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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments. Applicant’s amendments in view of the 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejection of the non-final rejection dated 02/26/2026 are sufficient to withdraw the corresponding rejections. However, the claim amendments introduce further limitations for consideration under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a), which were necessitated by amendment. See the 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejections below.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 112.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Claim 1 is directed to a system, a physical combination of hardware components (terraced field irrigation equipment, soil moisture sensors, a meteorological station, fertilizer application devices, an underground water storage system, and a solar power supply) and mathematical models that control the operation of those components. The claim does not describe how humans organize agricultural activities or make business decisions. Rather, it describes how machines automatically operate based on real-time sensor data and mathematical computations. As currently amended, claim 1 requires: the irrigation equipment to physically irrigate different regions of the terraced field automatically based on W(t) (calculated by the water balance and osmosis model), and the slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field; and the fertilizer application devices to physically apply fertilizers automatically based on F(t) (calculated by the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model). These are automated physical operations performed by specific machines, not methods of organizing human activity.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the cited limitations are related to the additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. The mere presence of additional elements does not preclude the claim as being interpreted as reciting abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. The present claims recite several abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. Therefore, Examiner respectfully maintains that the present claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Because claim I requires real-time data acquisition, integration, maximization, and simultaneous control of multiple physical devices, all beyond human mental capacity, it is not directed to a mental process.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the cited limitations are related to the additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. The mere presence of additional elements does not preclude the claim as being interpreted as reciting abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. The present claims recite several abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. Therefore, Examiner respectfully maintains that the present claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “These limitations do not merely state the abstract idea and then instruct the user to "apply it." Rather, they directly link the calculated outputs of the mathematical models to the operational control of physical devices, including the terraced field irrigation equipment, fertilizer application devices, and the underground water storage system. The recited terraced field irrigation equipment and fertilizer application devices are not generic components performing routine functions; rather, they are specifically configured to operate based on the outputs of the recited mathematical models. This is a quintessential example of applying a judicial exception to a particular machine, which the USPTO has consistently held integrates the exception into a practical application.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the present claims do not recite particular machines to perform the claimed function. In particular, certain limitations have been interpreted under 35 USC 112(b) due to the claims invoking 35 USC 112(f) and the claims do not recite sufficient structure within the claim to perform the entire claimed function. Therefore, in view of the present interpretation of the claim, Examiner respectfully maintains that the present claims do not recite a particular machine.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “The irrigation decision is not based on the current soil moisture W(t) alone, it is further limited by the slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field. The fertilizer application is based on the total application amount F(t), which, as detailed in dependent claim 2, incorporates the soil moisture, the precipitation, the temperature, the humidity, and the crop growth cycle. These meaningful limits restrict the models to the specific context of a terraced field in an ecologically fragile area and do not preempt all applications of such models.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that incorporating further abstract information into a model does not meaningfully limit the additional elements of the claims. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Conventional irrigation systems typically apply water uniformly or on a fixed schedule. Claim 1 does neither. It requires the irrigation equipment to irrigate different regions of the terraced field based on three distinct inputs: (i) the current soil moisture W(t) calculated by the water balance and osmosis model, (ii) the slopes of the different regions of the terraced field, and (iii) the soil characteristics of the different regions of the terraced field. This region-differentiated approach directly addresses the technical problem unique to terraced fields: uniform irrigation causes over- irrigation (leading to runoff and erosion) on some regions and under-irrigation (reducing yield) on others.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that an improvement related to the selection of the different irrigation regions, as drafted, would be an improvement related to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. This would not improve the functioning of the irrigation equipment itself, or any other technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Even if individual elements were conventional, the combination as a whole is not. The claimed system integrates specific hardware (terraced field irrigation equipment, fertilizer application devices, sensors, underground water storage system), region-specific parameters (slopes, soil characteristics), real-time environmental data, mathematical models, and feedback to physical control. As the Federal Circuit held in BASCOM, "an inventive concept may be found in the non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." BASCOM Global Internet Services. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the arrangement, region-specific, multi-factor, real-time, model-driven control of both irrigation and fertilization, is not conventional and solves the specific technical problems of water waste, soil erosion, and nutrient loss in terraced fields.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims of Bascom “presented a "technology-based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcame the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems and that amounted to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, it also would be reasonable for an examiner to have found these claims eligible at Pathway A or B if the examiner had considered the technology-based solution to be an improvement to computer functionality (See MPEP 2106.06(b)).” The present claims do not provide an analogous improvement over prior art systems. The present claims, as drafted, are directed to a generic computing system. The present claims, as drafted, recite abstract limitations that are not analogous to that of Id. There is no particular arrangement within the claims such that the claims recite a technical improvement. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions in view of Bascom.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 11/07/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN2024115789343 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “fertilizer application devices” in claims 1 and 4.
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 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 1-8 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the claim limitation of “fertilizer application devices” that is configured to perform the claimed function renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is unclear what the “fertilizer application devices” are within the claim. The present claim invokes 35 USC 112(f) and does not recite sufficient materials/acts to perform the claimed function. Upon viewing the specification, the specification merely recites the limitations of the claim and does not recite what structure/material/acts are associated with the “fertilizer application devices.” The present claims are indefinite because the specification does not describe the structure/materials/acts associated with the claimed “fertilizer application devices.” Therefore, the present claim invokes 35 USC 112(f) and renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear because the specification does not sufficiently disclose the structure/materials/acts associated with the claimed “fertilizer application devices.”
For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the “fertilizer application devices” as being any structure capable of performing the claimed function.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claims 1 and 4.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the claim limitation of “fertilizer application devices” invokes 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification does not adequately disclose how the “fertilizer application devices” performs the entire claimed function of applying the nitrogen fertilizer. There is not sufficient disclosure within the specification to determine what the “fertilizer application devices” or how the platform could perform the claimed function. The specification is devoid of any particular disclosure of the structure of the “fertilizer application devices.” There is no structure imparted on the “fertilizer application devices” within the specification. It is unclear, given the original disclosure, the structure of the “fertilizer application devices” and how the structure clearly performs the claimed function. As the instant disclosure fails to disclose, whether expressly, implicitly, or inherently, the structure, material, or acts associated with the “fertilizer application devices” the present claims are rejected for lacking adequate written description of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claims 1 and 4.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 are directed to a system and claims 4-8 are directed to a method. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 4 recite analyzing the economic benefits of a field, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to fundamental economic principles or practices. Independent claim 1 recites limitations including “a water balance and osmosis model, a water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model, and an industrial collaboration model; wherein the water balance and osmosis model is configured to manage water resources of the terraced field to thereby avoid soil erosion and achieve efficient utilization of the water resources as per a composite formula as follows:
W
(
t
)
=
W
0
+
P
-
E
T
c
-
R
s
+
R
g
-
D
where
W
(
t
)
represents current soil moisture,
W
0
represents initial soil moisture,
P
represents precipitation,
E
T
c
represents transpiration of crops,
R
s
represents a surface runoff,
R
g
represents a subsurface runoff, and
D
represents a deep percolation; the system is configured to adjust an irrigation method based on the water balance and osmosis model in combination with slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field to reduce waste of water resources; wherein the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model is configured to achieve refined water and fertilizer management for the different regions of the terraced field as per an optimization formula as follows:
F
(
t
)
=
∫
t
0
t
1
N
(
t
)
⋅
f
1
S
t
,
P
t
+
K
(
t
)
⋅
f
2
(
T
,
H
)
+
P
(
t
)
⋅
f
3
(
W
,
A
)
d
t
where
F
(
t
)
represents a total application amount of fertilizers;
N
t
,
K
t
,
P
(
t
)
represent time functions of nitrogen fertilizer, potassium fertilizer, and phosphorus fertilizer, respectively;
f
1
S
t
,
P
t
represents a function of a nitrogen fertilizer application dynamically adjusted according to soil moisture
S
t
and precipitation
P
t
;
f
2
(
T
,
H
)
represents a function of a potassium fertilizer application adjusted according to temperature T and humidity H;
f
3
(
W
,
A
)
represents a function of a phosphorus fertilizer application adjusted according to a crop growth cycle W and an area A of each of the regions of the terraced field; wherein the system is, based on the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model, capable of dynamically adjusting supplies of water and fertilizer based on real-time environmental data and crop requirements, thereby ensuring efficient resource utilization; wherein the industrial collaboration model is configured to maximize an integration of ecological and economic benefits and introduce a multi-objective optimization model to collaborate a regional industrial planning as per a formula as follows:
E
(
t
)
=
m
a
x
∫
t
0
t
1
α
1
⋅
Y
c
(
t
)
-
β
1
⋅
C
c
(
t
)
d
t
+
m
a
x
∫
t
0
t
1
α
2
⋅
Y
f
(
t
)
-
β
2
⋅
C
f
(
t
)
d
t
where
E
(
t
)
represents an overall economic benefit;
Y
c
(
t
)
and
Y
f
(
t
)
represent an output quantity of crops and an output quantity of fruits, respectively;
C
c
(
t
)
and
C
f
(
t
)
represent a planting cost of crops and a planting cost of fruits, respectively;
α
1
and
α
2
represent weight coefficients of the output quantity of crops and the output quantity of fruits, respectively;
β
1
and
β
2
represent weight coefficients of the planting cost of crops and the planting cost of fruits, respectively; wherein the system is, based on the industrial collaboration model, capable of dynamically optimizing multiple industries including agriculture and forestry according to soil characteristics and water resources of the different regions of the terraced field, thereby enhancing the overall economic benefit of the terraced field.”
