DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 19/181,224 filed on 04/16/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 19/181,224 filed 04/16/2025 claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/635,094, filed 04/17/2024.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 15 is objected to because the following informalities: typographical error
Claim 15 recites “Th computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least two of the plurality of stages of the first harvest group are in different zones.” Claim 15 should recite “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least two of the plurality of stages of the first harvest group are in different zones.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
7. Claim 1 recites “automatically assessing for one or more duration conflicts using the server system, a duration conflict defined as the stage duration of the modified stage falling outside an optimized duration range.” The phrase “an optimized duration range” is indefinite because the term “optimized” is a relative term that lacks objective boundaries. The specification and prior claims do not provide any specific criteria, quantitative limits, or objective measure for determining when a duration range is considered “optimized.” Therefore, claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 9 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising visually altering the representation of the modified stage further comprising at least one of a graphically stretching or graphically compressing the duration bar of the modified stage.” The second “further comprising” renders the claim unclear because it introduces an additional “comprising” clause within an already open ended limitation, resulting in grammatical and structural ambiguity as to the scope of the claim. It is unclear whether the “graphically stretching or graphically compressing” limitation is part of the previously recited “visually altering” step or constitutes a separate additional step. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising visually altering the representation of the modified stage, wherein visually altering comprises at least one of a graphically stretching or graphically compressing the duration bar of the modified stage.” Appropriate correction is required.
9. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-20) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing scheduling activities, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: displaying, on a graphical user interface (GUI) provided by the server system, a scheduling module showing a first harvest group and a second harvest group, wherein each harvest group comprises a plurality of stages and each stage is associated with one of a plurality of zones, each of the plurality of zones representing a physically separate location having a plant capacity, and wherein each harvest group further includes a strain type set, a plant count, a harvest start date, and a harvest end date, and each stage includes a stage start date, a stage end date, and a stage duration; receiving a user input via the GUI to modify a selected stage of the first harvest group resulting in a modification, the modification comprising a change to at least one of the start date or the end date of the selected stage, thereby establishing a modified stage; in response to the user input, updating the GUI by visually altering a representation of the modified stage on the scheduling module, including at least one of elongating a stage icon for the modified stage, shortening the stage icon, or shifting the stage icon to a new position along the scheduling module; after applying the modification, automatically assessing for one or more zone conflicts using the server system, a zone conflict defined as at least one of a total number of plants concurrently scheduled in at least one of the plurality of zones exceeding the plant capacity of said zone, or a total number of harvest groups concurrently scheduled in the zone exceeding a harvest group capacity of said zone; automatically assessing for one or more duration conflicts using the server system, a duration conflict defined as the stage duration of the modified stage falling outside an optimized duration range, the optimized duration range comprising a minimum duration and a maximum duration, wherein the optimized duration range is based on the strain type set of the first harvest group; and displaying an alert of the one or more zone conflicts and the one or more duration conflicts. These steps describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” The claim falls under certain methods of organizing human activity because it recites limitations related to managing and scheduling agricultural operations, including allocating harvest groups to zones, and modifying schedules.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping of MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claim, the additional elements are: a graphical user interface (GUI) provided by the server system and a scheduling module (claim 1). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the displaying and receiving steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: a graphical user interface (GUI) provided by the server system and a scheduling module (claim 1). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0152]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
Even if the displaying and receiving steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-20 recite “further comprising upon modification of the modified stage, automatically calculating using historical data, an updated yield for the first harvest group based on the modified stage,” “further comprising displaying the updated yield for the first harvest group,” “further comprising to receive a user-provided justification for the modification,” “accept from the user at least one of free-text input or a selection from predefined options,” “further comprising, after receiving the user input to modify the selected stage, displaying a prompt to the user to select one of updating stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage, and not updating stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage,” “further comprising, after displaying the prompt to the user, receiving a user input to automatically propagate updates to stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage, thereby preserving the duration of the modified stage,” “further comprising, after displaying the prompt to the user, receiving a user input to not update stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage, thereby altering the duration of the modified stage,” “further comprising visually altering the representation of the modified stage further comprising at least one of a graphically stretching or graphically compressing the duration bar of the modified stage,” “wherein the stage icon visually represents only the stage start date of the modified stage,” “wherein the stage duration of the modified stage is changed from the modification,” “wherein the stage duration of the modified stage is unchanged from the modification,” “wherein the minimum duration is less than the maximum duration,” “wherein the first harvest group comprises a first color indicator and the second harvest group comprises a second color indicator, the first color indicator being visually differentiated from the second color indicator,” “wherein at least two of the plurality of stages of the first harvest group are in different zones,” “wherein at least two of the plurality of stages of the second harvest group are in different zones,” “further comprising, prior to receiving the user input to modify the selected stage of the first harvest group resulting in a modification, duplicating to provide a testing environment for modification of the modified stage,” “wherein each of the plurality of stages of the first harvest group depends serially with at least one other stage of the plurality of stages of the first harvest group,” “wherein the total number of plants calculated for the zone conflict comprises the plant count of the first harvest group and the plant count of the second harvest group,” “further comprising presenting the first harvest group and the second harvest group concurrently such that at least one stage of the first harvest group overlaps in time with at least one stage of the second harvest group,” however these limitations cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from the scheduling activities involving human interaction, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims include: presenting a justification interface on the GUI (claim 4), the justification interface (claim 5). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
16. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
17. Claims 1-8, 11-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso, Pub. No.: US 2020/0065911 A1, [hereinafter Basso], in view of Rowan et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0132423 A1, [hereinafter Rowan], in further view of Jarugumilli et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0138868 A1, [hereinafter Jarugumilli].
As per claim 1, Basso teaches a computer-implemented method for scheduling a harvest on a server system, the method (paragraph 0004: The disclosure relates to methods and related systems for precision crop modeling and management using the same. Precision crop modeling and management can be incorporated into various methods for growing plants (e.g., crop plants or otherwise) and various methods for managing the growth of such plants in a particular field.”; paragraph 0009) comprising:
displaying, on a graphical user interface (GUI) provided by the server system, a scheduling module showing a first harvest group and a second harvest group, wherein each harvest group comprises a plurality of stages and each stage is associated with one of a plurality of zones, each of the plurality of zones representing a physically separate location having a plant capacity, and wherein each harvest group further includes a strain type set, a plant count, a harvest start date, and a harvest end date, and each stage includes a stage start date, a stage end date, and a stage duration (paragraph 0004, discussing that a crop management plan is determined using a crop model incorporating a variety of inputs to specify one or more grower-controlled management parameters; paragraph 0005, discussing a method for growing a crop plant, the method including: receiving an (initial) crop management plan for a field provided by a crop model; planting a crop plant at an initial time in the field according to the crop management plan; growing the crop plant until an intermediate time between the initial time and a planned final time for harvesting the crop plant; paragraph 0009, discussing a method for managing the growth of a crop plant, the method including: receiving historical data for a field…; receiving an (initial) crop management plan for a crop plant in the field, the crop management plan including a planned initial time for planting the crop plant and a planned final time for harvesting the crop plant [i.e., each harvest group further includes a harvest start date and a harvest end date]; paragraph 0015, discussing that the (initial) crop management plan includes one or more of crop plant species [i.e., strain type set], crop plant cultivar, tilling plan, pest management schedule, pest management chemicals, irrigation amount, irrigation schedule, fertilization amount, fertilization type, fertilization schedule, planting time, and harvest time…; paragraph 0034, discussing that an overall planting and growing cycle can begin with determination of a crop management plan prior to planting using a crop model...Generally, a crop model incorporates a variety of plant-, weather-, and field-specific inputs, material balances, and energy balances to compute future plant growth over a period of time (e.g., at multiple points in time spanning a single or multiple growing seasons). The crop model utilizes historical field data along with other inputs to compute future plant growth and field state properties, and to determine the crop management plan; paragraph 0039, discussing that the historical yield data can be based on a different crop plant/cultivar, or it can be based on a combination of different crop plants/cultivars. The historical weather and yield data is used to identify productivity zones which may be loosely crop-dependent or crop-independent…Zone boundaries within a field are determined based on the crop of interest to be planted in the upcoming growing season; paragraph 0040, discussing that the grower-controlled management parameters represent crop model inputs that can be selected according to the actions of the grower who will eventually plant and oversee the growth of the crop. Examples of grower-controlled management parameters include crop plant species, crop plant cultivar,…, pest management schedule (e.g., timing),…, irrigation amount (e.g., volume or mass per unit field area), irrigation schedule, fertilization amount,…, fertilization schedule, planting time (e.g., planned time/date to plant crop), and harvest time; paragraph 0046, discussing that the plant planted in the field can include a single plant or two or more different plants (e.g., different species or cultivars of plants in different regions of the field) [i.e., each of the plurality of zones representing a physically separate location]. In various embodiments, the plant is a crop plant such as corn or maize, wheat, soybean, oats, barley, rice, sorghum, one or more cultivars thereof, and combinations thereof. Other crop plants include annuals, perennials, vines, olive trees, and other specialty crops...; paragraph 0048, discussing that after planting and growing the plant for a period and at a time prior to harvest, an updated crop management plan is determined at the intermediate time using a crop model. The intermediate time at which the updated crop management plan is determined can be at a time which is 0% or 5% to 20%, 20% to 40%, 40% to 60%, 60% to 80%, or 80% to 95% or 100% of the interval between initial planting time and planned harvest time. Suitably, the intermediate time is in the vicinity of mid-growing season and/or prior to a second application of fertilizer…; paragraph 0075, discussing that input data to the model includes weather, soil and crop management activities, soil properties, genetic characteristics of the crop, and the site location...Soil input properties include the field capacity...Irrigation input characteristics include the dates, amounts...The crop variety, genotype, or cultivars also are specified…; paragraph 0056, discussing that at least one management parameter in the plan is different for different spatial regions of the field; paragraph 0068, discussing means for reporting plant amount harvested; paragraphs 0035, 0044, 0045, 0073, 0075, 0080, 0081);
receiving a user input via the GUI to modify a selected stage of the first harvest group resulting in a modification, the modification comprising a change to at least one of the start date or the end date of the selected stage, thereby establishing a modified stage (paragraph 0005, discussing receiving an updated crop management plan for the field provided by a crop model using actual weather data for the field between the initial time and the intermediate time, and projected weather data for the field between the intermediate time and the planned final time; paragraph 0047, discussing that a grower might modify an initial crop management plan parameter based on actual, unexpected events occurring during the growing season (e.g., changing pest management plan based on an unforeseen pest infestation; altering irrigation plan based on an unforeseen precipitation levels) and before determination of an updated crop management plan . In some embodiments, the final harvest time can be planned based on initial crop model prediction and crop management plan, but the actual harvest time can be different based on the updated plan midseason; paragraph 0051, discussing that other inputs to the crop model can include one or more grower-controlled management parameters and/or grower-independent parameters…The grower-controlled management parameters for the crop model represent crop model inputs that can be selected according to the actions of the grower that are possible for manipulation or change during the growing season. Examples of grower-controlled management parameters include pest management schedule, pest management chemicals, irrigation amount, irrigation schedule, fertilization amount,…, fertilization schedule, and harvest time [i.e., change to at least one of the start date or the end date of the selected stage; paragraph 0078, discussing determining an updated crop management plan for the field using a crop model using the actual weather data for the field between the initial time and the intermediate time, and projected weather data for the field after the intermediate time; and providing the updated crop management plan to the grower; paragraph 0068);
in response to the user input, updating the GUI by visually altering a representation of the modified stage on the scheduling module (paragraph 0056, discussing that outputs from the crop model include final field state properties (e.g., field state as described above at the end of the modeled time period, such as at a final time for (planned) crop harvest), as well as the updated crop management plan);
assessing for one or more zone conflicts using the server system, a zone conflict (paragraph 0052, discussing that the crop management activity input represents the actual management activities performed by the grower up to the intermediate time, for example where the grower confirms adherence to the crop management plan, or where the grower provides or otherwise reports actual management activities (e.g., including in-season deviations from the crop management plan) to a party performing the crop modeling; paragraph 0068); and
displaying an alert of the one or more zone conflicts (paragraph 0068, discussing reporting plant amount harvested…; paragraph 0069, discussing that a comparison between the model yield and the actual yield, for example in the form of a report, can indicate whether the grower substantially followed any crop management plans determined during the growing season and/or met any requirement(s) associated with the compliance parameter. For example, when the actual yield is within about 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, or 50% of the model yield (e.g., expressed on a whole-field basis or based on one or more sub-regions of the field), it can be inferred that the grower substantially followed the crop management plans determined during the growing season and satisfied any compliance parameters; paragraph 0069, discussing that in a refinement, the specific value of the any compliance parameters for the growing season can be determined and/or reported to the third party of interest (e.g., determination both that a nutrient leaching value for the field was below a maximum allowable level and the specific value of the nutrient leaching parameter for the field). Conversely, when the actual yield is substantially different from the model (e.g., outside any of the foregoing ranges), it can be inferred that the grower substantially deviated from the crop management plans determined during the growing season and may have violated one or more compliance parameters. Specific possible compliance parameter violations can be evaluated using the crop model with possible compliance parameter violations as alternative inputs to evaluate which compliance parameters were violated. As an illustration, if the actual yield is twice the model yield for a given season, it can be inferred that the grower substantially deviated from the crop management plans, for example by applying more nitrogen fertilizer than permitted and/or generating higher emissions than permitted).
Basso does not explicitly teach including at least one of elongating a stage icon for the modified stage, shortening the stage icon, or shifting the stage icon to a new position along the scheduling module; a zone conflict defined as at least one of a total number of plants concurrently scheduled in at least one of the plurality of zones exceeding the plant capacity of said zone, or a total number of harvest groups concurrently scheduled in the zone exceeding a harvest group capacity of said zone; automatically assessing for one or more duration conflicts using the server system, a duration conflict defined as the stage duration of the modified stage falling outside an optimized duration range, the optimized duration range comprising a minimum duration and a maximum duration, wherein the optimized duration range is based on the strain type set of the first harvest group; and displaying an alert of the one or more duration conflicts. Rowan in the analogous art of systems for determining agricultural planting plans teaches:
including at least one of elongating a stage icon for the modified stage, shortening the stage icon, or shifting the stage icon to a new position along the scheduling module (paragraph 0081, discussing a process is configured to receive a user input to customize management zone delineation options and/or to customize planting plans. For example, the process may be configured to receive requests to merge the zones, split the zones, modify the zones' layouts, modify seed hybrids selections, modify target yields, and/or modify planting plan details. The process may be configured to process the received requests, and generate new management zone delineation options and/or new planting options for the zones. For example, the process may determine interrelations between target yields and planting plans, modify the planting plans, and display the modified planting plans in a graphical form on the user's display device; paragraph 0330, discussing that an interactive object is a graphical element programmed for example, to receive user inputs, update its own location within a GUI based on the received user input, and be displayed at the new location within the GUI. The interactive functionality of the interactive object may allow the user to select the interactive object and reposition the object along a predetermined path displayed within the GUI. Examples of interactive objects may include sliders, knobs, radial buttons, and any other graphical objects that are programmed to receive user inputs and adjust its location or appearance according to the received inputs);
a zone conflict defined as at least one of a total number of plants concurrently scheduled in at least one of the plurality of zones exceeding the plant capacity of said zone, or a total number of harvest groups concurrently scheduled in the zone exceeding a harvest group capacity of said zone (paragraph 0279, discussing that values for one or more parameters for a delineator and a prescriptor are received via a GUI from a grower. The provided values may specify an agricultural field for which delineation of management zones is requested. The values may also specify the grower's objectives in terms of expected profits, amounts and types of seeds for the field, the seeding rates, and the like; paragraph 0286, discussing that in addition to a graphical representations of delineated management zones, planting plans and/or expected yields for each management zones arrangement may be provided. The additional information may indicate a relationship between a particular planting approach and expected yield. For example, for first set of management zones, additional information may include an average seed population, a count of bags of seeds, and a relationship between the seed population and the expected yield. The relationship may be represented using a two-dimensional graph...The graph depicted in FIG. 12 includes a horizontal axis labelled as a seed population, and a vertical axis labelled as a target yield. The data points obtained for various values of the seed populations are depicted as a first data point, a second data point, and a third data point; paragraph 0287, discussing that a grower may analyze data displayed in FIG. 12 to compare the three different ways of delineating management zones, and compare the expected yields generated for the different management zones; paragraph 0298, discussing that one or more prescriptions are generated and displayed for a grower. The prescriptions may be displayed using a GUI. The prescriptions may be displayed in such a way that the grower may compare across the displayed prescription, and clearly see the differences between the scripts. The comparison may include information about a seed population range, a target yield range, a total count of bags of seed, and a population map with legend information; paragraph 0118, discussing that the nitrogen graph may include one or more user input features to dynamically change the nitrogen planting and practices programs so that a user may optimize his nitrogen graph. The user may then use his optimized nitrogen graph and the related nitrogen planting and practices programs to implement one or more scripts. Nitrogen instructions also may be programmed to generate and cause displaying a nitrogen map, which indicates projections of plant use of the specified nitrogen and whether a surplus or shortfall is predicted; in some embodiments, different color indicators may signal a magnitude of surplus or magnitude of shortfall. The nitrogen map may display projections of plant use of the specified nitrogen and whether a surplus or shortfall is predicted for different times in the past and the future using numeric and/or colored indicators of surplus or shortfall, in which color indicates magnitude. In one embodiment, the nitrogen map may include one or more user input features to dynamically change the nitrogen planting and practices programs so that a user may optimize his nitrogen map, such as to obtain a preferred amount of surplus to shortfall. The user may then use his optimized nitrogen map and the related nitrogen planting and practices programs to implement one or more scripts...In other embodiments, similar instructions to the nitrogen instructions could be used for application of other nutrients application of pesticide, and irrigation programs); and
displaying an alert of the one or more duration conflicts (paragraph 0083, discussing that
the programmable pipeline can automatically generate recommendations and alerts for farmers, thereby allowing for a more effective management of seeding schedules, fertilization schedules, and harvest schedules; paragraph 0116, discussing that alert instructions are programmed to provide an operation-wide view of what is important to the grower, and timely recommendations to take action or focus on particular issues. This permits the grower to focus time on what needs attention, to save time and preserve yield throughout the season. In one embodiment, seeds and planting instruction are programmed to provide tools for seed selection, hybrid placement, and script creation, including variable rate script creation, based upon scientific models and empirical data. This enables growers to maximize yield or return on investment through optimized seed purchase, placement and population).
Basso is directed towards methods and related systems for crop management. Rowan is directed towards a method and system for generating planting plans. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Basso with Rowan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying Basso to include Rowan’s features for including at least one of elongating a stage icon for the modified stage, shortening the stage icon, or shifting the stage icon to a new position along the scheduling module; a zone conflict defined as at least one of a total number of plants concurrently scheduled in at least one of the plurality of zones exceeding the plant capacity of said zone, or a total number of harvest groups concurrently scheduled in the zone exceeding a harvest group capacity of said zone; and displaying an alert of the one or more duration conflicts, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing for a more effective management of seeding schedules, fertilization schedules, and harvest schedules (Rowan at paragraph 0083), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
The Basso-Rowan combination does not explicitly teach automatically assessing for one or more duration conflicts using the server system, a duration conflict defined as the stage duration of the modified stage falling outside an optimized duration range, the optimized duration range comprising a minimum duration and a maximum duration, wherein the optimized duration range is based on the strain type set of the first harvest group. However, Jarugumilli in the analogous art of systems and methods for enhancing harvest yield teaches this concept. Jarugumilli teaches:
automatically assessing for one or more duration conflicts using the server system, a duration conflict defined as the stage duration of the modified stage falling outside an optimized duration range, the optimized duration range comprising a minimum duration and a maximum duration, wherein the optimized duration range is based on the strain type set of the first harvest group (paragraph 0002: “systems and methods related to enhancing (or enhanced) harvest scheduling for multiple fields, in which factors associated with the harvest scheduling of the multiple fields are integrated and prioritized, whereby the enhanced harvest scheduling may be used in connection with enhancing harvest yield”; paragraph 0030, discussing that in one example, the moisture interval may be defined by a growth stage model (GSM). The GSM is generally specific to a particular crop variety, and/or may vary due to inbreeding, field conditions, pathogens, etc. In this example, the GSM is designed to identify a moisture content of about 35% for each field…or potentially a range of moisture contents….In connection therewith, the GSM may be used to estimate the moisture content of the given field at a given time, for example, based on a duration of the given time from planting of the crops in the field, etc.; paragraph 0041, discussing that the storage facility may include, for example, one or more barns, silos, etc., depending on, potentially, the type of the harvested crops, the duration of required storage, etc.; paragraph 0066, discussing that once the potential allocations are again identified, the platform is configured to limit the batch range for the harvest plan, whereby the duration to harvest pre-identified batches of fields is limited and/or minimized based on a number of days between the first and last field in a batch to be harvested; paragraph 0101, discussing that the parameter is batch duration, whereby the platform determines batch duration of each of the allocations from the decision service. Then, the platform advances certain ones of the allocations based on the duration of the batches (generally minimizing or limiting the duration). More specifically, the platform employs a threshold, whereby each allocation with a duration less than the threshold is advanced. The platform then imposes one or more constraints consistent with the advanced allocation on a next series of potential allocations. It should be appreciated that 0 (as a threshold) may be selected and/or defined based on, for example, empirical data related to historical harvest data, predicted throughput of potential allocations to a next stage, harvest conditions and/or data, etc.; paragraph 0129, discussing that through an integrated model, an optimized harvest plan may be identified for this example in between around 20 and around 24 hours for given resources associated with the platform and/or the decision service. While, again, this may be acceptable in certain implantations, in others it may not (e.g., this timing may be too long to effectively implement for harvesting taking into account changes in weather, crop dry-down rates, duration of harvest seasons, etc.). As such, the method is provided whereby the determination of the harvest plan is divided into multiple stages, whereby an iterative approach is defined; paragraph 0131, discussing that the identified harvest plan may be evaluated based on a variety of criteria, individually or in combination, including batch length, moisture, yield, quality, priority, demand, field spacing and/or travel per picker, etc. or other metrics indicative of a successful harvest of the crops and/or utilization of the available resources, etc. Further, the harvest plans may be judged relative to other harvest plans, determined/generated in a consistent manner or differently, and/or relative to historical data relating to harvest; paragraph 0070).
The Basso-Rowan combination describes features related to crop planning and management. Jarugumilli is directed towards a method and system for enhancing harvest yield. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Basso-Rowan combination with Jarugumilli because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying the Basso-Rowan combination to include Jarugumilli’s feature for including automatically assessing for one or more duration conflicts using the server system, a duration conflict defined as the stage duration of the modified stage falling outside an optimized duration range, the optimized duration range comprising a minimum duration and a maximum duration, wherein the optimized duration range is based on the strain type set of the first harvest group, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of enhancing scheduling in connection with harvesting multiple fields (Jarugumilli at paragraph 0021), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Basso further teaches further comprising upon modification of the modified stage, automatically calculating by the server system using historical data, an updated yield for the first harvest group based on the modified stage (paragraph 0007, discussing a method for managing the growth of a crop plant, the method including: receiving historical data for a field, the historical data including historical weather data; determining an (initial) crop management plan for a crop plant in the field using a crop model and the field historical data, the crop management plan including a planned initial time for planting the crop plant and a planned final time for harvesting the crop plant; providing the crop management plan directly or indirectly to a grower; receiving actual weather data for the field up to an intermediate time between the initial time and the final time; determining an updated crop management plan for the field using a crop model using the actual weather data for the field between the initial time and the intermediate time, and projected weather data for the field between the intermediate time and the planned final time; and providing the updated crop management plan directly or indirectly to the grower…; paragraph 0035, discussing that the historical field data can include one or both of historical weather data and historical yield data for the field being modeled to which the crop management plan applies. The historical weather data and historical yield data can be used to initialize the crop model, for example before determining the initial crop management plan, initial predicted yield, etc. for the forthcoming growing season. Initialization of the crop model for a given field ensures that the field state properties (e.g., soil physical properties, soil chemical constituents and soil thermal characteristics, such as a function of location or constant across the field, depending on the particular property) determined as representing the field at a time prior to planting are as accurate as possible. Accurate, pre-planting initial field state properties increase the ability of the crop model to provide an accurate initial predicted yield and an initial crop management plan which is more likely to optimize one or more crop or field parameters at harvest (e.g., yield or otherwise); paragraph 0038, discussing that the historical yield data for the field includes data from the actual field being modeled. Similarly to the historical weather data, the historical yield data can represent at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 20, or 30 years and/or up to 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years of historical yield data (e.g., the same timeframe as that for the historical weather data used). Suitably, the historical data spans the period immediately prior to the current growing season and extends backward over a continuous time span; paragraph 0078).
As per claim 3, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2. Basso further teaches further comprising displaying the updated yield for the first harvest group on the GUI (paragraph 0032, discussing methods and related systems for precision crop modeling and management using the same. Precision crop modeling and management can be incorporated into various methods for growing plants and various methods for managing the growth of such plants in a particular field. The methods generally utilize in-season information relating to weather conditions actually experienced by the field to prepare mid-season, updated crop management plans. A crop management plan is determined using a crop model incorporating a variety of inputs and plant-specific material and energy balances to specify one or more grower-controlled management parameters. An updated plan for a given field can be followed by a grower to increase crop yield and/or optimize one or more other crop or field parameters. Alternatively or additionally, the in-season information relating to actual weather conditions can be used in connection with a crop model to predict the end-of-season crop yield, which can be used to take action related to same, for example including buying or selling crop-related instruments such as insurance, futures, etc.; paragraph 0035, discussing that Accurate, pre-planting initial field state properties increase the ability of the crop model to provide an accurate initial predicted yield and an initial crop management plan which is more likely to optimize one or more crop or field parameters at harvest (e.g., yield or otherwise); paragraph 0038, discussing that the historical yield data for the field includes data from the actual field being modeled. Similarly to the historical weather data, the historical yield data can represent at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 20, or 30 years and/or up to 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years of historical yield data. Suitably, the historical data spans the period immediately prior to the current growing season and extends backward over a continuous time span; paragraph 0056, discussing that outputs from the crop model include final field state properties , as well as the updated crop management plan. The updated crop management plan corresponds to a selection or prescription of actions to be implemented by the grower after the initial time and prior to harvest, and they generally correspond to the grower-controlled management parameters that are implemented by the grower during this period. Examples of grower-controlled management parameters include pest management schedule, pest management chemicals, irrigation amount, irrigation schedule, fertilization amount, fertilization type, fertilization schedule, and harvest time. Also similar to the crop model, the grower-controlled management parameters can be the same as or a subset of the corresponding parameters serving as the inputs to the crop model. The updated crop management plan is provided by the crop model by optimizing one or more of the field state properties resulting from the crop model material and/or energy balances. In some embodiments, the updated crop management plan is spatially variable for the field, and at least one management parameter in the plan is different for different spatial regions of the field. In various embodiments, the updated crop management plan optimizes one or more field state properties such as crop plant yield, crop plant quality…; paragraph 0070).
As per claim 4, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Basso, Rowan in the analogous art of systems for generating agricultural planting plans teaches further comprising presenting a justification interface on the GUI to receive a user-provided justification for the modification (paragraph 0271, discussing that a grower may also be presented with a pull-up menu that allows the grower to view various types of seeds, including hybrids and the like. Furthermore, a grower may be presented with a text field for entering for example, a target yield amount expected from in a given year, a lowest seeding rate usually planted in the field, an average seeding rate usually planted in the field, and a highest seeding rate usually planted in the field; paragraph 0327, discussing that the GUI may also include an interactive text box that provides interactive functionalities for creating new planting prescriptions. In the depicted example, interactive text box includes a “+” sign that may be selected to create a new prescription; paragraph 0335, discussing that the GUI may also include an interactive text box that is programmed to receive a target yield value. There may also be an interactive text box that is programmed to receive a seed cost per bag, an interactive box that is programmed to receive a grain price per bushel, and an interactive button that is programmed to select a count of managing zones to be determined for the field. Interactive buttons and text boxes may be operated to enter information and make selections; paragraph 0344, discussing that the description may explain how to modify data models using any of interactive buttons and/or text boxes. By modifying the data models, input may specify custom scenarios for an agricultural field. For example, input may adjust the seed populations with respect to the market economics, or adjust the maximum yield potential for the field based on different hybrid seed tests).
Basso is directed towards methods and related systems for crop management. Rowan is directed towards a method and system for generating planting plans. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Basso with Rowan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying Basso to include Rowan’s feature for including presenting a justification interface on the GUI to receive a user-provided justification for the modification, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing for a more effective management of seeding schedules, fertilization schedules, and harvest schedules (Rowan at paragraph 0083), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4. Although not explicitly taught by Basso, Rowan in the analogous art of systems for generating agricultural planting plans teaches wherein the justification interface is configured to accept from the user at least one of free-text input or a selection from predefined options (paragraph 0271, discussing that a grower may also be presented with a pull-up menu that allows the grower to view various types of seeds, including hybrids and the like. Furthermore, a grower may be presented with a text field for entering for example, a target yield amount expected from in a given year, a lowest seeding rate usually planted in the field, an average seeding rate usually planted in the field, and a highest seeding rate usually planted in the field; paragraph 0327, discussing that the GUI may also include an interactive text box that provides interactive functionalities for creating new planting prescriptions. In the depicted example, interactive text box includes a “+” sign that may be selected to create a new prescription; paragraph 0335, discussing that the GUI may also include an interactive text box that is programmed to receive a target yield value. There may also be an interactive text box that is programmed to receive a seed cost per bag, an interactive box that is programmed to receive a grain price per bushel, and an interactive button that is programmed to select a count of managing zones to be determined for the field. Interactive buttons and text boxes may be operated to enter information and make selections; paragraph 0344, discussing that the description may explain how to modify data models using any of interactive buttons and/or text boxes. By modifying the data models, input may specify custom scenarios for an agricultural field. For example, input may adjust the seed populations with respect to the market economics, or adjust the maximum yield potential for the field based on different hybrid seed tests).
Basso is directed towards methods and related systems for crop management. Rowan is directed towards a method and system for generating planting plans. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Basso with Rowan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying Basso to include Rowan’s feature for including wherein the justification interface is configured to accept from the user at least one of free-text input or a selection from predefined options, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing for a more effective management of seeding schedules, fertilization schedules, and harvest schedules (Rowan at paragraph 0083), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 6, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Basso further teaches further comprising, after receiving the user input via the GUI to modify the selected stage, displaying a prompt to the user to select one of updating stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage, and not updating stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage (paragraph 0013, discussing that in another refinement, the updated crop management plan is provided by the crop model additionally using the actual crop management plan performed (e.g., actual crop management activities performed) for the field between the initial time and the intermediate time. In another refinement, the updated crop management plan is provided by the crop model additionally using remotely sensed crop plant nitrogen data for the field between the initial time and the intermediate time; paragraph 0015, discussing that in another refinement, the (initial) crop management plan includes one or more of crop plant species, crop plant cultivar, tilling plan, pest management schedule, pest management chemicals, irrigation amount, irrigation schedule, fertilization amount, fertilization type, fertilization schedule, planting time, and harvest time; and/or the updated crop management plan includes one or more of pest management schedule, pest management chemicals, irrigation amount, irrigation schedule, fertilization amount, fertilization type, fertilization schedule, and harvest time; paragraph 0017, discussing that in another refinement, at least one crop management item is different in the updated crop management plan relative to the corresponding crop management item from the (initial) crop management plan. In another refinement, the (initial) crop management plan includes at least one of a fertilization amount, a fertilization type, a fertilization location, and a fertilization schedule; and the updated crop management plan includes at least one of an updated fertilization amount, an updated fertilization type, an updated fertilization location, and, an updated fertilization schedule relative to the (initial) crop management plan. In another refinement, the (initial) crop management plan includes at least one of an irrigation amount and an irrigation schedule; and the updated crop management plan in part (d) includes at least one of an updated irrigation amount and an updated irrigation schedule relative to the (initial) crop management plan; paragraph 0085, discussing that a mid-season feedback adjustment could also have been made, prior to the second application of fertilizer).
As per claim 7, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6. Although not explicitly taught by Basso, Rowan in the analogous art of systems for generating agricultural planting plans teaches further comprising, after displaying the prompt to the user, receiving a user input to automatically propagate updates to stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage, thereby preserving the duration of the modified stage (paragraph 0259, discussing that using the techniques described, a computer can determine a plurality of management zones based on digital data representing historical yields harvested from an agricultural field. The techniques can enable computers to determine the contiguous regions that have similar limiting factors influencing the harvested yields of crops. The presented techniques can also enable the agricultural intelligence computing system to automatically generate recommendations for crop growers with respect to seeding, irrigation, applying fertilizers, and/or harvesting; paragraph 0260, discussing that the techniques can enable the agricultural intelligence computing system to save computational resources, such as data storage, computing power, and computer memory of the system, by implementing a programmable pipeline configured to automatically determine management zones for a field based on digital data. The programmable pipeline can automatically generate recommendations and alerts for farmers, insurance companies, and researchers, thereby allowing for a more effective agricultural management in the seeding schedules, operations of agricultural equipment, and application of chemicals to fields, protection of crops and other tangible steps in the management of agricultural field. Management zones created based on historical yield data may be particularly useful in certain agricultural practices, such as selecting a seeding rate. For example, information about the created management zones may be used to generate recommendations for crop growers; paragraph 0306, discussing that an autoscript option allows the grower to request that at least the best three prescriptions be generated for the grower automatically…; paragraph 0333, discussing that the count of the zones may be automatically selected using a default or recommended value; paragraphs 0335, 0386).
Basso is directed towards methods and related systems for crop management. Rowan is directed towards a method and system for generating planting plans. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Basso with Rowan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying Basso to include Rowan’s feature for including further comprising, after displaying the prompt to the user, receiving a user input to automatically propagate updates to stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage, thereby preserving the duration of the modified stage, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing for a more effective management of seeding schedules, fertilization schedules, and harvest schedules (Rowan at paragraph 0083), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6. Although not explicitly taught by Basso, Jarugumilli in the analogous art of systems for enhancing harvest yields teaches further comprising, after displaying the prompt to the user, receiving a user input to not update stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage, thereby altering the duration of the modified stage (paragraph 0046, discussing that as part of the scheduling, the platform is configured to apply one or more rules associated with the resources in the system, e.g., the pickers, the fields, the truck , and/or the production site. The rules may relate to realistic boundaries, limitations, etc. on the use, operation, availability, etc. of the resources as they relate, for example, to the assignment of pickers to the fields, etc.; paragraph 0047, discussing that one example rule may define a limit on the number of pickers that can be assigned to a single field, while another example rule may define a limit on the number of fields a given picker can harvest on a given day (or a limit on which particular fields a given picker can harvest based on location data associated with the field and/or picker). A further example rule may limit allocation of only one picker to a field that can be harvested in a single day (e.g., when a field workload is less than a predefined number, such as, for example, two hours, four hours, etc.; etc.), and another example rule may specify that a field already harvested will not be scheduled (or rescheduled) for further harvest. Still another example rule may require a crop to be transported to the production site on the same day it is harvested from a field, while another example rule may define a limit as to the number of pickers and/or particular ones of the pickers allocated for harvesting a field based on the field's harvesting capacity; paragraph 0048, discussing that a further example rule may require continuous harvesting by a picker such that, once harvesting operation starts for a field, the picker remains allocated to the field until the harvest is complete (with no off days in the duration of harvesting the field), while a related example rule may require continuous drying by a dryer of the production site until the drying operation of a crop is complete (again, with no off days in the duration of drying the crop); paragraph 0049, discussing that some rules utilized/applied by the platform may relate to whether or not resources are currently available to harvest a field and/or process harvested crops. For example, if no resources are available to harvest a field or dry a crop harvested from the field, an example rule may instruct the field be allocated to either a “fake” or “dummy” picker or a “fake” or “dummy” dryer, whereby the harvest date of a field is always the first possible day of harvest for the field. Or, another example rule may instruct, for both harvesting and drying activities, the field be assigned to a “fake” picker and a “fake” dryer (e.g., in combination, etc.) if resources are not available for either harvesting the field or drying the harvested crop form the field. In either case, if a field is assigned a “fake” resource (e.g., a picker, a dryer, etc.), the resource can only be assigned on the first possible day of harvest or drying. However, the first possible day of harvest is not necessarily the 40% moisture date; it may be any day after depending on the run date. That said, such rules relating to use of “fake” resources may help inhibit the platform from failing at runtime due to a lack of capacity or other reason; paragraph 0064, discussing that where the picker is assigned to field in the advanced allocations, the picker is assigned to that field and no longer permitted to be assigned elsewhere, for this iteration of generating the harvest plan. The limit on the number of fake pickers is then carried forward into a next stage; paragraph 0099, discussing that in response to the series of potential allocations, the platform proceeds with a first stage or stage (1), and in the first stage, the platform determines a specific parameter per allocation from the decision service. The first stage as shown includes a number of fake pickers (included in the allocation) as the parameter, whereby the platform in the first stage determines a number of fake pickers. Then, the platform advances certain ones of the allocations based on the number of fake pickers. More specifically, in this embodiment, the platform employs a threshold, whereby each allocation with fewer than the threshold number of fake picker is advanced; paragraph 0101, discussing that at the second stage, the parameter is batch duration, whereby the platform determines a batch duration of each of the allocations from the decision service. Then, the platform advances certain ones of the allocations based on the duration of the batches (generally minimizing or limiting the duration). More specifically, in this embodiment, the platform employs a threshold, whereby each allocation with a duration less than the threshold is advanced...; paragraphs 0050, 0110).
The Basso-Rowan combination describes features related to crop planning and management. Jarugumilli is directed towards a method and system for enhancing harvest yield. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Basso-Rowan combination with Jarugumilli because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying the Basso-Rowan combination to include Jarugumilli’s feature for including further comprising, after displaying the prompt to the user, receiving a user input to not update stages of the first harvest group subsequent to the modified stage, thereby altering the duration of the modified stage, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of enhancing scheduling in connection with harvesting multiple fields (Jarugumilli at paragraph 0021), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Basso further teaches wherein the stage duration of the modified stage is changed from the modification (paragraph 0012, discussing that in another refinement, growing the crop plant until an intermediate time includes growing the crop plant according to the (initial) crop management plan. In another refinement, growing the crop plant after the intermediate time includes growing the crop plant according to the updated crop management plan until a new updated crop management plan is received at a new intermediate time or the crop plant is harvested. In another refinement, the method includes (i) growing the crop plant until a specified time (e.g., the intermediate time) according to an (initial) crop management plan, (ii) receiving an updated crop management plan for the field provided by a crop model using, and (iii) growing the crop plant after the specified time (e.g., the intermediate) according to the updated crop management plan repeatedly to provide a plurality of updated crop management plans at a plurality of specified times); paragraph 0062, discussing that the crop plant can be further grown according to the updated crop management plan until a new updated crop management plan is determined at a new intermediate time before plant harvest. The new updated crop management plan suitably is followed until itself is further updated or until the end of the growing season).
As per claim 12, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Basso, Rowan in the analogous art of systems and methods for determining agricultural planting plans teaches wherein the stage duration of the modified stage is unchanged from the modification (paragraph 0081, discussing a process is configured to receive a user input to customize management zone delineation options and/or to customize planting plans. For example, the process may be configured to receive requests to merge the zones, split the zones, modify the zones' layouts, modify seed hybrids selections, modify target yields, and/or modify planting plan details. The process may be configured to process the received requests, and generate new management zone delineation options and/or new planting options for the zones. For example, the process may determine interrelations between target yields and planting plans, modify the planting plans, and display the modified planting plans in a graphical form on the user's display device; paragraph 0330, discussing that an interactive object is a graphical element programmed for example, to receive user inputs, update its own location within a GUI based on the received user input, and be displayed at the new location within the GUI. The interactive functionality of the interactive object may allow the user to select the interactive object and reposition the object along a predetermined path displayed within the GUI. Examples of interactive objects may include sliders, knobs, radial buttons, and any other graphical objects that are programmed to receive user inputs and adjust its location or appearance according to the received inputs).
Basso is directed towards methods and related systems for crop management. Rowan is directed towards a method and system for generating planting plans. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Basso with Rowan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying Basso to include Rowan’s feature for including wherein the stage duration of the modified stage is unchanged from the modification, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing for a more effective management of seeding schedules, fertilization schedules, and harvest schedules (Rowan at paragraph 0083), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Basso, Rowan in the analogous art of systems and methods for determining agricultural planting plans teaches wherein the first harvest group on the GUI comprises a first color indicator and the second harvest group on the GUI comprises a second color indicator, the first color indicator being visually differentiated from the second color indicator (paragraph 0285, discussing a first set of management zones, a second set of management zones, and a third set of management zones. First set of management zones includes zone 2, zone, zone 4, and zone 5. Second set of management zones includes zone 1 zone 2, zone 3, zone 4, and zone 5…The zones are graphically represented using different shadings or colors; paragraph 0291, discussing that the zones are graphically represented using different shadings or colors. Each set of delineated management zones may include additional information. For example, the additional information for first set of management zones may include an average seed population, and a count of bags of seeds).
Basso is directed towards methods and related systems for crop management. Rowan is directed towards a method and system for generating planting plans. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Basso with Rowan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying Basso to include Rowan’s feature for including wherein the first harvest group on the GUI comprises a first color indicator and the second harvest group on the GUI comprises a second color indicator, the first color indicator being visually differentiated from the second color indicator, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing for a more effective management of seeding schedules, fertilization schedules, and harvest schedules (Rowan at paragraph 0083), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 15, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches th computer-implemented method of claim 1. Basso further teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of stages of the first harvest group are in different zones (paragraph 0010, discussing receiving historical data for a plurality of fields in a region; paragraph 0039, discussing identifying relative stability and/or productivity zones which may be loosely crop-dependent or crop-independent, so different historical plants/cultivars are suitable for the historical yield data. For example, yield and/or stability zone boundaries within a field can be determined based on one crop and then applied to different crops being modeled (e.g., identify zones using historical corn yield data and then use the crop model going forward to model a wheat crop). In a preferred approach, however, yield and/or stability zone boundaries within a field are determined based on the crop of interest to be planted in the upcoming growing season; paragraph 0044, discussing that the crop management plan is spatially variable for the field, and at least one management parameter in the plan is different for different spatial regions of the field (e.g., different crops planted in different regions, different irrigation plan in different regions, different fertilization plan in different regions, etc.); paragraph 0046, discussing that the plant planted in the field can include a single plant or two or more different plants (e.g., different species or cultivars of plants in different regions of the field); paragraphs 0055, 0067).
As per claim 16, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15. Basso further teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of stages of the second harvest group are in different zones (paragraph 0039, discussing identifying relative stability and/or productivity zones which may be loosely crop-dependent or crop-independent, so different historical plants/cultivars are suitable for the historical yield data. For example, yield and/or stability zone boundaries within a field can be determined based on one crop and then applied to different crops being modeled (e.g., identify zones using historical corn yield data and then use the crop model going forward to model a wheat crop). In a preferred approach, however, yield and/or stability zone boundaries within a field are determined based on the crop of interest to be planted in the upcoming growing season; paragraph 0044, discussing that the crop management plan is spatially variable for the field, and at least one management parameter in the plan is different for different spatial regions of the field (e.g., different crops planted in different regions, different irrigation plan in different regions, different fertilization plan in different regions, etc.); paragraph 0046, discussing that the plant planted in the field can include a single plant or two or more different plants (e.g., different species or cultivars of plants in different regions of the field); paragraph 0085, discussing that in another refinement (not illustrated in the figure), it is also possible for the crop model to determine a location-dependent fertilization management plan (e.g., some regions receive a higher level of fertilization, while others receive less); paragraphs 0055, 0067).
As per claim 17, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Basso further teaches further comprising, prior to receiving the user input via the GUI to modify the selected stage of the first harvest group resulting in a modification, duplicating the scheduling module to provide a testing environment for modification of the modified stage (paragraph 0073, discussing that the model accounts for the effects of rotations, planting dates, plant populations, irrigation and fertilizer applications, and tillage practices. The model simulates daily plant growth and soil processes on a daily time step during the growing season and fallow periods; paragraph 0086, discussing that crop model validation data correlating crop model-simulated yields with actual measured yields for maize, wheat, and soybean crops over a period of 5 years; paragraph 0074).
As per claim 18, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Basso further teaches wherein each of the plurality of stages of the first harvest group depends serially with at least one other stage of the plurality of stages of the first harvest group (paragraph 0047, discussing that crop management activities are performed by the grower at one or more points in time, including before planting, at planting, and/or after planting while growing and before the intermediate time. The crop management activities can be performed at single points in time (e.g., tilling, planting, early season fertilizer application) or at multiple points in time, depending on the nature of the activity and the crop management plan prescription. Preferably, the crop management activities are performed according to the crop management plan (e.g., activities substantially or completely following prescriptions provided in the crop management plan). In some embodiments, however, grower-selected deviations from the initial crop management plan are possible without necessarily having an explicit adjusted plan provided by the crop model. For example, a grower might modify an initial crop management plan parameter based on actual, unexpected events occurring during the growing season (e.g., changing pest management plan based on an unforeseen pest infestation; altering irrigation plan based on an unforeseen precipitation levels) and before determination of an updated crop management plan. In some embodiments, the final harvest time can be planned based on initial crop model prediction and crop management plan, but the actual harvest time can be different based on the updated plan midseason; paragraph 0059, discussing that in many cases, one or more fertilization items from initial crop management plan will benefit by at least some updating during the season, which is reflected in the updated crop management plan. In some refinements, the fertilization management plan can include one or more of a spatially dependent timing of application, amount of application, and number of applications. In many cases the initial and updated fertilization management plan are 2-application plans, but the timing and/or amount of second (subsequent) fertilization event could vary between plans; paragraph 0061, discussing that the updated crop management activities can be performed at single points in time (e.g., plant harvest; mid- or late-season fertilizer application, such as a second or subsequent application in a split-application fertilization plan) or at multiple points in time (e.g., periodic irrigation), depending on the nature of the activity and the updated crop management plan prescription).
As per claim 19, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Basso further teaches wherein the total number of plants calculated for the zone conflict comprises the plant count of the first harvest group and the plant count of the second harvest group (paragraph 0068, discussing that after or during harvesting of the plant, the actual yield of the plant can be measured. The actual yield can represent the net yield for the field as a whole. Suitably, however, the actual yield is measured as a function of location on the field (e.g., local actual yield per unit area as a function of position), for example using any conventional harvesting apparatus (e.g., combine harvester or otherwise) including a means for measuring and reporting position and a means for measuring and reporting plant amount harvested (e.g., on-board scale or otherwise to measure and report current amount or mass of crop plant harvested, which can be correlated to current position). The actual yield is generally measured by the grower after or during harvest. The actual yield value then can be provided (e.g., by the grower) to any third party of interest, such as a crop modeling or crop management service, an insurer, a governmental or other regulatory body, or any other party to whom the grower has an obligation to report actual yield. The actual yield can be used, for example, to confirm crop model state at the end of growing season and/or to re-initialize a crop model for the next growing season using one additional year of yield and weather data; paragraph 0081, discussing a method for managing the growth of a crop plant, for example as practiced by a party managing the aggregate growth of crops across multiple fields).
18. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso in view of Rowan, in view of Jarugumilli, in further view of Remsberg et al., Pub. No.: US 2011/0271220 A1, [hereinafter Remsberg].
As per claim 9, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Basso, Rowan in the analogous art of systems and methods for determining agricultural planting plans teaches further comprising visually altering the representation of the modified stage (paragraph 0081, discussing a process is configured to receive a user input to customize management zone delineation options and/or to customize planting plans. For example, the process may be configured to receive requests to merge the zones, split the zones, modify the zones' layouts, modify seed hybrids selections, modify target yields, and/or modify planting plan details. The process may be configured to process the received requests, and generate new management zone delineation options and/or new planting options for the zones. For example, the process may determine interrelations between target yields and planting plans, modify the planting plans, and display the modified planting plans in a graphical form on the user's display device; paragraph 0330, discussing that an interactive object is a graphical element programmed for example, to receive user inputs, update its own location within a GUI based on the received user input, and be displayed at the new location within the GUI. The interactive functionality of the interactive object may allow the user to select the interactive object and reposition the object along a predetermined path displayed within the GUI. Examples of interactive objects may include sliders, knobs, radial buttons, and any other graphical objects that are programmed to receive user inputs and adjust its location or appearance according to the received inputs).
Basso is directed towards methods and related systems for crop management. Rowan is directed towards a method and system for generating planting plans. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Basso with Rowan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying Basso to include Rowan’s feature for including further comprising visually altering the representation of the modified stage, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing for a more effective management of seeding schedules, fertilization schedules, and harvest schedules (Rowan at paragraph 0083), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
The Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination does not explicitly teach further comprising at least one of a graphically stretching or graphically compressing the duration bar of the modified stage. However, Remsberg in the analogous art of task management systems teaches this concept. Remsberg teaches:
further comprising at least one of a graphically stretching or graphically compressing the duration bar of the modified stage (paragraph 0025, discussing a network-chart user interface providing a sample network chart…A timeline, such as a calendar, may be generated across the top, or other appropriate location, of the interface. Graphical elements, such as bars, represent scheduled tasks of a project. Each bar has a length proportional to the duration of the represented task (i.e., the longer the task duration, the longer the bar). Relationship lines and/or arrows define, or otherwise indicate, the functional and/or temporal relationships among the tasks and, consequently, the logic and flow of the project; paragraph 0026, discussing that elements, such as bars, of the interface may be generated as a consequence of the user device receiving from a user a data set defining each task of the project. Such data may be entered via conventional dialog boxes generated by an embodiment to the display device. Alternatively or additionally, such data may be entered by the user employing a palette of bars and lines that the user may place into the interface, using a conventional pointer device, by means of conventional cut-and-paste or click-and-capture techniques and select any desired color-coding or alternative shaping for bars/lines. Additionally, the user may, using the pointer device, stretch/contract bars, as well as move bars and lines within the interface, to alter the temporal characteristics (i.e., duration, start/end time) of the associated tasks. The data set may include a start time for each task, a finish time for each task, an indication of at least one functional relationship between or among tasks, and a type of each task; paragraph 0041).
The Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination describes features related to crop planning and management. Remsberg is directed towards a method and system for task and project management. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination with Remsberg because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination to include Remsberg’s feature for including further comprising at least one of a graphically stretching or graphically compressing the duration bar of the modified stage, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of enabling better visualization of project logic paths (Remsberg at paragraph 0034), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination, Remsberg in the analogous art of task management systems teaches wherein the stage icon visually represents only the stage start date of the modified stage (paragraph 0025, discussing a network-chart user interface providing a sample network chart…A timeline, such as a calendar, may be generated across the top, or other appropriate location, of the interface. Graphical elements, such as bars, represent scheduled tasks of a project. Each bar has a length proportional to the duration of the represented task (i.e., the longer the task duration, the longer the bar). Relationship lines and/or arrows define, or otherwise indicate, the functional and/or temporal relationships among the tasks and, consequently, the logic and flow of the project; paragraph 0026, discussing that the user may, using the pointer device, stretch/contract bars, as well as move bars and lines within the interface, to alter the temporal characteristics (i.e., start time) of the associated tasks. The data set may include a start time for each task, a finish time for each task, an indication of at least one functional relationship between or among tasks, and a type of each task; abstract, discussing that each graphical element illustrates the task start time).
The Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination describes features related to crop planning and management. Remsberg is directed towards a method and system for project and task management. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination with Remsberg because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination to include Remsberg’s feature for including wherein the stage icon visually represents only the stage start date of the modified stage, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of enabling better visualization of project logic paths (Remsberg at paragraph 0034), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
19. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso in view of Rowan, in view of Jarugumilli, in further view of Aparamit et al., Pub. No.: US 2016/0012377 A1, [hereinafter Aparamit].
As per claim 13, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination, Aparamit in the analogous art of project management systems teaches wherein the minimum duration is less than the maximum duration (paragraph 0017, discussing that a project can include many tasks, where a task generally refers to an activity to be performed. A Gantt chart is a useful way of showing tasks, activities, or events displayed against time, and a Gantt chart is commonly used in project management. Along a top portion of a typical Gantt chart is a suitable time scale that is based on a suitable time unit. Each task is represented by a bar, or some other type of indicator, that is displayed within a portion of the Gantt chart. A position and width of the bar collectively indicate a start date-time (i.e., date and/or time) of the task, a duration of the task, and an end date-time of the task; paragraph 0044, discussing that a soft connector that corresponds to the soft constraint is displayed within the timeline of the chart. In certain embodiments, the soft connector can connect a first task indicator (displayed within the timeline of the chart) that corresponds to the first task with a second task indicator (displayed within the timeline of the chart) that corresponds to the second task. In some of these embodiments, the first task indicator is a first bar, the second task indicator is a second bar, and the soft connector is a dashed line...In certain embodiments where a maximum delay duration is defined, the soft connector is only displayed within the timeline of the chart when the minimum duration is less than or equal to the maximum delay duration).
The Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination describes features related to crop planning and management. Aparimit is directed towards a project management system. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning and scheduling systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination with Aparimit because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination to include Aparimit’s feature for including wherein the minimum duration is less than the maximum duration, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of effectively planning tasks and allocating resources (Aparimit at paragraph 0022), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
20. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basso in view of Rowan, in view of Jarugumilli, in further view of Hoskinson et al., Patent No.: US 6,729,951 B2, [hereinafter Hoskinson].
As per claim 20, the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination, Hoskinson in the analogous art of harvest planning systems teaches further comprising presenting the first harvest group and the second harvest group concurrently on the scheduling module such that at least one stage of the first harvest group overlaps in time with at least one stage of the second harvest group (col. 1, lines 62-67 & col. 2, lines 1-9, discussing separating the crop into two portions. The first portion contains substantially all of the straw from the threshed crop and a second portion includes substantially all of the chaff, grain, grain leavings and weed seeds. The first portion is returned to the field during separation while the second portion comprising its various components is transported to a processing plant for separation of the grain from the chaff, grain leavings and weed seeds. The chaff, grain leavings and weed seeds are collectively compacted and crushed in a mill for use as animal feed. The process is purported to increase the amount of grain recovered and to remove weed seeds from the field…; col. 2, lines 26-35, discussing that it would be advantageous to provide an apparatus and method for selectively harvesting a specified revenue generating component of a crop at substantially the same time as the harvesting of the grain material. For example, it would be advantageous to provide a combine harvester or other machine which provides for the harvesting of at least one additional specified revenue generating component of the plant material, along with the harvesting of the grain, during a single pass over the crop field; col. 2, lines 38-54, discussing that a method is provided for selectively harvesting multiple components of a plant material. The method includes gathering an amount of plant material from a crop field utilizing a harvesting machine. A grain component is harvested from the plant material and then conveyed to a storage area such as, for example, a storage tank located on or within the harvesting machine. At least one additional plant component is also selectively separated from the plant material. The residual material (i.e., the plant material other than grain and other than the at least one additional plant component) is discharged from the harvesting machine back to the crop field. The at least one additional plant component may be, for example, an internodal stem component of the plant material wherein stem of the plant material is broken adjacent the nodes and the nodes are then separated from the internodal stem portions; col. 7, lines 16-33, discussing that the secondary threshing and separating mechanism may be housed in a second vehicle. Thus, after passing through the primary threshing and separating mechanism of the harvesting machine, the portion of the crop containing the desired components for additional harvesting (e.g. the straw/stems) may be discharged from the harvesting machine to the second vehicle for processing via the secondary threshing and separating mechanism. The second vehicle may further include a packaging mechanism for consolidating and packaging the harvested material prior to discharge from the second vehicle. Additionally, the second vehicle may include an outlet port for discharging undesired plant material separated out via the secondary threshing and separating mechanism; col. 5, lines 15-40).
The Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination describes features related to crop planning and management. Hoskinson is directed towards a method and apparatus for selectively harvesting multiple components of a plant material. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards agriculture planning and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination with Hoskinson because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for agriculture planning and scheduling, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method for agriculture scheduling), and because modifying the Basso-Rowan-Jarugumilli combination to include Hoskinson’s feature for including presenting the first harvest group and the second harvest group concurrently on the scheduling module such that at least one stage of the first harvest group overlaps in time with at least one stage of the second harvest group, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of ensuring an efficient harvest (Hoskinson at col. 7, lines 38-40), or in the pursuit of allowing the farmer to quickly realize the best course of action to take in a particular situation based on the impact information; and further obvious because 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 results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mahacek et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0400623 A1 – describes a changes element, which allows a user to configure and/or manage their plot. For example, a user can select crops or groups thereof to add to the plot after it has been established, adjust quantities, timing of harvest and/or delivery, and/or other changes.
Bongartz et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0184153 A1 – describes a controlled agriculture system that is configured to inform the grower if a certain threshold of a critical parameter is reached or if, for example, a certain percentage of leaves is affected. The system might continue to learn while used. In this case it may be beneficial to include a feedback-loop between the system and the operator to train and improve the system. To this purpose, the operator may feed back to the system whether he/she confirms or dismisses a potential issue flagged by the system.
Prendergast, Jr. Patent No.: US 11,410,249 B2 – describes systems and methods configured to manage greenhouse crop harvest, yields and transport timing and yields.
Kukar, Matjaž, et al. "AgroDSS: A decision support system for agriculture and farming." Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 161 (2019): 260-271 – describes a system that bridges the gap between agricultural systems and state-of-the-art decision support methodology. The described system is intended for integration into the existing farm management information systems and provides a cloud-based decision support toolbox, allowing farmers to upload their own data, utilize several data analysis methods and retrieve their outputs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights