DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s response, received 03 December 2025, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claim 14 has been cancelled.
Claims 10-13, 15, and 16 are pending.
Claims 10-13, 15, and 16 are rejected.
Priority
The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 02 July 2018.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim limitations in the Office action mailed 09 July 2025 are maintained in view of the amendment received 03 December 2025.
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 13 recite the limitation “event occurrence period.” This limitation is interpreted to mean an estimated period of time during which an event leading to the occurrence of the damage to the crop is suspected to have occurred (Specification, ¶ [0006)]).
Claims 10 and 11 recite the term “feature.” This term is interpreted to mean a dependent variable (e.g., environmental information) that is used in statistical calculations for the purpose of data analysis (Specification, ¶¶ [0030], [0031], [0067], [0068], [0086], & [00113]).
Claims 10, 11, and 15 recite the term “environment information.” This term is interpreted to mean recorded information of the state of elements of the environment and their interaction, e.g., cultivation status of a crop; and ambient temperature (Specification, ¶¶ [0043] & [0050]) that is recorded as data (Specification, ¶ [0048]).
Specification
The objection to the abstract of the disclosure in the Office action mailed 09 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment received 03 December 2025.
The abstract received 03 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment received 03 December 2025 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, new grounds of rejection are raised under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in view of further consideration.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the occurrence of the damage to the crop" in line seven. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because line four recites “an occurrence time of damage to the crop.” And it is unclear if it is the occurrence time or some other general occurrence.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 16 are indefinite for depending from claim 10 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the estimated event-free period" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 16 are indefinite for depending from claim 10 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 10.
Claim 15 is indefinite for reciting “the event occurrence probability of the crop” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because claim 12 recites “an event occurrence probability of occurrence of the event.” And it is unclear if it is the occurrence time or some other general occurrence.
Claim 16 is indefinite for depending from claim 15 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of claims 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Office action mailed 09 July 2025 is maintained with modification in view of the amendment received 03 December 2025.
The rejection of claim 14 in the Office action mailed 09 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of this claim having been cancelled in the amendment received 03 December 2025.
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 10-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 10-13, 15, and 16 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., a process).
Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 10 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determining, using the sensor information, an estimated event occurrence period during which an event leading to the occurrence of the damage to the crop is suspected to have occurred and an event-free period during which the event leading to the occurrence of the damage has not occurred (i.e., mental processes);
estimating an event occurrence time when the event has occurred from the estimated event occurrence period by:
identifying, using a machine learning model, a first plurality of features present in the sensor information corresponding to the estimated event occurrence period and a second plurality of features present in the sensor information corresponding to the estimated event-free period (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts),
comparing, using the machine learning model, the first plurality of features with the second plurality of features (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts),
identifying, using the machine learning model, a feature present in the first plurality of features that is not present in the second plurality of features as corresponding to the event leading to the occurrence of the damage to the crop (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts),
determining a change in an amount of the identified feature over the estimated event occurrence period and the event free period (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts), and
estimating the event occurrence time in the estimated event occurrence period based on the change in the amount of the identified feature (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts);
constructing, based on the environment information at the event occurrence time, an event occurrence prediction model indicative of relationship between environment information and events leading to occurrence of damage to crops using machine learning (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); and
predicting, using the event occurrence prediction model, based on a current value or a prediction value of the environment information, a probability of a future event leading to the occurrence of damage to the crop (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims 11-13 and 15 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claim 11 further recites:
wherein determining a change in an amount of the identified feature over the estimated event occurrence period and the event free period comprises extracting the amount of the identified feature from the environment information in the estimated event occurrence period (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 12 further recites:
wherein an event occurrence probability of occurrence of the event in the estimated event occurrence period is calculated using the extracted amount, and the event occurrence time is estimated based on the event occurrence probability (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 13 further recites:
wherein the estimated event occurrence period is a period earlier than the occurrence time of the damage to the crop, and includes at least one period including the event occurrence time (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 15 further recites:
wherein the event occurrence probability of the crop is predicted using the event occurrence prediction model, and the current value or the prediction value of the environment information on the crop (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., determining, using the sensor information, an estimated event occurrence period during which an event leading to the occurrence of the damage to the crop is suspected to have occurred and an event-free period during which the event leading to the occurrence of the damage has not occurred), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., identifying, using a machine learning model, a first plurality of features present in the sensor information corresponding to the estimated event occurrence period and a second plurality of features present in the sensor information corresponding to the estimated event-free period) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 10-13, 15, and 16 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
The additional elements in independent claim 10 include:
a computer;
receiving sensor information from one or more sensors observing a cultivation environment of a crop, the sensor information comprising pest occurrence information including information on an occurrence time of damage to the crop caused by a pest and environment information including a cultivation environment for the crop; and
spraying the crop with an agricultural chemical in accordance with the probability of the future event.
The additional elements in dependent claims 11-13, 15, and 16 include:
a computer (claims 11-13, 15, and 16); and
outputting the event occurrence probability for every type of the pest (claim 16).
The additional element of a computer (claims 10-13, 15, and 16) invokes a computer merely as a tool for use in the claimed process, i.e., to perform the functions of receiving and outputting data and to perform the abstract ideas, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and therefore is not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The additional elements of receiving data (claim 10) and outputting data (claim 16) are merely pre-solution and post-solution activities used in the claimed process – nominal additions to the claims that do not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of one or more sensors observing a cultivation environment of a crop (claim 10) is a step of gathering data for use in the claimed process, i.e., an activity that is incidental to the primary process and therefore merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and thus does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of spraying the crop with an agricultural chemical in accordance with the probability of the future event (claim 10) does not amount to more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, because the claim fails to recite details of how the solution to the problem is accomplished, i.e., the claim recites spraying crops with no restriction on how the result is accomplished (e.g., the limitation “an agricultural chemical in accordance with the probability of the future event” merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome) and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (e.g., the limitation “spraying crops” amounts to a type of recitation that is equivalent to the words “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the additional element of spraying the crop with an agricultural chemical in accordance with the probability of the future event (claim 10) is a contingent limitation (i.e., non-obligatory) that comprises an embodiment of the claim that does not require a step of spraying the crop because the probability of the future event could be zero.
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer as a tool, and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or do not amount to more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, and as such, when all limitations in claims 10-13, 15, and 16 have been considered as a whole, the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 10-13, 15, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
The additional elements recited in independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11-13, 15, and 16 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A: Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A: Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of a computer (claims 10-13, 15, and 16); receiving data (claim 10) and outputting data (claim 16); are conventional (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
The additional element of one or more sensors observing a cultivation environment of a crop (claim 10); is conventional. Evidence for the conventionality is shown by Shinde et al. (2017 International Conference on Transforming Engineering Education (ICTEE), Pune, India, pp. 1-4, as cited in the Office action mailed 25 November 2024). Shinde et al. reviews the prediction of crop disease using the Internet of Things (IoT) and machine learning (Title; and throughout), and discusses different sensors that collect real-time data of environmental parameters like temperature, humidity, rainfall, and light intensity (Abstract, and throughout).
The additional element of spraying the crop with an agricultural chemical (claim 10) is conventional. Evidence for the conventionality is shown by Hong et al. (International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 2012, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 1-15, as cited in the Office action mailed 09 July 2025). Hong et al. reviews smart sprayers comprising a detection system and a chemical spraying system to aid in the understanding of smart sprayer systems and provide feasible methods for improving efficiency in chemical applications (Title; and Abstract); and shows general spraying patterns currently used (page 2, and FIG. 1); core technologies of a smart spraying system, e.g., spraying system (page 2, col. 2, bottom; and FIG. 2); and techniques to efficiently execute chemical spraying (page 4, Section 2.2).
Therefore, when taken alone, all additional elements in claims 10-13, 15, and 16 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 10-13, 15, and 16 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 03 December 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant states on page 6 (para. 5) of the Remarks that amended claim 10 is patent eligible at least because amended claim 10 is in accordance with the patent eligible claims of Example 39 and Example 45 and is not directed to a mental process. The Applicant further points to the “PEG 2019: Abstract Ideas” and the Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner for Patents, Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, dated August 4, 2025 (the “Memorandum”) and states that in the “PEG 2019: Abstract Ideas” the claim of Example 39 recites a limitation of “training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set” and “training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set,” and the “Memorandum” notes that “[e]ven though ‘training the neural network’ involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols” and in other words, the claim of Example 39 “merely involve[s] an exception (which [is] eligible and [does] not require further eligibility analysis).” The Applicant further states on page 7 (para. 2) that for the same reasons as Example 39, amended claim 10 here is directed to eligible subject matter, and like Example 39, amended claim 10 “does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations.” The Applicant further summarizes the amended claim 10 limitations identified as judicial exceptions in the Office action mailed 09 July 2025, and states (para. 3) that like Example 39, while these limitations may be “based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims” and further points to the “PEG 2019: Abstract Ideas” and further states that, thus, amended claim 10 is not directed to mathematical concepts and is patent eligible.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, the instant claims are not analogous to the claim in Example 39 because the instant claims do not recite a method for training a neural network for facial detection. Example 39 considers a hypothetical method for training a neural network for facial detection, and is only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted in the Example. Example 39 should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth in the Example's claim, as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes, as evidenced in the rejection of the instant claims above. In particular, Example 39 comprises steps of applying one or more transformations to each digital facial image (e.g., mirroring, rotating, smoothing, or contrast reduction) to create a modified set of digital facial images; creating a first training set comprising the collected set of digital facial images, the modified set of digital facial images, and a set of digital non-facial images; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set; creating a second training set for a second stage of training comprising the first training set and digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images after the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set. While the exemplified analysis of Example 39 concludes that the claim does not recite any judicial exceptions (e.g., mental processes or mathematical concepts), this conclusion is determined from the particular fact pattern of the hypothetical claimed process, and should not be generalized as an axiom that claim limitations reciting training a neural network do not recite judicial exceptions. The Applicant is directed to the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (examples 47 and 48) for updated guidance on the eligibility analysis of claims that recite limitations specific to artificial intelligence, particularly the use of neural networks to identify or detect anomalies. Second, at Eligibility Step 2A Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement." Here, the instant claims both set forth a mathematical concept (e.g., an event occurrence probability of occurrence of the event in the estimated event occurrence period is calculated using the extracted amount, and the event occurrence time is estimated based on the event occurrence probability (claim 12)) and describe a mathematical concept (e.g., predicting, using the event occurrence prediction model, based on a current value or a prediction value of the environment information, a probability of a future event leading to occurrence of damage to the crop (claim 10)). Third, since the instant claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes and mathematical concepts) as noted and discussed in the above rejection.
The Applicant states on page 8 (para. 1) of the Remarks that amended claim 10 recites limitations that are inherently rooted in computer technology, sensor technology, or crop spraying and thus cannot be performed in the human mind. The Applicant further summarizes various claim limitations and states that none of these exemplary limitations can practically be performed in the human mind because they involve sensor(s), a machine learning model, a prediction model, or crop spraying. The Applicant further states that as described in the Memorandum, “a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)” and thus amended claim 10 is not directed to a mental process and is patent eligible.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Second, not every limitation recited in amended claim 10 is identified as a mental process or even a judicial exception in the above rejection, e.g., the sensors and crop spraying limitations are identified as additional elements at Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two. Third, regarding the Applicant’s argument that the claims “are inherently rooted in computer technology,” the amount of data and/or the amount of time to perform the process steps, in and of themselves is not a limitation which takes a process out of the realm of the human mind. It is the process performed on that data which is the mental step, and mental steps identified in the claims do not have to be the fastest, most efficient, or require specialized computing elements. Thus, although the amount of data may be considered to be significantly large and take considerable time and effort to process manually, the use of a computer to perform the claimed method at a rate and accuracy that can far outstrip the mental performance of a skilled artisan does not change the nature of the activity being performed (i.e., an abstract idea), and therefore does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.
The Applicant states on page 8 (para. 2) of the Remarks that in Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “Appendix: October 2019”), that claim 2 of Example 45 is patent eligible because it “employs the information provided by the judicial exceptions (the calculated percentage of the extent of cure) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus” and thus, the claimed controller not only improves upon previous controllers in the technical field of injection molding, but “using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the injection molding apparatus in a particular way is an ‘other meaningful limitation’ that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. The Applicant further states (para. 3) that for the same reasons as claim 2 of Example 45, amended claim 10 is patent eligible. The Applicant further states on page 9 (para. 1) that amended claim 10 uses the estimated event occurrence time to construct an event occurrence prediction model that can predict a probability of a future event, such as crop infection from a pest, that can lead to damage to the crop, and spraying the crop with an agricultural chemical in accordance with this predicted probability. The Applicant points to paragraph [0003] in the Applicant’s specification for a description of the advantages of the instant claims, and further states that the claimed invention is accordingly advantageous as crops can be sprayed in accordance with a probability of a future event leading to occurrence of damage to the crop, and thus, even assuming arguendo if amended claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception, amended claim 10 imposes meaningful limits on the alleged judicial exception and integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, regarding the Applicant’s attempt at analogizing the amended claim 10 to claim 2 of Example 45, it is noted that the Eligibility Examples are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted in the Example. The Examples should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth in a particular Example, as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes, as evidenced in the rejection of the instant claims above. It is further noted that unlike the hypothetical claim 2 of Example 45, the instant claim 10 does not recite an additional element that applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception(s) in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception(s), as noted and discussed in the above rejection. Second, regarding the amended claim 10 limitations referenced in the foregoing argument, i.e., “constructing, based on the environment information at the event occurrence time, an event occurrence prediction model indicative of relationship between environment information and events leading to occurrence of damage to crops using machine learning” and “predicting, using the event occurrence prediction model, based on a current value or a prediction value of the environment information, a probability of a future event leading to occurrence of damage to the crop” are limitations that comprise the judicial exceptions identified at Eligibility Step 2A Prong One in the above rejection, and therefore cannot provide the practical application, and the limitation “spraying the crop with an agricultural chemical in accordance with the probability of the future event” is identified as an additional element at Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two that does not meaningfully limit the judicial exceptions, and thus does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, as noted and discussed in the above rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this application.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached on (571) 272-9047. 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.
/S.W.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687