obvious to combine Shimazu and Nakagawa and Sibley for the same reasons as claim 9. In addition, discloses when giving irrigating with more water based on a discrepancy between attribute value and growth prediction (See par 44) and providing different guidance content based on difference between measured values and growth prediction (See par 62-63, FIG. 2). Nakagawa discloses considering average sunshine duration and average temperature as “conditions” and weather information which leads extracted “work content” (See page 16, 2nd-4th paragraphs). Nakagawa has different “work content” such as watering, fertilizer, and chemical applications (see page 15). Sibley improves upon these considerations to not just recommend but change temperature and illuminance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the new rejections.
With respect to 101, Applicant argues the claim is not directed to a mental process Abstract idea grouping. Remarks pages 7-8. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The rejection applies “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mathematical relationship” abstract idea groupings. Even if were “mental process,” the claim requires comparing two values – a received “reference data” (e.g. [0048] as published – “idea” value) to a received measured days elapsed “a time-series change,” then determining what work (e.g. watering, harvesting, temperature, etc) to recommend to a user. See FIGS. 3A-5D, 8A-8B, 10B-10D. Mere presence of a computer does not make a claim eligible even under that grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.”
Applicant further argues the claim is not directed to a mathematical relationship. Remarks pages 8. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim takes one value (e.g. reference/ideal value) and subtracts the measured value to see if the value is positive/negative. The mathematical result, of being a positive/negative value from the subtraction calculation, is how some cultivation work is recommended – based on whether the result of the subtraction is positive/negative. See e.g. FIGS. 5D, 10D, 11B.
Applicant further argues the claim requires “specific” data processing operations and is eligible. Remarks pages 8-10. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The Kim Memorandum (August 4, 2025) and the MPEP do not base eligibility simply on whether any “specific” limitations are recited in the claim – it needs to be a particular solution to “improve a computer or other technology.” Rather, McRo, as explained in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)(“Improvements to Any Other Technology of Technical Field”), had a specific way to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(“Improvement to Computer Functionality”), in computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The MPEP further states “the claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691.” Here, applicant acquires there is a “specific technical architecture” due to a “first acquisition unit,” “second acquisition unit”, and a “determination unit.” Based on the Claim Interpretation section and the disclosure, Specification [0062] as published states “ the measurement device 10 and the assistance device 20 can be configured by, for example, a computer including a CPU (processor), a memory, a storage, and the like. In this case, the configuration illustrated in FIG. 2 is realized by loading a program stored in the storage into the memory and executing the program by the CPU.” FIG. 2 shows each of units in FIG. 2. Accordingly, the “units” in claims 1, 2, and 9 [see 201, 202, 204 in FIG. 2] are interpreted as “a computer executing a stored program” to perform each function recited in the limitations.” Accordingly, a computer executing stored program modules still falls squarely within MPEP 2106.05 (apply it [abstract idea] on a computer) as we just have an addition of a general purpose computer.
Applicant further argues that there is a technical improvement based on [0041-0042]. Remarks, page 9. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears Applicant is arguing [0041-0042] as filed as best understood. [0041] has a “work determination unit” 203 comparing a reference/ideal value from a measured value to see if it’s positive or negative. As stated above, this is part of the abstract idea; and the “work determination unit 203” is viewed as part of the MPEP 2106.05f (apply it [abstract idea] on a computer). [0042] also discusses similar subtraction calculations and is also not persuasive. There is a mention of that data “may” use “machine learning” at the end of the paragraph, but the claims do not require “machine learning.” Even if claimed, mere addition of “machine learning” alone does not appear to be sufficient to make the claim eligible here based on the disclosure. See e.g. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089. In addition, it appears to be merely “using machine learning,” for a business purpose, similar to Example 47-48, and similar to the Recentive v. Fox decision (Fed. Cir. 2025, No. 2023-2437) as an example. As in Recentive v. Fox, “Here, the claims do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement.” See also Desjardins Memo (December 5, 2025), page 2, citing to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1):
“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 only 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 that the claim improves technology or a technical field…” See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification.”
Applicant further argues that there is a technical improvement by 1) “deterministic guidance” using a “rule table to provide specific corrective instructions”, 2) no past cultivation scenario needed, 3) “feedback-type control” and correcting deviations from optimal growth trajectories in [0042, 0070, 0086] as filed. Remarks, page 9-10. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as explained above, with regards to (1), it appears the “rule” being argued here is just comparing one value (e.g. days elapsed) to reference value (e.g. ideal/target number of days elapsed), and if the number is positive or negative, recommending different things. This is still directed to an abstract idea as explained above. Furthermore, the content of the recommended “cultivation work” a user should perform is not even specific at this time in the independent claims. In contrast for example, in dependent claim 11, the cultivation work is specific (temperature and illuminance) – but only as instructions for a user to perform. With regards to (1) and (2), merely arguing “Applicant could have done something complicated, but did not” is not persuasive here. Arguments should be focused on how the computing technology is improved, based on the claim. With regards to (3), Examiner notes, the claim does not require any “control”. It only gives a recommendation to a user on what to do. This is explicitly in dependent claim 12 – there is output to display to a user a recommendation. Examiner is unable to find disclosure for a possible amendment of “automatically controlling” something. Examiner notes [0070] discusses a growth model from average temperatures from past 10 years. It does not appear that this is reflected in any of the claims. Examiner notes [0086] as filed appears to also relate to which “additional work” to recommend is based on a crop being in a dormant state. This appears to relate to claims 9-11, but is still part of the abstract idea, as it refers to the “content” of the recommendation given to the user.
With regards to 103, Applicant’s arguments focus on new limitation “correspondence” (Remarks, page 11) as a way to allegedly prevent Ben-Ner from applying since Ben-Ner has machine learning classifiers. Remarks, page 11. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claim is structured as “comprising” – meaning if a reference has additional steps, that does not mean it cannot be applied. Second, as stated in the 112 rejections, it is unclear what is intended by “correspondence.” Third, even Applicant’s disclosure states that “machine learning” could be utilized (See [0053] as published), though it is not claimed at this time. Fourth, the arguments are moot over the new rejections necessitated by the amendments.
Applicants further make repeated arguments to the last limitation of “in advance,” with Nakagawa where it is argued that “relationship between similarity scores the cultivation work is not predefined in advance, it is determined dynamically based on historical data that exists at the time of evaluation”. Remarks, page 11-12. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Applicant argues that because Nakagawa “it is determined dynamically based on historical data that exists at the time of evaluation”, it is “not in advance”. This argument demonstrates the indefiniteness of the claim – as the claim itself acquires measurement data (historical data) that is compared to measurement data. How can collecting it alone also make it fail the last limitation as amended? It is unclear what timing Applicant desires and it is unclear how one can reasonably be apprised of what the metes and bounds of the claims are the way the arguments are presented. Nonetheless, the new art also appears to disclose the limitations as best understood at this time.
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 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 IVAN R GOLDBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7949. The examiner can normally be reached 830AM - 430PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/IVAN R GOLDBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619