DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Herein, “the previous Office action” refers to the Final Rejection filed 11/14/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C
FR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Note Regarding Specification Paragraph Numbering
In Applicant’s Remarks filed 2/12/2026, Applicant states that support for the amendments of claims 1 and 2 may be found in paragraphs 0075-80, 0162, 0170-75, and 0318-19 and claim 20 of the application as originally filed (pg. 11, para. 2). Additionally, in support of arguments presented in traverse of the prior rejection under 35 USC § 101, Applicant cites to paras. 0132, 0235 and 0317-0319 of the specification (pg. 13, para. 2 – pg. 14, para. 3).
Please note that the as-filed specification only includes paragraphs numbered 0001-0219. Search of the as-filed specification for the text excerpts quoted by Applicant reveals the following discrepancies:
The text quoted by Applicant as corresponding to para. 0132 is present in the filed specification at para. 0100;
The text quoted by Applicant as corresponding to para. 0235 is present in the filed specification at para. 00128; and
The text quoted by Applicant as corresponding to each of paras. 0317-19 is present in the filed specification at each of paras. 00157-59.
Support for certain newly presented limitations could not be located in the as-filed disclosure, resulting in a new matter rejection. See ‘Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112’ section below. The Examiner kindly requests that future citations to the specification be checked against the specification file as present in the application file wrapper, to facilitate Office verification of support.
Claim Status
Claims 11-12, 17 and 20-21 are cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 13-16, and 18-19 are pending.
Claims 5 and 18-19 stand withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being directed to a nonelected invention, there being no currently allowable generic or linking claim. Election without traverse was made in the reply filed 7/18/2023.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 13-16 are under examination.
Priority
As detailed on the Filing Receipt filed 10/4/2021, the instant application claims priority to as early as 9/5/2018. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The disclosure of the prior-filed foreign application, AU 20189023304 (filed 9/5/2018), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 USC § 112(a) for one or more claims of the instant application.
With respect to claims 1, 2 and dependents thereof, the prior-filed application does not disclose at least “to cause the at least one receiving system to develop [a] novel herbicide” (claim 1, lines 71-72; claim 2, lines 73-74).
Consequently, claims 1, 2 and dependents thereof are not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed foreign application, AU 2019902478 (filed 7/12/2019), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 USC § 112(a) for one or more claims of the instant application.
With respect to claims 1, 2 and dependents thereof, the prior-filed application does not disclose at least “to cause the at least one receiving system to develop [a] novel herbicide” (claim 1, lines 71-72; claim 2, lines 73-74).
Consequently, claims 1, 2 and dependents thereof are not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed international application, PCT/IB/2019/057464 (filed 9/5/2019), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 USC § 112(a) for one or more claims of the instant application.
With respect to claims 1, 2 and dependents thereof, the prior-filed application does not disclose at least “to cause the at least one receiving system to develop [a] novel herbicide” (claim 1, lines 71-72; claim 2, lines 73-74).
Consequently, claims 1, 2 and dependents thereof are not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed applications.
The instant application was filed on 10/22/2021, and the examined claims are not entitled to the benefit of a prior-filed application. Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 13-16 are thus accorded the filing date of 10/22/2021.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10 and 13-16 under 35 USC § 101, as being drawn to nonstatutory subject matter, is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of the claims and persuasive argument that the claims utilize a particular system-generated data structure to enable a computational process that improves a technical field (Remarks filed 12/2/2026 at pg. 18, para. 7 – pg. 20, para. 1).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recited “to develop novel”(claim 1, line 72) should read “to develop a novel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new grounds of rejection presented herein were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of the claims (filed 2/12/2026).
With respect to claims 1, 2 and dependents thereof, at least the limitation of “to cause the at least one receiving system to develop [a] novel herbicide” (claim 1, lines 71-72; claim 2, lines 73-74) lacks support in the disclosure as originally filed. These limitations were not present in the originally-filed claims (filed 3/4/2021), and the specification does not refer to a process of developing a novel herbicide performed by a receiving system. The recited limitation thus constitutes new matter, and the claims lack sufficient written description support.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 2 and dependents thereof, there is uncertainty regarding the recited limitation of “to cause the at least one receiving system to develop [a] novel herbicide” (claim 1, lines 71-72; claim 2, lines 73-74). The particular action performed by the at least one receiving system responsive to receiving the candidate mismatch file, i.e. the scope of “develop[ing] a novel herbicide” is unclear. It is further unclear if the processor must output the candidate mismatch file in any particular manner, or perform any additional operations, to accomplish the function of causing the receiving system to perform said action. Thus, the claims are indefinite.
Conclusion
At this time, no claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Theodore C. Striegel whose telephone number is (571)272-1860. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 12pm-8pm 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, Olivia M. Wise can be reached at (571)272-2249. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/JESSE P FRUMKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685 March 26, 2026