DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 have been considered as follows.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not withdrawn in response to Applicant's claim amendments. Examiner submits that while a system including a memory and a processor is provided, there is no positive recitation of how the system transforms or changes the nature of the claim into something patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments drawn to the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Examiner reiterates that the instant claims as a whole fall under the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Although the amendments include the real-time element of receiving the first and second crop data, concurrently capturing live images of the crops, and using the server to predict the harvesting windows and amounts, Examiner reiterates that the claims, even as amended, do not include additional elements that alone or in combination confer eligibility by providing an integration into a practical application or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). In particular, Examiner submits that the amendments to the claim describe the added elements (i.e., receiving crop data in real-time, concurrently capturing live crop images, and predicting by a server harvesting windows and amounts) in a nominal way and that the server, as well as the previously claimed memory, processor, and computer readable storage medium can be interpreted as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The server, memory, processor, and computer readable storage medium in the claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Regarding these newly added elements, Examiner submits that if we interpret receiving crop data in real-time, concurrently capturing live images, and using a server to predict harvesting windows and times as additional elements, it is noted that there are no specific details of how the claimed steps are done. Therefore, in this regard, the newly added concepts are interpreted as mere instructions to apply an exception, as it is claimed only as the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, as currently claimed, the instant limitations are merely insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea), and therefore do not meaningfully limit the claim. The instant claims describe gathering data, predicting information and making determinations accordingly, and dispatching a vehicle, which does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of coordinating harvesting and transport of crops. Examiner suggests incorporating additional details to the instant claims drawn to image analysis used in coordinating harvesting and transport of crops, specifically including the technological environment as to how the particular steps of receiving crop data in real time, concurrently capturing live images, and predicting, by a server, harvesting windows and amounts are completed, as supported by the specification. By doing so, Examiner submits that these additional elements may be helpful with regards to eligibility determinations. In particular, Examiner points to at least paragraphs [0017], [0024], and [0029] for support, particularly with regards to image analysis. Examiner (and SPE Boswell) is open to discussing these elements in further detail in an interview to help advance prosecution.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea without significantly more and are merely requiring generic computer implementation, which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) a computer-implemented method, a system including memory and a processor, and a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium for coordinating harvesting and transport of crops. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims as a whole are directed to a judicially recognized exception that is an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of coordinating harvesting and transport of crops, by specifically “receiving first crop data in real-time of a first crop grown at a first field location by a first food producer, wherein receiving the first crop data includes an autonomous flying device concurrently capturing live images of the first crop…”; “predicting, by a server, a first harvesting window and a first harvesting amount of the first crop at the first field location based on the first crop data including the captured live images of the first crop”; “receiving second crop data in real-time of a second crop grown at a second field location by a second food producer, wherein receiving the second crop data includes the autonomous flying device concurrently capturing live images of the second crop…”; “predicting, by the server, a second harvesting window and a second harvesting amount of the second crop at the second field location based on the second crop data including the captured live images of the second crop”; “determining whether a transport for the first crop at the first field location and the second crop at the second field location can be combined based on the first harvesting window and the first harvesting amount as determined from the captured live images of the first crop, and the second harvesting window and the second harvesting amount as determined from the captured live images of the second crop, wherein the transport for the first crop and the second crop is combinable in response to determining at least one date within the first harvesting window and at least one date within the second harvesting window overlap and in response to determining the first field location is along a transport route of the second crop”; “prior to a delivery of the first crop and the second crop to a final destination, schedule transport of the first crop at the first field location on an overlapping date across the first harvesting window and the second harvesting window…, and the second crop at the second field location on a consecutive date following the overlapping date in response to determining a time to harvest the first crop at the first field location and the second crop at the second field location and a distance between the first field location and the second field location exceed a pre-determined threshold”. The limitations of at least “determining whether a transport for the first crop at the first field location and the second crop at the second field location can be combined based on the first harvesting window and the first harvesting amount…, and the second harvesting window and the second harvesting amount…; and “… schedule transport of the first crop at the first field location on an overlapping date across the first harvesting window and the second harvesting window…, and the second crop at the second field location on a consecutive date following the overlapping date…”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the claims are directed to the concept of coordinating harvesting and transport of crops. If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular, the steps together are accomplishing coordinating harvesting and transport of crops, which is related to the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including at least social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 is drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In this regard, Examiner submits that the limitation drawn to “dispatching…an autonomous vehicle” is an additional element, including the method, system, and computer program product. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that the claimed server, memory, processor, and computer readable storage medium can be interpreted as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The server, memory, processor, and computer readable storage medium in the claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the additional element of “dispatching an autonomous vehicle”, is drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity since it is an insignificant application as described in MPEP 2106.05(g). In particular, Examiner submits that the dispatching of the drone, for example, is sufficiently well-known in the manner claimed (see specification, para [0019] which describes the drone as an autonomous or remote-control flying device equipped with image or video capturing). See MPEP 2106.07(a)III. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); Flook, 437 U.S. at 593-95, 198 USPQ at 197 (a formula would not be patentable by only indicating that is could be usefully applied to existing surveying techniques); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the use of a well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution activity). Because this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration, it should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). Specifically, claims 2, 9, and 16 describe details about the crop. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17 describe further detail regarding crop images. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims also recite steps that together with the independent claims are accomplishing the overall process of coordinating harvesting and transport of crops, which falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that while the claims include an additional element drawn to dispatching the autonomous vehicle, they in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. In this regard, this additional element of dispatching the autonomous vehicle may be construed as post-solution activity, that is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, and furthermore is not considered to be significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity). In view of the recent Berkheimer decision and the Step 2B analysis of the above rejection, Examiner is reiterating the fact that the coordinating harvesting and transport of crops, specifically with the additional element of dispatching the autonomous vehicle, as claimed is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. Said conclusion is made based upon a factual determination supported by the specification, which states that the transport vehicle may be manually driven or may include autonomous driving capabilities (see specification, para [0023]).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Additionally, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are found to be allowable over prior art, and would therefore be allowable if amended to overcome the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, EST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights