DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-18 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on February 28, 2025 and April 21, 2025 are acknowledged and have been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-18) recite “receiving … a map of a particular agronomic field; receiving … agronomic data for the particular agronomic field; generating a grid overlay for the map of the agronomic field; selecting a plurality of sets of adjacent grid cells; for each set of adjacent grid cells of the plurality of sets of adjacent grid cells, computing a difference value comprising a difference in one or more factors between the grid cells in the set of adjacent grid cells; computing, from the difference values for each set of adjacent grid cells, a short length variability for the particular agronomic field; based on the short length variability, selecting one or more locations; generating a prescription map comprising first management practices for the particular agronomic field and second management practices that are different than the first management practices for the selected one or more locations.” Claims 1-18, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of receiving a map and agronomic data for a field, generating a grid overly for the map, selecting adjacent grid cells, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells, computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference, selecting locations based on the short length variability, and generating a prescription map with management practices for the field and the selected locations.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited receiving a map and agronomic data for a field, generating a grid overly for the map, selecting adjacent grid cells, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells, computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference, selecting locations based on the short length variability, and generating a prescription map with management practices for the field and the selected locations could all be reasonably interpreted as a human observing information regarding a field and a human performing evaluations and using judgement to select adjacent grid cells, generate a grid overly for the map, compute a difference between adjacent cells, compute a short length variability, select locations, and generate a prescription map mentally and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental process. Further, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells and computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference are recitations of mathematical calculation, and thus, the claims recite a mathematical concept. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-9 & 11-18 recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper and recite mathematical concepts that include mathematical calculations. Accordingly, since the claims recite a mental process and mathematical concepts, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] system comprising: one or more processors; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of” and “at an agricultural intelligence computing system” in claim 1, “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause performance of generating one or more scripts comprising instructions which, when executed by an application controller of an agricultural implement, cause the application controller to cause the agricultural implement” in claim 9 and similarly in claim 18, and “[a] computer-implemented method comprising” and “at an agricultural intelligence computing system” in claim 10; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Furthermore, these limitations, including the recitations of “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause performance of generating one or more scripts comprising instructions which, when executed by an application controller of an agricultural implement, cause the application controller to cause the agricultural implement” in claim 9 and similarly in claim 18, are recited at high level of generality and merely generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment of generic computer systems, generic agricultural implements, and generic controllers implementing the abstract idea. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-9 & 11-18 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant Specfication at [0117]-[0118] (describing that the techniques of invention can be implemented by general purpose hardware processors programmed to perform the techniques pursuant to program instructions and computer systems including a general purpose microprocessor). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-9 & 11-18 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used 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 claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hendrickson, et al. (US 20090259483 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson.
Regarding claim 1, Hendrickson discloses a system comprising ([0021]):
one or more processors;
a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of ([0020]-[0023]):
receiving, at an agricultural intelligence computing system, a map of a particular agronomic field ([0091]-[0092], fig. 11, step 900, location-determining receiver 10 surveys a field to determine position data 27, e.g., the location-determining receiver 10 may obtain position data (e.g., x, y coordinates of a Cartesian coordinate system 11), [0023], position data 27 may be expressed in coordinates (e.g., x, y coordinates));
receiving, at the agricultural intelligence computing system, agronomic data for the particular agronomic field ([0091]-[0092], step 900, a location-determining receiver 10 and yield monitor 25 surveys a field to determine corresponding elevation data 28, and corresponding yield data for a particular crop comprising: yield data, average yield data per classification, median yield data per classification, mode yield data per classification image data, average image data per classification, median image data per classification, and mode image data per classification, e.g., elevation data 28 (z coordinate of a Cartesian coordinate system 11));
generating a grid overlay for the map of the agronomic field ([0093], step S202, interpolates the elevation data 28 to determine local elevation data 28 for a corresponding cell within the field, e.g., creates an elevation surface or first data layer based on one or more of the following: (1) the determined position data 27 and corresponding elevation data 28, or (2) interpolated elevation data with associated corresponding position data that represent an average, mean, or mode value or other estimated value of elevation data 28 of the nearest position data or adjacent position data);
selecting a plurality of sets of adjacent grid cells ([0094], step 204, averages adjacent cells around each local cell to determine a regional mean elevation data or derivative elevation data 29 or derivative elevation data 29 for each cell);
for each set of adjacent grid cells of the plurality of sets of adjacent grid cells, computing a difference value comprising a difference in one or more factors between the grid cells in the set of adjacent grid cells ([0095]-[0096], step S206, determines an elevation difference between the location elevation data 28 and the regional mean elevation data 28 (or derivative elevation data 29) for each cell, e.g., the mean filter surface (e.g., second data layer) is subtracted from the elevation surface (e.g., first data layer) to derive or estimate a landscape position (LSP) surface (e.g., third data layer));
computing, from the difference values for each set of adjacent grid cells, a short length variability for the particular agronomic field ([0097], step S208, classifies each cell as a depression cell, an intermediate cell, a summit cell or another classification (e.g., distinct zone identifiers associated with different landscape position zones) based on the determined elevation difference between the particular cell and the mean data with various techniques that may be applied alternately or cumulatively, e.g., in second technique, each distinct zone is associated with similar ranges of elevation differences with respect to the regional mean elevation, wherein a first zone identifier may describe a first range of elevation differences, a second zone identifier describes a second range of elevation differences distinct (e.g., greater or lower) from the first range, and in a third technique, the landscape position (LSP) surface may be classified, e.g., divided into N zones (1 to N) using various methods such as an equal surface area for each zone);
based on the short length variability, selecting one or more locations ([0098], step S902, determines whether the reference data (e.g., yield data or image data) varies by at least a minimum threshold amount between different classifications (e.g., depression cell, intermediate cell, or summit cells) and different landscape position zones, e.g., if the reference data (e.g., zone yield data, zone image data, average yield data for a corresponding classification or landscape position zone) varies by at least a minimum threshold amount, the method continues with step S106);
generating a prescription map comprising first management practices for the particular agronomic field and second management practices that are different than the first management practices for the selected one or more locations ([0075], system 11 provides a prescription map 705 for the land area in window or area 704 that may include application rates per classification, [0099]-[0100], step S106, generates a prescription based on the classification, as in fig. 2 & 10, wherein the method may limit or restrict the scope of the prescription to those preferential zones (e.g., landscape position zones) or classifications (e.g., depression, intermediate, or summit cells) where the reference data varies by at least a minimum threshold between classifications, wherein the method optionally does not generate a prescription for the remaining zones or classifications where the reference data does not vary by at least a minimum threshold between classifications, [0035], in step S106, a user interface generates a prescription for cells in the field based on at least one of the classification, the landscape position (LSP) surface comprising one or more of the following: (1) instructions (e.g., a data file) on applying different levels of an agricultural input to particular cells in the field based on the different classifications of the particular cells or other landscape position surface values, (2) instructions (e.g., data file) on removing soil or material from summit cells to fill in depression cells to meet an average elevation for the cells, wherein agricultural inputs may include pesticides, fungicides, nutrients, etc., or other chemicals or materials for agronomic or plant management).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. While claim 10 is directed to a computer-implemented method, Hendrickson discloses a method as claimed. Abstract, [0021]-[0023].
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.
Claims 2 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson, et al. (US 20090259483 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson, in view of Borgstadt (US 20200183406 A1), hereinafter Borgstadt.
Regarding claim 2, Hendrickson discloses the system of claim 1 (as above). Further, while Hendrickson discloses all of the above and wherein generating the grid overlay comprises:
identifying a width …;
generating a first set of parallel lines separated by a distance equal to a multiple of the width … ;
generating a second set of parallel lines perpendicular to the first set of parallel lines ([0030], wherein a cell may be rectangular and a defined zone may be a region within a polygon or defined group of cells, [0091]-[0094], the method obtains position data (e.g., x, y coordinates of a Cartesian coordinate system 11), interpolates the elevation data 28 to determine local elevation data 28 for a corresponding cell within the field, which may be rectangular, to create an elevation surface or first data layer, and averages adjacent elevation data 28 around each cell, e.g., in a defined zone or two-dimensional area, [0062], [0064], FIG. 4A provides an illustrative representation of the first data layer or elevation image, FIG. 4B shows illustrative landscape position contours or third data layer that are derived from the land elevation contours of FIG. 4A, wherein the average elevation for each cell may be expressed as a second data layer, and the image of FIG. 4B may be a result of the subtraction of the second data layer from the first data layer of FIG. 4A
PNG
media_image1.png
526
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
Hendrickson does not necessarily disclose the following remaining limitations, which however, are taught by further teachings in Borgstadt.
Borgstadt teaches wherein generating the grid overlay comprises: identifying a width of an agricultural implement ([0022], combine 100 can include a set of front-end equipment that can include header 102, [0041], point cloud 254 width is defined based on the width of header 102);
generating a first set of parallel lines separated by a distance equal to a multiple of the width of the agricultural implement ([0038], [0041], a virtual point cloud 254 defined by point cloud definition logic 250 includes plurality of points, represented by the dots in the grid shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B, separated in in the width direction (e.g., in a direction transverse or perpendicular to the length direction), from one another, e.g., the size of that separation from one another in both the length and width directions by approximately 10 cm, wherein point cloud 254 width is defined as slightly larger than the width of header 102);
generating a second set of parallel lines perpendicular to the first set of parallel lines ([0041], a virtual point cloud 254 defined by point cloud definition logic 250 includes plurality of points, represented by the dots in the grid shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B, separated in the length direction (e.g., in a direction parallel to the direction of travel of machine 100 indicated by arrow 403) from one another, e.g., the size of that separation from one another in both the length and width directions by approximately 10 cm).
Hendrickson and Borgstadt are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of determining recommendations for managing agricultural fields based on agricultural data. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Hendrickson the ability to identify a width of an agricultural implement, generate a first set of parallel lines separated by a distance equal to a multiple of the width of the agricultural implement, and generate a second set of parallel lines perpendicular to the first set of parallel lines, as taught by Borgstadt, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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 combination would produce the predictable results of identifying a width of an agricultural implement, generating a first set of parallel lines separated by a distance equal to a multiple of the width of the agricultural implement, and generating a second set of parallel lines perpendicular to the first set of parallel lines, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Hendrickson with the aforementioned teachings of Borgstadt in order to produce the added benefit of confidently control the movement of agricultural machines. [0057]-[0059].
Regarding claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 11. While claim 11 is directed to a computer-implemented method, Hendrickson discloses a method as claimed. Abstract, [0021]-[0023].
Claims 9 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson, et al. (US 20090259483 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson, in view of Zhong, et al. (US 20180018517 A1), hereinafter Zhong.
Regarding claim 9, Hendrickson discloses the system of claim 1 (as above). Further, while Hendrickson discloses all of the above and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause performance of generating one or more … comprising instructions which, when executed by an application controller of an agricultural implement, cause the application controller to cause the agricultural implement to apply a prescription to the field in accordance with the prescription map ([0075], system 11 provides a prescription map 705 for the land area in window or area 704 that may include application rates per classification, [0035], the prescription may comprise one or more of the following: (1) instructions (e.g., a data file) on applying different levels of an agricultural input to particular cells in the field based on the different classifications of the particular cells or other landscape position surface values, wherein the prescription may be expressed as prescription signals or prescription data 32 that can be used to control a vehicle, equipment, machine, or its implement to further or execute the prescription), Hendrickson does not necessarily disclose the following remaining limitations, which however, are taught by further teachings in Zhong.
Zhong teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause performance of generating one or more scripts comprising instructions which, when executed by an application controller of an agricultural implement, cause the application controller to cause the agricultural implement to apply a prescription to the field ([0192], the agricultural intelligence computer system 130 may be programmed to generate recommendations and/or instructions for an application controller that identify one or more management practices, wherein instructions include digitally programmable instructions or scripts which, when sent to the application controller, cause the application controller to control an operating parameter of an agricultural vehicle or implement, e.g., an application controller may be communicatively coupled to a farm implement, such as a watering valve, and the application controller may execute a particular script to cause the watering valve to release water on one or more portions of a field) in accordance with the prescription map ([0164], [0191], at step 814, a normalized difference metric comprising a quotient of the difference metric with a sum of the metric coefficient in the matrix of metric coefficients is computed from the difference metric for a plurality of pixel maps to determine comparisons for different maps in different locations, and at step 816, one or more field management recommendations are generated and sent to a field manager computing device based, at least in part, on the particular normalized difference metric).
Hendrickson and Zhong are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of determining recommendations for managing agricultural fields based on agricultural data. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Hendrickson the ability to generate scripts comprising instructions which, when executed by an application controller of an agricultural implement, cause the application controller to cause the agricultural implement to apply a prescription to the field in accordance with the prescription map, as taught by Zhong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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 combination would produce the predictable results of generating scripts comprising instructions which, when executed by an application controller of an agricultural implement, cause the application controller to cause the agricultural implement to apply a prescription to the field in accordance with the prescription map. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Hendrickson with the aforementioned teachings of Zhong in order to produce the added benefit of enabling growers to maximize yield or return on investment. [0081].
Regarding claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to claim 9, and thus, is rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 18. While claim 18 is directed to a computer-implemented method, Hendrickson discloses a method as claimed. Abstract, [0021]-[0023].
Allowable Subject Matter
While claims 1-18 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 101, claims 3-8 and 11-17, which depend on claims 1 and 10, respectively, are potentially allowable if amended to overcome the 101 rejections since claims 3-8 and 11-17 are novel and non-obvious in view of 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights