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 .
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II (claims 7-10) in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/30/2026.
Applicant cancelled claims 1-6 and 11-20 in the response filed 1/30/2026.
Applicant has amended claims 7-10 and newly added claims 21-26 in the response filed 1/30/2026.
Applicant’s amendment and newly added claims has necessitated the further restriction stated below.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 7-10, 21-28, and 32-36 drawn to a method/system for estimating the benefit of irrigation, classified in 703/11.
II. Claims 29-31, drawn to a method for estimating outcomes of an irrigation triggering strategy based on simulations, classified in 703/11.
Inventions I and II are directed to related subject matter of irrigation. The related inventions are distinct if the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants; and the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design (e.g. the method/system of group I comprising obtaining data and determining different irrigation triggering criteria under different conditions whereas the method of group II comprises obtaining data, simulating variables using a model, iterating the simulation, and estimating an outcome) mode of operation, function, or effect. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply:
Prior art applicable to one group would likely not be applicable to another thereby necessitating a search burden.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
For EACH of the required elections above:
The elections of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the elections must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the elections, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In a telephone call with applicant’s representative Joe Hallman, on 2/6/2026, applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 7-28 and 32-36) is acknowledged.
Claims 29-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse via telephonic election on 2/6/2026.
Claims 7-28 and 32-36 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 26 and 34 recite “the estimated impact of irrigation on crop physiology” wherein it appears the wording should read “plant physiology”. Appropriate correction is required.
Based on application 13/378448
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 25 is being interpreted under 35 USC 112 Sixth Paragraph because claim uses the non-structural phrase “hardware” with regular and generic placeholding functional language of “configured to” where there is no specific structure identified in the specification to correspond to the claimed regular and generic placeholding functional language of “configured to.” Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. The non-structural phrases “hardware” and “configured to” are not recognized as the name of a structure but merely a substitute for the term “means for” because the phrases are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function of “to apply irrigation”.
A consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification for such means plus function. For the instant indefiniteness analysis it is asked first whether a structure is described in the specification, and, if so, whether one skilled in the art would identify the structure from the description. The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure. Accordingly, a bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure. To conclude otherwise would vitiate the language of the statute requiring “corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification. Therefore, it is not enough to say one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to implement said means plus function, but the patentee must state a specific structure, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as implementing said means.
A review of the specification does not show what applicant considers to be the corresponding structure.
Therefore, it is unclear as to how to interpret the corresponding structure as applicant does not appear to recite what is considered to be a corresponding structure or any equivalent structures thereof in light of the specification. However, hardware will be interpreted as any type of componentry that is capable of performing the broadly claimed limitation of to apply irrigation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim 25 (and all claims dependent therefrom) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 25 is 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) appears to 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, 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 specification appears to not adequately describe what structure would perform the function of applying irrigation as described above. As such, the claim has been found to adequate written description.
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 7-22, 26-28, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to obtaining data and determining different irrigation triggering criteria under different conditions without significantly more.
Analysis of independent claims 1:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 7-28 are directed to a method and claims 32-36 are directed to computer instructions stored on and executed by the computer, which describes one or more of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process/machine. Therefore, further consideration is necessary.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites the following:
a. obtaining data;
b. determining different irrigation triggering criteria based on an estimation;
These elements recited in claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper and/or they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations.
Step A involves the mental of obtaining data. Step B of making a determination further involves the mental and/or mathematical steps of generating determination data based estimated data.
The identified abstract steps, recited at the high level of generality, do not suggest an undue level of complexity for a person with ordinary skill in the art to be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the abstract idea.
There are no additional elements that are recited.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements. Therefore there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept).
In view of the above, there are no additional elements recited that would integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Analysis of other independent claims 32:
Claim 32 has the same analysis as above, but with the addition of the method being carried out by computer instructions stored on a computer. Patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use [the idea] to a particular technological environment. In the instant claims, the computer and/or instructions/product amount to mere instruction to implement an abstract idea. The hardware recited by the system claims do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking “the use of the method to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers.” see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis of the dependent claims:
Claims 8-22, 26-28 and 33-36, depend from the independent claims. The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely describe additional details of how to acquired data is generated. Therefore, the limitations are not considered to integrate the JE into a practice application nor add significantly to the JE itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-28 and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A claim fails to satisfy the statutory requirement and is thus invalid for indefiniteness if its language, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, “fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). In Nautilus, the Supreme Court expressly rejected that “insolubly ambiguous” or “amenable to construction” standard. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124. Rather, the Court “h[e]ld that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Id. The Court explained further: “[i]t cannot be sufficient that a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent’s claim; the definiteness inquiry trains on the understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the patent application, not that of a court viewing matters post hoc.” Id. at 2130. “A patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby ‘appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them. Notably a claim is indefinite if its language “might mean several different things and no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” Id. At 2130 n.8. Although the Court recognized that “[s]ome modicum of uncertainty” may be tolerated, id. at 2128, the patent and prosecution history must disclose a single known approach or establish that, where multiple known approaches exist, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know which approach to select. See Teva, 789 F.3d at 1341, 1344–45 (holding claim indefinite where molecular weight could be measured three different ways and would yield different results and the patent and prosecution history did not provide guidance as to which measure to use).
Claims 7 and 32 (and all claims dependent therefrom) recite the steps of “determining different irrigation triggering criteria for soil water conditions under different atmospheric aridity conditions based on an estimated impact of irrigation on plant physiology” and wherein the step has been deemed as vague and indefinite. The instant claims are method and system for implementing the method claims and not result claims. Therefore, the steps are required to define how the method steps end in the recited results. For example, the claims are required to define how the irrigation triggering criteria is determined using an estimated impact of irrigation on plant physiology and how the estimated impact itself is determined or the value obtained, such as what algorithm or specific steps are used for ending in said result. Additionally, it is unclear as to how an impact of irrigation is determined and what exactly is encompassed by the terms “criteria” and “plant physiology.” The steps are clear with regards to the results they produce, but are not clear as to exactly how they are produced. There is no algorithm or prose equivalent recited for performing said determinations. Without defining each of the steps it is not possible to have a clear measure of what applicant’s regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability. The lacking of properly defined method steps further makes the scope of the claim unclear so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. With regards to the terms “criteria and “plant physiology” they appear to fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of said terms. For purposes of examination any method that involves any type of effect or impact of irrigation for use in determining an irrigation evaluation will be considered to read on the instant limitation.
Claims 7 and 32, (and all claims dependent therefrom) recite “estimating the
impact of irrigation” in the preamble while the method steps/system limitations are
directed to a result that only determines different irrigation triggering criteria, which
causes the claims to be vague and indefinite. The metes and bounds of said claims are
not clear because it is not clear whether the preamble reciting “estimating the impact of
irrigation”, or the method steps/system limitations that only result in determining different
irrigation triggering criteria control the metes and bounds of said claims.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Sims, whose telephone number is (571)-272-7540.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Moffat can be reached via telephone (571)-272-4390.
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the Central PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform with the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central PTO Fax Center number is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791