Independent claim 4 recites limitations including “dynamically analyzing, based on data collected, variables of soil moisture, temperature, precipitation and a wind speed in each of regions of the terraced field, and generating optimized water and fertilizer management methods for the respective regions of the terraced field; using a water balance and osmosis model to optimize scheduling of water resources, thereby preventing soil erosion and achieving an efficient utilization of water resources; adjusting irrigation methods in consideration of slopes, soil structures, and vegetation characteristics of the regions of the terraced field to ensure an optimal allocation of water resources; calculating, by a water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model, a total application amount of nitrogen fertilizer, potassium fertilizer and phosphorus fertilizer according to factors including the soil moisture, the precipitation, the temperature, the humidity, crop growth cycles, and areas of the respective regions; dynamically monitoring a nutrient content and a pH value of soil, and optimizing, in combination with the crop growth cycles, fertilization methods to prevent nutrient loss and improve soil quality; inputting data of supplies of water and fertilizer and crop growth requirements into a control algorithm to adjust the irrigation methods and the total application amount of fertilizers, ensuring efficient resource utilization; using an industrial collaboration model to optimize a regional industrial layout and thereby enhance an overall economic benefit, and dynamically optimizing industries including agriculture and forestry according to soil and water resources of the respective regions in the terraced field; analyzing input-output ratios of the respective regions, and planning optimal crop planting types and areas to achieve ecological and industrial collocation in the respective regions of the terraced field; and generating a report to assess efficiency of water resource utilization, improvement of soil quality, and a change of crop yield, and making, in combination with ecological protection and industrial benefits, dynamic adjustments on supplies of water and fertilizer.”
These limitations of claims 1 and 4, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “device” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “device” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Additionally, claims 1 and 4 recite analyzing the economic benefits of a field, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Independent claim 1 recites limitations including “a water balance and osmosis model, a water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model, and an industrial collaboration model; wherein the water balance and osmosis model is configured to manage water resources of the terraced field to thereby avoid soil erosion and achieve efficient utilization of the water resources as per a composite formula as follows:
W
(
t
)
=
W
0
+
P
-
E
T
c
-
R
s
+
R
g
-
D
where
W
(
t
)
represents current soil moisture,
W
0
represents initial soil moisture,
P
represents precipitation,
E
T
c
represents transpiration of crops,
R
s
represents a surface runoff,
R
g
represents a subsurface runoff, and
D
represents a deep percolation; the system is configured to adjust an irrigation method based on the water balance and osmosis model in combination with slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field to reduce waste of water resources; wherein the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model is configured to achieve refined water and fertilizer management for the different regions of the terraced field as per an optimization formula as follows:
F
(
t
)
=
∫
t
0
t
1
N
(
t
)
⋅
f
1
S
t
,
P
t
+
K
(
t
)
⋅
f
2
(
T
,
H
)
+
P
(
t
)
⋅
f
3
(
W
,
A
)
d
t
where
F
(
t
)
represents a total application amount of fertilizers;
N
t
,
K
t
,
P
(
t
)
represent time functions of nitrogen fertilizer, potassium fertilizer, and phosphorus fertilizer, respectively;
f
1
S
t
,
P
t
represents a function of a nitrogen fertilizer application dynamically adjusted according to soil moisture
S
t
and precipitation
P
t
;
f
2
(
T
,
H
)
represents a function of a potassium fertilizer application adjusted according to temperature T and humidity H;
f
3
(
W
,
A
)
represents a function of a phosphorus fertilizer application adjusted according to a crop growth cycle W and an area A of each of the regions of the terraced field; wherein the system is, based on the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model, capable of dynamically adjusting supplies of water and fertilizer based on real-time environmental data and crop requirements, thereby ensuring efficient resource utilization; wherein the industrial collaboration model is configured to maximize an integration of ecological and economic benefits and introduce a multi-objective optimization model to collaborate a regional industrial planning as per a formula as follows:
E
(
t
)
=
m
a
x
∫
t
0
t
1
α
1
⋅
Y
c
(
t
)
-
β
1
⋅
C
c
(
t
)
d
t
+
m
a
x
∫
t
0
t
1
α
2
⋅
Y
f
(
t
)
-
β
2
⋅
C
f
(
t
)
d
t
where
E
(
t
)
represents an overall economic benefit;
Y
c
(
t
)
and
Y
f
(
t
)
represent an output quantity of crops and an output quantity of fruits, respectively;
C
c
(
t
)
and
C
f
(
t
)
represent a planting cost of crops and a planting cost of fruits, respectively;
α
1
and
α
2
represent weight coefficients of the output quantity of crops and the output quantity of fruits, respectively;
β
1
and
β
2
represent weight coefficients of the planting cost of crops and the planting cost of fruits, respectively; wherein the system is, based on the industrial collaboration model, capable of dynamically optimizing multiple industries including agriculture and forestry according to soil characteristics and water resources of the different regions of the terraced field, thereby enhancing the overall economic benefit of the terraced field.”
Independent claim 4 recites limitations including “dynamically analyzing, based on data collected, variables of soil moisture, temperature, precipitation and a wind speed in each of regions of the terraced field, and generating optimized water and fertilizer management methods for the respective regions of the terraced field; using a water balance and osmosis model to optimize scheduling of water resources, thereby preventing soil erosion and achieving an efficient utilization of water resources; adjusting irrigation methods in consideration of slopes, soil structures, and vegetation characteristics of the regions of the terraced field to ensure an optimal allocation of water resources; calculating, by a water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model, a total application amount of nitrogen fertilizer, potassium fertilizer and phosphorus fertilizer according to factors including the soil moisture, the precipitation, the temperature, the humidity, crop growth cycles, and areas of the respective regions; dynamically monitoring a nutrient content and a pH value of soil, and optimizing, in combination with the crop growth cycles, fertilization methods to prevent nutrient loss and improve soil quality; inputting data of supplies of water and fertilizer and crop growth requirements into a control algorithm to adjust the irrigation methods and the total application amount of fertilizers, ensuring efficient resource utilization; using an industrial collaboration model to optimize a regional industrial layout and thereby enhance an overall economic benefit, and dynamically optimizing industries including agriculture and forestry according to soil and water resources of the respective regions in the terraced field; analyzing input-output ratios of the respective regions, and planning optimal crop planting types and areas to achieve ecological and industrial collocation in the respective regions of the terraced field; and generating a report to assess efficiency of water resource utilization, improvement of soil quality, and a change of crop yield, and making, in combination with ecological protection and industrial benefits, dynamic adjustments on supplies of water and fertilizer.”
These limitations of claims 1 and 4, as drafted, but for the recitation of “device,” is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “device” language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the “device” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 7-8 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3 and 6 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1 and 4 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a hardware part,” “wherein the hardware part comprises terraced field irrigation equipment,
the terraced field irrigation equipment is configured to monitor humidity, temperature, and climatic conditions of the terraced field in real time through the soil moisture sensors and the meteorological station, and combine topographical features and crop requirements to achieve water and fertilizer management.” Independent claim 4 recites the additional elements of “and monitoring humidity, temperature, and climatic conditions of the terraced field in real time,” “generating optimized water and fertilizer management methods for the respective regions of the terraced field through a data management platform,” “inputting real-time data … into an control algorithm to automatically adjust the irrigation methods and application amounts of fertilizers,” “monitoring environmental conditions in real time through the meteorological station and adjusting system operating parameters, to avoid unnecessary waste of water and fertilizer,” “automatically planning optimal crop planting types,” and “generating a report through an economic benefit analysis module to assess…” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 1 recites the additional element of “wherein the hardware part comprises, soil moisture sensors, a meteorological station, fertilizer application devices, an underground water storage system, and a solar power supply.” Independent claim 4 recites the additional elements of “arranging a terraced field irrigation equipment, soil moisture sensors, a meteorological station, fertilizer application devices, an underground water storage system, and a solar power supply in the terraced field in the ecologically fragile area” and “using an underground water storage system to collect and store rainwater for irrigation, thereby minimizing waste of water resources and improving water resource utilization of the terraced field.” These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 1 recites the additional element of “wherein the terraced field irrigation equipment is further configured to irrigate the different regions of the terraced field using water from the underground water storage system based on the current soil moisture W(t) calculated by the water balance and osmosis model and the slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field” and “wherein the fertilizer application devices are configured to apply the nitrogen fertilizer, the potassium fertilizer, and the phosphorus fertilizer to the terraced field based on the total application amount F(t) of the nitrogen fertilizer, the potassium fertilizer, and the phosphorus fertilizer calculated by the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model.” Independent claim 4 recites the additional element of “irrigating, by the terraced field irrigation equipment, the respective regions of the terraced field based on the current soil moisture calculated by the water balance and osmosis model, the slopes, soil structures, and vegetation characteristics of the respective regions of the terraced field” and “applying, by the fertilizer application devices, the nitrogen fertilizer, potassium fertilizer, and phosphorus fertilizer to the respective regions of the terraced field based on the total application amount calculated by the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model.” These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 7-8 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 introduces the additional element of “wherein the soil moisture sensors comprise a potential of hydrogen (pH) sensor and a nutrient sensor, the pH sensor and the nutrient sensor are configured to monitor a pH value, a nutrient content, and moisture of soil in the terraced field in real time; the meteorological station is configured to monitor a wind speed, the precipitation, the temperature, and the humidity in real time, and transmit data of the wind speed, the precipitation, the temperature, and the humidity for adjusting irrigation and fertilization methods; the underground water storage system comprises a water reservoir and a rainwater collection system, and is configured to collect and store rainwater to thereby reduce waste of water resources and provide supplementary water sources for irrigation; and the water and fertilizer optimization and regulation model is configured to combine the crop growth cycle and changes in soil fertility.” These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 6 introduces the additional element of “wherein the control algorithm optimizes water and fertilizer management of the terraced field through machine learning, and dynamically adjust the supplies of water and fertilizer based on historical data, meteorological forecasts, and the crop growth cycles.” The limitations reciting “through machine learning” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1 and 4 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a hardware part,” “wherein the hardware part comprises terraced field irrigation equipment, the terraced field irrigation equipment is configured to monitor humidity, temperature, and climatic conditions of the terraced field in real time through the soil moisture sensors and the meteorological station, and combine topographical features and crop requirements to achieve water and fertilizer management.” Independent claim 4 recites the additional elements of “and monitoring humidity, temperature, and climatic conditions of the terraced field in real time,” “generating optimized water and fertilizer management methods for the respective regions of the terraced field through a data management platform,” “inputting real-time data … into an control algorithm to automatically adjust the irrigation methods and application amounts of fertilizers,” “monitoring environmental conditions in real time through the meteorological station and adjusting system operating parameters, to avoid unnecessary waste of water and fertilizer,” “automatically planning optimal crop planting types,” and “generating a report through an economic benefit analysis module to assess…” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) is not significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 1 recites the additional element of “wherein the hardware part comprises, soil moisture sensors, a meteorological station, fertilizer application devices, an underground water storage system, and a solar power supply.” Independent claim 4 recites the additional elements of “step a, arranging a terraced field irrigation equipment, soil moisture sensors, a meteorological station, fertilizer application devices, an underground water storage system, and a solar power supply in the terraced field in the ecologically fragile area” and “step i, using an underground water storage system to collect and store rainwater for irrigation, thereby minimizing waste of water resources and improving water resource utilization of the terraced field.” These limitations are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because they are nothing more than generally linking. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 1 recites the additional element of “wherein the terraced field irrigation equipment is further configured to irrigate the different regions of the terraced field using water from the underground water storage system based on the current soil moisture W(t) calculated by the water balance and osmosis model and the slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field” and “wherein the fertilizer application devices are configured to apply the nitrogen fertilizer, the potassium fertilizer, and the phosphorus fertilizer to the terraced field based on the total application amount F(t) of the nitrogen fertilizer, the potassium fertilizer, and the phosphorus fertilizer calculated by the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model.” Independent claim 4 recites the additional element of “irrigating, by the terraced field irrigation equipment, the respective regions of the terraced field based on the current soil moisture calculated by the water balance and osmosis model, the slopes, soil structures, and vegetation characteristics of the respective regions of the terraced field” and “applying, by the fertilizer application devices, the nitrogen fertilizer, potassium fertilizer, and phosphorus fertilizer to the respective regions of the terraced field based on the total application amount calculated by the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model.” These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 7-8 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 introduces the additional element of “wherein the soil moisture sensors comprise a potential of hydrogen (pH) sensor and a nutrient sensor, the pH sensor and the nutrient sensor are configured to monitor a pH value, a nutrient content, and moisture of soil in the terraced field in real time; the meteorological station is configured to monitor a wind speed, the precipitation, the temperature, and the humidity in real time, and transmit data of the wind speed, the precipitation, the temperature, and the humidity for adjusting irrigation and fertilization methods; the underground water storage system comprises a water reservoir and a rainwater collection system, and is configured to collect and store rainwater to thereby reduce waste of water resources and provide supplementary water sources for irrigation; and the water and fertilizer optimization and regulation model is configured to combine the crop growth cycle and changes in soil fertility.” These limitations are not significantly more than the judicial exception because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 6 introduces the additional element of “wherein the control algorithm optimizes water and fertilizer management of the terraced field through machine learning, and dynamically adjust the supplies of water and fertilizer based on historical data, meteorological forecasts, and the crop growth cycles.” The limitations reciting “through machine learning” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112, as set forth above. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Avey et al. (US 20150242970 A1) discloses arranging irrigation equipment, soil moisture sensors, fertilizer application devices, and monitoring humidity, temperature, and climatic conditions of the field in real time; dynamically analyzing, based on data collected by the soil moisture sensors and the variables of soil moisture, temperature, precipitation and each of regions of the field, and generating optimized water and fertilizer management methods for the respective regions of the field through a data management platform; irrigating the respective regions of the field based on the current soil moisture; calculating by a water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model a total application amount of nitrogen fertilizer, potassium fertilizer and phosphorus fertilizer according to factors including the soil moisture, the precipitation, the temperature, the humidity, and areas of the respective regions; dynamically monitoring a nutrient content and a pH value of soil, and optimizing, fertilization methods to prevent nutrient loss and improve soil quality; applying, the nitrogen fertilizer, potassium fertilizer, and phosphorus fertilizer to the respective regions of the field based on the total application amount calculated by the water and fertilizer optimization and adjustment model; inputting real-time data of supplies of water and fertilizer and crop growth requirements into an control algorithm to automatically adjust the irrigation methods and application amounts of fertilizers, ensuring efficient resource utilization. However, Avey fails to explicitly teach or disclose arranging a terraced field a meteorological station, an underground water storage system, and a solar power supply in the terraced field in the ecologically fragile area, and monitoring humidity, temperature, and climatic conditions of the terraced field in real time; dynamically analyzing, based on data collected by meteorological station, variables of a wind speed in each of regions of the terraced field, calculating current soil moisture through a water balance and osmosis model to optimize scheduling of water resources, thereby preventing soil erosion and achieving an efficient utilization of water resources; adjusting irrigation methods in consideration of slopes, soil structures, and vegetation characteristics of the regions of the terraced field to ensure an optimal allocation of water resources; wherein the terraced field irrigation equipment is further configured to irrigate the different regions of the terraced field using water from the underground water storage system based on the current soil moisture W(t) calculated by the water balance and osmosis model and the slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field; and dynamically adjusting supplies of water and fertilizer according to factors including, crop growth cycles; dynamically optimizing, in combination with the crop growth cycles, fertilization methods to prevent nutrient loss and improve soil quality; wherein the fertilizer application devices are configured to apply the nitrogen fertilizer, the potassium fertilizer, and the phosphorus fertilizer to the terraced field; monitoring environmental conditions in real time through the meteorological station and adjusting system operating parameters, to avoid unnecessary waste of water and fertilizer; using an underground water storage system to collect and store rainwater for irrigation, thereby minimizing waste of water resources and improving water resource utilization of the terraced field; using an industrial collaboration model to optimize a regional industrial layout and thereby enhance an overall economic benefit, and dynamically optimizing industries including agriculture and forestry according to soil and water resources of the respective regions in the terraced field; analyzing input-output ratios of the respective regions, and automatically planning optimal crop planting types and areas to achieve ecological and industrial collocation in the respective regions of the terraced field; and generating a report through an economic benefit analysis module to assess efficiency of water resource utilization, improvement of soil quality, and a change of crop yield, and making, in combination with ecological protection and industrial benefits, dynamic adjustments on supplies of water and fertilizer.
Welch et al. (US 20260037895 A1) discloses arranging a terraced field and a solar power supply in the terraced field in the ecologically fragile area, and monitoring humidity, temperature, and climatic conditions of the terraced field in real time; adjusting irrigation methods in consideration of slopes, soil structures, and vegetation characteristics of the regions of the terraced field to ensure an optimal allocation of water resources; dynamically optimizing industries including agriculture and forestry according to soil and water resources of the respective regions in the terraced field; generating a report through an economic benefit analysis module to assess efficiency. However, Welch fails to explicitly teach or disclose arranging a meteorological station, an underground water storage system; dynamically analyzing, based on data collected by meteorological station, variables of a wind speed in each of regions of the terraced field, calculating current soil moisture through a water balance and osmosis model to optimize scheduling of water resources, thereby preventing soil erosion and achieving an efficient utilization of water resources; wherein the terraced field irrigation equipment is further configured to irrigate the different regions of the terraced field using water from the underground water storage system based on the current soil moisture W(t) calculated by the water balance and osmosis model and the slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field; and dynamically adjusting supplies of water and fertilizer according to factors including, crop growth cycles; dynamically optimizing, in combination with the crop growth cycles, fertilization methods to prevent nutrient loss and improve soil quality; wherein the fertilizer application devices are configured to apply the nitrogen fertilizer, the potassium fertilizer, and the phosphorus fertilizer to the terraced field; monitoring environmental conditions in real time through the meteorological station and adjusting system operating parameters, to avoid unnecessary waste of water and fertilizer; using an underground water storage system to collect and store rainwater for irrigation, thereby minimizing waste of water resources and improving water resource utilization of the terraced field; using an industrial collaboration model to optimize a regional industrial layout and thereby enhance an overall economic benefit, and analyzing input-output ratios of the respective regions, and automatically planning optimal crop planting types and areas to achieve ecological and industrial collocation in the respective regions of the terraced field; and generating a report through an economic benefit analysis module to assess efficiency of water resource utilization, improvement of soil quality, and a change of crop yield, and making, in combination with ecological protection and industrial benefits, dynamic adjustments on supplies of water and fertilizer.
Han et al. (US 20250024773 A1) discloses an underground water storage system; wherein the terraced field irrigation equipment is further configured to irrigate the different regions of the terraced field using water from the underground water storage system; dynamically optimizing, in combination with the crop growth cycles, fertilization methods to prevent nutrient loss and improve soil quality; monitoring environmental conditions in real time through the meteorological station and adjusting system operating parameters, to avoid unnecessary waste of water and fertilizer; using an underground water storage system to collect and store rainwater for irrigation, thereby minimizing waste of water resources and improving water resource utilization of the terraced field; using an industrial collaboration model to optimize a regional industrial layout and thereby enhance an overall economic benefit. However, Han fails to explicitly teach or disclose arranging a meteorological station, dynamically analyzing, based on data collected by meteorological station, variables of a wind speed in each of regions of the terraced field, thereby preventing soil erosion and achieving an efficient utilization of water resources; irrigate based on the current soil moisture W(t) calculated by the water balance and osmosis model and the slopes and soil characteristics of different regions of the terraced field; and dynamically adjusting supplies of water and fertilizer according to factors including, crop growth cycles; wherein the fertilizer application devices are configured to apply the nitrogen fertilizer, the potassium fertilizer, and the phosphorus fertilizer to the terraced field; and analyzing input-output ratios of the respective regions, and automatically planning optimal crop planting types and areas to achieve ecological and industrial collocation in the respective regions of the terraced field; and generating a report through an economic benefit analysis module to assess efficiency of water resource utilization, improvement of soil quality, and a change of crop yield, and making, in combination with ecological protection and industrial benefits, dynamic adjustments on supplies of water and fertilizer.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kram et al. (US 20110106317 A1) discloses monitoring the groundwater extraction of an aquifer
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 Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights