Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s RCE for application number 19/196,029 received on 09/09/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-6 are amended, currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Upon review of Applicant’s amendment, the previously applied §103 rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the claims are primarily raised in support of the amendments, which are believed to be fully addressed in the updated §101 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim amendments are not supported by the original disclosure. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: independent claim 1 introduces new matter by amending the claims to recite: “…as machine- readable control signals, and transmitting the machine-readable control signals to an automated agricultural machine, wherein the automated agricultural machine, in response to the machine- readable control signals, automatically and physically divides…”. The original disclosure does not support this amendment. Par. [0005] of the original disclosure merely discloses a method for incorporating a future crop production into the SCS ([0005] The present disclosure is intended to resolve at least one of technical problems in the related art to some extent. In view of this, an objective of the present disclosure is to provide a method for incorporating a future crop production into the SCS, such that a greater proportion of the future crop production falls within the SCS, thereby mitigating the impact of the future climate change on the crop production to ensure food security.). Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument (Remarks at pg. 7), where Applicant argues that par. [0005] “implicitly disclose that crops are planted in a target area according to optimized planting area in the optimal second SCS, so as to improve the production of the crop”. There is no disclosure of an agricultural machine – or equipment – capable of receiving instructions/signals and physically dividing a planting land. Per Applicant’s own specification, the claims provide a method for incorporating a future crop production into an SCS, including: [0007] calculating indicator data according to climatic data of a preset region in a baseline period, and constructing a first SCS by combining the indicator data with production data of a crop in the baseline period; [0008] adjusting the climatic data, such that the first SCS moves, and a moving range of the first SCS is combined with the first SCS to form a second SCS; and according to climatic data in a future period, screening optimal indicator data when a production of the crop is maximum; and [0009] constructing a third SCS of the crop with the optimal indicator data of the crop, and optimizing a planting area distribution of the crop to improve a production of the crop in the third SCS. The original disclosure does not recite any particular support regarding any machine or equipment capable of receiving signals/instructions and physically dividing land. Therefore, the original disclosure does not reasonably convey to those of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor has possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
Dependent claims 2-6 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claim 1.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are directed to a method (i.e., Process. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claim 1 recites a method for incorporating a future crop production into a safe climatic space. As drafted, the limitations recited by the claims fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent claim 1 recites a method for incorporating a future crop production into a safe climatic space with the following abstract limitations: “receiving climatic data of a target region in a baseline period and current planting areas of crops in the target region; calculating indicator data according to the climatic data of the target region in the baseline period, and constructing a first SCS by combining the indicator data with production data of a crop in the baseline period; adjusting the climatic data, such that the first SCS moves, repeating the adjusting for many times and for each adjusting, a moving range of the first SCS is combined with the first SCS to form a corresponding second SCS, wherein temperature is limited in a variation range of 0-3°C, with a step size of 0.1°C each time, and precipitation is limited in a variation range of - 100 mm to 100 mm, with a step size of 10 mm each time; simulating crop production for each of a plurality of second SCSs through a crop production simulation model in the computer, according to climatic data in a future period, and screening out an optimal second SCS with a maximum crop production from the plurality of second SCSs; optimizing a planting area distribution of crops in the target region based on the optimal second SCS and the current planting areas of the crops in the target region to obtain an optimal crop planting area distribution that improves a total production of the crops in the optimal second SCS; and outputting the optimal crop planting area distribution, as machine- readable control signals.”. But for the additional elements recited in the claim, the claim limitations could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claims 2-6 further narrow the abstract idea and introduce limitations that fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” (claims 3-5: for calculating annual precipitation, biotemperature, and aridity, using a series of formulas), for mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). The dependent claims do not introduce further additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely by a computer from independent 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 instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). 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.
Regarding the limitations by a genetic algorithm module and the crop production simulation model, wherein the genetic algorithm module performs operations of population generation, selection, crossover, and mutation, wherein parameter constraints of the genetic algorithm module comprise a variation of irrigation water and a variation of a planting area from claim 1, these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Regarding the limitation for transmitting the machine-readable control signals to an automated agricultural machine from claim 1, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This limitation merely recites receiving and/or sending data over a network, which is extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the limitations for wherein the automated agricultural machine, in response to the machine- readable control signals, automatically and physically divides a planting land in the target region into a plurality of planting plots for respective crops in the target region according to the optimal crop planting area distribution to improve a future total production of the crops in the target region from claim 1, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely by a computer from independent claim 1, these additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the limitations by a genetic algorithm module and the crop production simulation model, wherein the genetic algorithm module performs operations of population generation, selection, crossover, and mutation, wherein parameter constraints of the genetic algorithm module comprise a variation of irrigation water and a variation of a planting area from claim1, these limitations fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea because the provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the limitation for transmitting the machine-readable control signals to an automated agricultural machine from claim 1, this limitation does not add significantly more because it, at most, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the mere data gathering extra-solution activity have 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)).
Regarding the limitations for wherein the automated agricultural machine, in response to the machine- readable control signals, automatically and physically divides a planting land in the target region into a plurality of planting plots for respective crops in the target region according to the optimal crop planting area distribution to improve a future total production of the crops in the target region from claim 1, these limitations do not add significantly more because they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
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. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The ordered combination of elements in the 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 significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Over Prior Art
Claims 1-6 are allowable over the available field of prior art. The independent claim (claim 1), as drafted, is rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the bases of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 1: the claim is rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. With respect to claim 1, the closest prior art of the record teaches the following:
Kummu et al. “Climate change risks pushing one-third of global food production outside the safe climatic space”. One Earth. 2021 May 21 teaches “a method for incorporating a future crop production into a safe climatic space (SCS); receiving, by a computer, climatic data of a target region in a baseline period and current planting areas of crops in the target region; calculating indicator data according to the climatic data of the target region in the baseline period; and constructing a first SCS by combining the indicator data with production data of a crop in the baseline period; adjusting the climatic data, such that the first SCS moves, repeating the adjusting for many times and for each adjusting, a moving range of the first SCS is combined with the first SCS to form a corresponding second SCS”. However, Kummu doesn’t teach “wherein temperature is limited in a variation range of 0-3°C, with a step size of 0.1°C each time, and precipitation is limited in a variation range of - 100 mm to 100 mm, with a step size of 10 mm each time; simulating crop production for each of a plurality of second SCSs through a crop production simulation model in the computer, according to climatic data in a future period, and screening out an optimal second SCS with a maximum crop production from the plurality of second SCSs; optimizing, by a genetic algorithm module and the crop production simulation model, a planting area distribution of crops in the target region based on the optimal second SCS and the current planting areas of the crops in the target region to obtain an optimal crop planting area distribution that improves a total production of the crops in the optimal second SCS, wherein the genetic algorithm module performs operations of population generation, selection, crossover, and mutation; wherein parameter constraints of the genetic algorithm module comprise a variation of irrigation water and a variation of a planting area; outputting, by the computer, the optimal crop planting area distribution, as machine- readable control signals, and transmitting the machine-readable control signals to an automated agricultural machine, wherein the automated agricultural machine, in response to the machine- readable control signals, automatically and physically divides a planting land in the target region into a plurality of planting plots for respective crops in the target region according to the optimal crop planting area distribution to improve a future total production of the crops in the target region.“
Chemura et al. (2020) Impacts of climate change on agro-climatic suitability of major food crops in Ghana. PLOS ONE teaches “simulating crop production for each of a plurality of second SCSs through a crop production simulation model in the computer, according to climatic data in a future period, and screening out an optimal second SCS with a maximum crop production from the plurality of second SCSs; optimizing, by a genetic algorithm module and the crop production simulation model, a planting area distribution of crops in the target region based on the optimal second SCS and the current planting areas of the crops in the target region to obtain an optimal crop planting area distribution that improves a total production of the crops in the optimal second SCS,”. However, Chemura doesn’t explicitly teach “wherein temperature is limited in a variation range of 0-3°C, with a step size of 0.1°C each time, and precipitation is limited in a variation range of - 100 mm to 100 mm, with a step size of 10 mm each time; wherein the genetic algorithm module performs operations of population generation, selection, crossover, and mutation; wherein parameter constraints of the genetic algorithm module comprise a variation of irrigation water and a variation of a planting area; outputting, by the computer, the optimal crop planting area distribution, as machine- readable control signals, and transmitting the machine-readable control signals to an automated agricultural machine, wherein the automated agricultural machine, in response to the machine- readable control signals, automatically and physically divides a planting land in the target region into a plurality of planting plots for respective crops in the target region according to the optimal crop planting area distribution to improve a future total production of the crops in the target region”.
Seats (US 20230289683 A1) teaches “wherein parameter constraints of the genetic algorithm module comprise a variation of irrigation water and a variation of a planting area;”. Additionally, Seats discloses outputting optimal planting area distribution and dividing land into a plurality of plots for respective crops. However, Seats doesn’t explicitly teach “wherein temperature is limited in a variation range of 0-3°C, with a step size of 0.1°C each time, and precipitation is limited in a variation range of - 100 mm to 100 mm, with a step size of 10 mm each time; wherein the genetic algorithm module performs operations of population generation, selection, crossover, and mutation; outputting, by the computer, the optimal crop planting area distribution, as machine- readable control signals, and transmitting the machine-readable control signals to an automated agricultural machine, wherein the automated agricultural machine, in response to the machine- readable control signals, automatically and physically divides a planting land in the target region into a plurality of planting plots for respective crops in the target region according to the optimal crop planting area distribution to improve a future total production of the crops in the target region”.
Li et al. "Benchmarks for Evaluating Optimization Algorithms and Benchmarking MATLAB Derivative-Free Optimizers for Practitioners’ Rapid Access," in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 79657-79670, 2019 teaches “wherein the genetic algorithm module performs operations of population generation, selection, crossover, and mutation”. However, Li doesn’t explicitly teach “wherein temperature is limited in a variation range of 0-3°C, with a step size of 0.1°C each time, and precipitation is limited in a variation range of - 100 mm to 100 mm, with a step size of 10 mm each time; outputting, by the computer, the optimal crop planting area distribution, as machine- readable control signals, and transmitting the machine-readable control signals to an automated agricultural machine, wherein the automated agricultural machine, in response to the machine- readable control signals, automatically and physically divides a planting land in the target region into a plurality of planting plots for respective crops in the target region according to the optimal crop planting area distribution to improve a future total production of the crops in the target region”.
Capobiango, Nayara Pereira, et al. "Performance of seedlings and yield of soybean genotypes under soil compaction." Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 210.2 (2024) teaches controlling the average temperature of a greenhouse to variations of +/- 2 ºC. However, Capobiango doesn’t explicitly teach “wherein temperature is limited in a variation range of 0-3°C, with a step size of 0.1°C each time, and precipitation is limited in a variation range of - 100 mm to 100 mm, with a step size of 10 mm each time; outputting, by the computer, the optimal crop planting area distribution, as machine- readable control signals, and transmitting the machine-readable control signals to an automated agricultural machine, wherein the automated agricultural machine, in response to the machine- readable control signals, automatically and physically divides a planting land in the target region into a plurality of planting plots for respective crops in the target region according to the optimal crop planting area distribution to improve a future total production of the crops in the target region.”.
Therefore, the present claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. However, these claims are not in condition for allowance because they remain rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101, as set forth in the instant office action. See the details above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bogdan et al. (WO 2021168437 A1), which discloses a system for generating a map of operational abnormalities for the agricultural field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights