DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 16-18 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 16 recites “[t]he system of claim 10” in line 1. Claim 10 is not a system claim. Instead, the examiner suggests amending the claim to read as “the system claim of claim 11”.
Claims 17-18 are dependent on claim 16. Therefore, the claims 17-18 are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rooney et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20030083819) in view of Fortner (National Cooperative Soil Survey National Soil Information System).
In regards to claim 1, Rooney teaches a computer-implemented method of generating a soil data map [e.g. A significant part of an efficient process of refining or improving the soil map of field 26 is collecting and integrating the pre-existing data from various accessible sources. The field data acquisition system combines the real-time DEM and soil data collected with the previously available data to create a map on which many specific zones are depicted, 0065, 0078], the method comprising:
instructing, by a computing device, a user to record a field boundary in a map of a geographic area [e.g. In some cases the field boundary 28 is initially determined on-site by initially driving test vehicle 16 around the area to be mapped while recording boundary marks with the GPS system, 0063];
receiving, by the computing device [e.g. on-board computer on test vehicle, 0063], an input, from the user, at the map of the geographic area, the input including multiple vertices of the field boundary [e.g. The test platform moves to multiple points along a boundary of the field to define a field perimeter. The test platform includes a data acquisition system and receives input from the field operator by initially driving test vehicle 16 around the area to be mapped while recording boundary marks with the GPS system, 0043, 0061, 0063];
appending, by the computing device, a shape of the field boundary to the map, based on the multiple vertices [Fig. 3; e.g. The on-board data acquisition system is also capable of integrating data collected from sensors with pre-existing data for the site. The field boundary 28 is initially determined on-site by initially driving test vehicle 16 around the area to be mapped while recording boundary marks with the GPS system. The available data is then compiled using software contained either on test vehicle 16, field support vehicle 30, or from remote computer 32, to form an integrated database reflecting the known information with respect to field 26. In other words, the field boundary is mapped onto pre-existing data for the site. The field boundary is a rectangular shape as illustrated in Figure 3, 0061, 0063]; and
overlaying, at the computing device, at least one management zone within the field boundary on the map, the at least one management zone associated with specific soil data for the geographic area corresponding to the at least one management zone within the field boundary [Fig. 3; e.g. The illustrated field boundary 28 encloses portions of several different soil map units 14 identified on a related soil survey, with each soil map unit having a numeric label (only label "152" for soil map unit 14' shown) that identifies the soil map unit as corresponding to a particular soil series, 0062].
However, Rooney does not explicitly teach
instructing, by a computing device, a user to draw a field boundary in a map of a geographic area (emphasis added);
However, Fortner teaches
instructing, by a computing device, a user to draw a field boundary in a map of a geographic area [Fig. 4; e.g. customers can outline their geographic area of interest (AOI), as shown in (Figure 4)” in pages 24-25];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rooney’s method with the features of
instructing, by a computing device, a user to draw a field boundary in a map of a geographic area
in the same conventional manner as taught by Fortner because drawing a field boundary on a map is well known and commonly used in the art of image processing systems.
In regards to claim 2, Rooney teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the at least one management zone includes multiple management zones each associated with specific soil data for the geographic area [e.g. soil topology information is shown in air photo 10 overlaid with closed boundaries or polygons 12 each enclosing a geographic region 14 or "soil map unit" labeled with a number corresponding to a specific subsurface material characteristic reference profile identified in a USDA-NRCS Soil Survey as a soil series description, 0060]; and
wherein the multiple management zones are each defined based on a soil type polygon identifying a specific soil type for the geographic area, whereby each of the multiple management zones represents a different specific soil type within the field boundary [e.g. The illustrated field boundary 28 encloses portions of several different soil map units 14 identified on a related soil survey, with each soil map unit having a numeric label (only label "152" for soil map unit 14' shown) that identifies the soil map unit as corresponding to a particular soil series, 0062].
In regards to claim 3, Rooney teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein each of the multiple management zones is visible within the field boundary at the map [Fig. 5; e.g. An on-board display 50 of the USDA-NRCS polygon map of the field (FIG. 5) may be continuously updated with an icon 51 displaying the precise location of the test vehicle 16 as an aid to positioning the vehicle for data collection. Initial test locations 44 for each soil map unit 14 are also preferably shown on the display, 0067].
In regards to claim 7, Rooney teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising retrieving, by a system server, from a soil data server, based on the multiple vertices of the field boundary [e.g. uploading a reference map segment data request from the test platform to the remote network server, the request including a representation of the defined field perimeter, 0043], one or more soil type polygons that intersect the field boundary, each of the one or more soil type polygons identifying a specific soil type for the geographic area [e.g. A request is sent by the field data acquisition system to either an on-board database or a data server via a telecommunications link, requesting all available pertinent information (soil maps, DEMs, air photos, satellite images, water or soil sample data, or other maps and features) for that site. The illustrated field boundary 28 encloses portions of several different soil map units 14 identified on a related soil survey, with each soil map unit having a numeric label (only label "152" for soil map unit 14' shown) that identifies the soil map unit as corresponding to a particular soil series, 0077, also see 0062].
In regards to claim 8, Rooney does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising clipping, by the system server, the one or more soil type polygons to the shape of the field boundary.
However, Fortner teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising clipping, by the system server, the one or more soil type polygons to the shape of the field boundary [e.g. the ability for the user to download the raw data from the Soil Data Mart that has been clipped to the AOI boundary, see section titled “Web Soil Survey” in page 24].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rooney’s method with the features of clipping, by the system server, the one or more soil type polygons to the shape of the field boundary in the same conventional manner as taught by Fortner because clipping an image such as clipping the one or more soil type polygons is well known and commonly used in the art of image processing systems.
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a system comprising a processing unit and a memory including an executable program, which when executed by the processing unit, configures the processing unit to perform the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Rooney teaches a system [e.g. on-board data acquisition system, 0061] comprising a processing unit [e.g. The on-board computer on test vehicle inherently has at least one processor, 0063] and a memory [e.g. The on-board computer on test vehicle inherently has at least one memory, 0063] including an executable program [e.g. software, 0063], which when executed by the processing unit, configures the processing unit to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 12, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 2 is applied.
In regards to claim 15, Rooney does not explicitly teach the system of claim 11, wherein the executable program, when executed by the processing unit, further configures the processing unit to display the map to the user via an internet browser.
However, Fortner teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the executable program, when executed by the processing unit, further configures the processing unit to display the map to the user via an internet browser [e.g. The Web Soil Survey (Figure 3) is a Web application that provides producers, governmental agencies, consultants, and others with electronic access to, and online viewing of, relevant soil and related information needed to make wise land use and management decisions (emphasis added), see section titled “Web Soil Survey” in page 24].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rooney’s method with the features of wherein the executable program, when executed by the processing unit, further configures the processing unit to display the map to the user via an internet browser because displaying a map to the user via an internet browser is well known and commonly used in the art of computer-based systems.
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 7 with the addition of a second processing unit of a system server. Furthermore, Rooney teaches a second processing unit [e.g. the remote computer inherently teaches at least one processor, 0063, 0066] of a system server [e.g. remote computer, 0063, 0066]. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rooney et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20030083819) in view of Fortner (National Cooperative Soil Survey National Soil Information System) as applied to claims 1, 12 above and further in view of Avey et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20060282228).
In regards to claim 4, Rooney as modified by Fortner does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, by the computing device, based on a second input from the user, at least one seed population for planting in the at least one management zone of the field boundary; and
storing a seed planting prescription comprising the at least one seed population for the at least one management zone.
However, Avey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, by the computing device [Fig. 10; e.g. system, 0091], based on a second input [e.g. different agricultural inputs, including seed products, 0047] from the user [e.g. producer, 0052], at least one seed population for planting in the at least one management zone of the field boundary [e.g. selecting the appropriate seed product for each grid or location, 0105]; and
storing a seed planting prescription comprising the at least one seed population for the at least one management zone [e.g. An option to generate precision farming information 220 based on this information, such as a prescription map. The crop production information 232 is stored in a data base 242, 0110, also see 0108].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Rooney’s method and the teachings of Fortner with the features of
selecting, by the computing device, based on a second input from the user, at least one seed population for planting in the at least one management zone of the field boundary; and
storing a seed planting prescription comprising the at least one seed population for the at least one management zone
in the same conventional manner as taught by Avey because Avey provides a method to make decisions which are consistent with overall business and/or production objectives and limit risk associated with variations in environmental conditions [0047].
In regards to claim 5, Rooney as modified by Fortner does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the at least one management zone includes a first management zone and a second management zone;
wherein the first management zone includes a first seed population inside the shape of the field boundary; and
wherein the second management zone includes a second seed population inside the shape of the field boundary.
However, Avey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the at least one management zone includes a first management zone and a second management zone [Fig. 16; e.g. Different land areas within a producer's land base have different hybrids associated with them. For example, hybrid 1 and hybrid 2 are located in different land areas, 0111];
wherein the first management zone includes a first seed population inside the shape of the field boundary [Fig. 16; e.g. the land area for hybrid 1 includes seed products for hybrid 1, 0100, 0111]; and
wherein the second management zone includes a second seed population inside the shape of the field boundary [Fig. 16; e.g. the land area for hybrid 2 includes seed products for hybrid 2, 0100, 0111].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Rooney’s method and the teachings of Fortner with the features of wherein the at least one management zone includes a first management zone and a second management zone;
wherein the first management zone includes a first seed population inside the shape of the field boundary; and
wherein the second management zone includes a second seed population inside the shape of the field boundary
in the same conventional manner as taught by Avey because Avey provides a method to make decisions which are consistent with overall business and/or production objectives and limit risk associated with variations in environmental conditions [0047].
In regards to claim 13, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 4 is applied.
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rooney et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20030083819) in view of Fortner (National Cooperative Soil Survey National Soil Information System) and further in view of Avey et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20060282228) as applied to claims 4 above, and further in view of Norwood et al. (Introduction to Prescription Maps for Variable-rate Application).
In regards to claim 6, Rooney as modified by Fortner and Avey does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising displaying, by the computing device, the map and the at least one seed population to the user.
However, Norwood teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising displaying, by the computing device [e.g. computer, see section titled “Prescription Map” in pages 1-2], the map and the at least one seed population to the user [Fig. 1; e.g. displaying the prescription map with seeding rates for each zone, see section titled “Prescription Map” in pages 1-2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Rooney’s method and the teachings of Fortner and Avey with the features of displaying, by the computing device, the map and the at least one seed population to the user in the same conventional manner as taught by Norwood because displaying maps and its features such as seed population are well known and commonly used in the art of soil mapping systems.
Claims 9, 10, 17, 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rooney et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20030083819) in view of Fortner (National Cooperative Soil Survey National Soil Information System) as applied to claims 8, 16 above, and further in view of Norwood et al. (Introduction to Prescription Maps for Variable-rate Application).
In regards to claim 9, Rooney as modified by Fortner does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising defining the at least one management zone based on the clipped one or more soil type polygons.
However, Norwood teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising defining the at least one management zone based on the clipped one or more soil type polygons [e.g. For prescriptions to be based on zones, the first step is to delineate the zones. Data available on this Web site include Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (DOQQ), a form of aerial imagery that can be used in the creation of bound-aries and zones, and Soils Data, which includes county soil surveys in both spatial and tabular form. The spatial form can be imported into the GIS packages and clipped to field boundaries. When zone maps are created, each zone within the field is automatically assigned a number (see figure 1), see section titled “Prescription Map” in page 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Rooney’s method and the teachings of Fortner with the features of defining the at least one management zone based on the clipped one or more soil type polygons in the same conventional manner as taught by Norwood because defining the at least one management zone based on the clipped one or more soil type polygons is well known and commonly used in the art of agricultural geographic information systems [see section titled “Agricultural GIS Packages” in page 2].
In regards to claim 10, Rooney teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising transmitting, by the system server, data for the at least one management zone to the computing device for use in overlaying the at least one management zone within the field boundary on the map [e.g. If the data clipping is performed at a remote location or otherwise away from the field test vehicle, then the clipped data is shipped to the field data acquisition system. The illustrated field boundary 28 encloses portions of several different soil map units 14 identified on a related soil survey, with each soil map unit having a numeric label (only label "152" for soil map unit 14' shown) that identifies the soil map unit as corresponding to a particular soil series, 0062, 0077].
In regards to claim 17, the claim recites similar limitations as claims 8 and 9. Therefore, the same rationale as claims 8 and 9 are applied.
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 10 is applied.
Claims 19, 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rooney et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20030083819) in view of Fortner (National Cooperative Soil Survey National Soil Information System) and further in view of Norwood et al. (Introduction to Prescription Maps for Variable-rate Application).
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claims 1, 7, 8, 10. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1, 7, 8, 10 are applied.
In regards to claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights