DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 2/10/2026 submission filed in Application 17/392,047. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 were subject to a restriction requirement. The Applicant elected Claims 1-6. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from consideration were cancelled. Applicant’s election without traverse of these claims in the reply filed on August 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant argues “The claims recite specific technical improvements to agricultural production prediction systems through a closed-loop feedback mechanism that distinguishes them from abstract ideas, and the claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The claims are patent-eligible under controlling precedent including Ex Parte Desjardins and Example 45 of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility guidance.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins the Appeals Review Panel found that “In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification”. In the instant case there is no such technical improvement processes. The additional elements include a communications connection; at least one processor coupled to the communications connection; and a memory device having stored thereon a set of computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the abstract idea; receive farm-specific agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data for the farm enterprise from the user; obtaining regional agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data; and receive, via the communications connection, updated data following a growing season for the farm enterprise, the updated data comprising data indicative of returns based on implementation of the at least one recommendation for the at least one contributing factor. However, viewing the generic receiving and obtaining of data in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the broadly combination of additional elements does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The Applicant further argues “ Assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea, they incorporate various technical features that integrate any recited abstract idea into a practical application. First, like Example 45's eligible Claim 2, the claims use calculated results to provide actionable recommendations: "return to the user a prediction of production and at least one recommendation for increasing or decreasing resources invested in at least one contributing factor to the production prediction." Second, rather than merely outputting recommendations, the claims recite a closed-loop feedback mechanism: "receive, via the communications connection, updated data following a growing season for the farm enterprise, the updated data comprising data indicative of returns based on implementation of the at least one recommendation for the at least one contributing factor." This ensures the recommendations are actually implemented and their real-world results are measured. Third, the claims use this feedback to refine the system: "update the agricultural production model based on the updated data to refine the agricultural production model for subsequent predictive analyses."”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 2 of Example 45 recites “send control signals to the injection molding apparatus once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage, the control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold”. The analysis explains that limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that 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. As explained in the specification, because the claimed controller opens the mold and ejects the molded polyurethane at the time when the target percentage of cure is reached, the claimed controller avoids the technical problems associated with undercure and overcure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance”
The instant claims are different because the claims do not solve a technical problem. Predicting and optimizing crop production is a business practice and not a technology.
The Applicant further argues “ The present claims are analogous to the eligible claims in Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cited in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). In Thales, the court held that claims to "a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object" did not merely recite an abstract idea, even though mathematical calculations were involved. Similarly, the present claims recite a particular configuration of data processing steps (Johnson transformation, backward elimination, interaction term identification, feedback refinement) and a particular method of using agricultural data to more accurately predict production returns.”
Further, in response to the Appellant’s arguments regarding Thales, page 9 of the Thales decision states “The navigation equations in the ’159 patent are derived from this particular arrangement of sensors. ’159 patent at 7:41–8:55. While the claims utilize mathematical equations to determine the orientation of the object relative to the moving reference frame, the equations—dictated by the placement of the inertial sensors and application of laws of physics—serve only to tabulate the position and orientation information in this configuration. This arrangement is analogous to the claims in Diehr, which required the temperature measurement “at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 179 n.5. Just as the claims in Diehr reduced the likelihood that the rubber molding process would result in “overcuring” or “undercuring,” id. at 187, the claims here result in a system that reduces errors in an inertial system that tracks an object on a moving platform. The ’159 patent claims provide a method that eliminates many “complications” inherent in previous solutions for determining position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. ’159 patent at 5:62–6:32. Because the motion of a moving platform like a plane “is more dynamic and unpredictable than the earth’s rotation,” a traditional system (which measured inertial data with respect to the earth) had difficulty accurately calculating inertial data of an object on a moving platform. Id. at 5:60–6:16. Though the unconventional utilization of inertial sensors as specified by the ’159 patent “may seem somewhat strange” to those within the field, id. at 7:19–21, this combination of sensor placement and calculation based on a different reference frame mitigates errors by eliminating inertial calculations with respect to the earth. Id. At 7:41–8:41. The resulting system works with any type of moving platform and is simpler to install than conventional systems. Id. at 7:5–8. The system is also beneficially self-contained: it requires no external information about the orientation or position of the platform. Id. At 8:34–41, 11:34–38.” As such, the court found that the Claims at issue in Thales improve the technology by utilizing an unconventional utilization of inertial sensors. The combination of sensor placement and calculation based on a different reference frame mitigates errors by eliminating inertial calculations with respect to the earth. The resulting system works with any type of moving platform and is simpler to install than conventional systems. The system is also beneficially self-contained: it requires no external information about the orientation or position of the platform. Further, in Thales the court found that “the ’159 patent claims at issue in this appeal are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. In the instant case, the examiner has identified that the claims are directed to an Abstract idea, and no improvement to technology recited in either the claims or specification is present akin to the particular configuration of inertial sensors and the particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to “eliminate many ‘complications’ inherent in previous solutions for determining position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. Rather, the instant claims evaluate data to predict and optimize crop production using mathematical relationships which is not a technical improvement.
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, 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the instant case, Claims 1-6 are directed toward a system for analyzing agricultural production. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of
analyzing agricultural production and returning a recommendation for increasing or decreasing resources invested in at least one contributing factor to the production prediction which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A system for analyzing agricultural production, comprising:
receive a request from a user for a predictive analysis of agricultural production of a given crop for a farm enterprise in s given geography;
combine the farm specific agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data and the regional agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data to generate combined agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data;
generate the agricultural production model from the combined agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data by:
applying a Johnson transformation to historic returns data within the combined data to generate transformed historic returns data as a response variable;
fitting initial factors from the combined data to the transformed historic returns data:
performing a step-by-step backward elimination model selection procedure on the fitted initial factors to identify significant contributing factors and interactions of factors, wherein the backward elimination model selection procedure uses an Akaike information criterion (AIC) to evaluate candidate models and selects a candidate mode having a lowest AIC value as the agriculture production model;
process the combined agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data for the given crop and given geography according to a model for agricultural production,
return to the user a prediction of production and at least one recommendation for increasing or decreasing resources invested in at least one contributing factor to the production prediction, the contributing factors comprising at least one of:
opportunity cost of land;
cost of fuel, lube and electricity;
cost of custom services;
value of primary crop product;
cost of fertilizer;
combination of fertilizer cost and crop price value of operating capital;
cost of hired labor;
combination of fertilizer cost and farm enterprise size;
combination of value of primary crop product and price;
combination of opportunity cost of land and price;
combination of fertilizer cost and variable cost expenses; and
combination of cost of repairs and value of operating capital:
update the agricultural production model based on the updated data to refine the agricultural production model for subsequent predictive analyses.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of: receive a request from a user for a predictive analysis of agricultural production of a given crop for a farm enterprise in s given geography; combine the farm specific agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data and the regional agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data to generate combined agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data; generate the agricultural production model from the combined agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data by: applying a Johnson transformation to historic returns data within the combined data to generate transformed historic returns data as a response variable; fitting initial factors from the combined data to the transformed historic returns data: performing a step-by-step backward elimination model selection procedure on the fitted initial factors to identify significant contributing factors and interactions of factors, wherein the backward elimination model selection procedure uses an Akaike information criterion (AIC) to evaluate candidate models and selects a candidate mode having a lowest AIC value as the agriculture production model; process the combined agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data for the given crop and given geography according to a model for agricultural production, return to the user a prediction of production and at least one recommendation for increasing or decreasing resources invested in at least one contributing factor to the production prediction and update the agricultural production model based on the updated data to refine the agricultural production model for subsequent predictive analyses are directed to fundamental principles of analyzing data to prediction of agricultural production.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010).
In the instant case, the step of applying a Johnson transformation to historic returns data within the combined data to generate transformed historic returns data as a response variable; fitting initial factors from the combined data to the transformed historic returns data: performing a step-by-step backward elimination model selection procedure on the fitted initial factors to identify significant contributing factors and interactions of factors, wherein the backward elimination model selection procedure uses an Akaike information criterion (AIC) to evaluate candidate models and selects a candidate mode having a lowest AIC value as the agriculture production model are directed to mathematical relationships or equations. Although the claims do not recite an actual formula, the recite mathematical relationships. A claim that recites a mathematical relationships will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
a communications connection;
at least one processor coupled to the communications connection; and
a memory device having stored thereon a set of computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the abstract idea
receive farm-specific agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data for the farm enterprise from the user;
obtaining regional agricultural data, operational cost data, and economic data;
and receive, via the communications connection, updated data following a growing season for the farm enterprise, the updated data comprising data indicative of returns based on implementation of the at least one recommendation for the at least one contributing factor; and
However, the computer elements (at least one processor coupled to the communications connection and a memory device having stored thereon a set of computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the abstract idea) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
In the instant case, the obtaining of information are directed to mere data gathering which amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity.
Viewing the generic data gathering in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the information classification unit; the information collection unit amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
MPEP 2106.05(d) states receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed generically (see 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)). As such, the broadly claimed input device configured to receive a product data is considered well-known and conventional as established by the MPEP and relevant case law.
Viewing the generic data gathering in combination with the generic processing device does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Further Claims 3, 5, 6 further limit the abstract idea of mathematical equations or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claim 1, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, claim 5 recites the receipt of data which is recited broadly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations amounts to data gathering which the MPEP says is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the output is also recited broadly and amounts to insignificant post solution activity. Further, nothing in the claim indicates that the retrieval of information is anything other than conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d) that states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see 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).
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 3, 5, 6 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a system or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights