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 .
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/21/2025, have 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.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 11/21/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicant has newly added claims 16-17 which is acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1-17 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following has been newly added which was necessitated by amendment
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 1-17 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.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom) comprise the step of “predicting, using a machine learning model” wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict the amount of residue, which have been deemed as vague and indefinite.
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 1, 13, and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom) recite the steps of “predicting, using a machine learning model” wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict the amount of residue wherein the steps have been deemed as vague and indefinite. The steps are required to define how the process steps end in the recited results. For example, the claims are required to define what trained machine learning model is used and how the model is trained or what algorithm is used for predicting the amount of residue of the crop protection product. 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 division. Without defining each of the steps using a trained machine learning model that is trained on the recited types of data 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.
Furthermore, the specification discloses using a regression model or a self-learning algorithm as examples, but is not limited to these algorithms. Additionally, the general recitation of a machine learning model reads on an indefinite number of implementations. As such, the specification describes a variety of possible embodiments and the breadth of the claims reads on an indefinite number of implementations wherein the implementation of the different methods may lead to different results. Without guidance as to which method should be used renders the steps/system/claims indefinite. In addition, the specification does not provide any guidance on which method should be used or even whether the possible universe of methods is limiting. Because the variety of methods of implementing a trained machine learning model do not produce the same results, the method chosen for implementation could affect whether or not a given product infringes the claims (see CAFC Dow v Nova August 2015). Clarification via clearer claim wording is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
(modified which was necessitated by amendment)
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 1-15 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 a device, method, system, and non-transitory computer readable medium for storing and to be executed by a computer for predicting a residue of a crop protection product without significantly more.
Analysis of independent claims 1:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1 and 14-15 are directed to a device (i.e. processor), system (i.e. 2 processors), and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs to be executed by the computer and claim 13 is directed to a method, 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: Claims 1 and 13-15 recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claims recite the following:
receiving/and or ascertaining input information comprising:
info related to a crop plant being grown;
info related to a growing of the crop plant;
info related to a crop protection product that has been or will be used in the growing of the crop plant;
info relating to an application.
b. predict, using a machine learning model, an amount of a residue of the crop protection product in and/or on the parts of the crop plant intended for human and/or animal consumption wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict the amount of the residue of the crop protection product using training data about crop plants using a specific type of data for training; and
c. output information relating to the amount of the residue.
These elements recited in claims 1 and 13-15 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation 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 and/or mathematical step of receiving and/or ascertaining input data, which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. Step B of predicting, using a machine learning model, an amount of residue of the crop protection product in and/or on the parts of the crop plant intended for human and/or animal consumption further involves mental and/or mathematical steps. The use of a trained machine learning model using categories of data is recited at a high level of generality that does not inherently comprise overly complex steps. As such, step B continues to be considered part of the abstract idea. Finally, Step C involves the step of simply outputting information, which can be performed using pen and paper.
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: Claims 1 and 13-15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the abstract idea. With regards to the additional elements of processors and a non-transitory computer readable medium to be executed by 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 program/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).
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 and 13-15 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. e.g., all additional elements of the computer and/or program/product amount to mere instruction to implement an abstract idea. Therefore there are no additional elements recited that are considered to add significantly to the JE.
In view of the above, there is nothing recited that integrates the exception into a practical application and/or amounts 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 the dependent claims:
Claims 2-17 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 determining residue of the crop protection product or related information, such as countries and/or regions wherein the calculated amount does not exceed a threshold. Newly added claims 16-17 describe receiving specific data, i.e. image data from particular imaging sensors. The step is still reads on just a step of receiving data and processing data, which as described above are considered to be a part of the identified JE. Therefore, the limitations are not considered to integrate the JE into a practice application nor add significantly to the JE itself.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims, now comprising limitations to include a machine learning model that is trained and details about the information that the training data uses causes said claims to be analogous to eligibility example 48 provided by the USPTO.
Applicant arguments are not found persuasive as the instant claims are not directed towards creating a stitched speech wave signal that is transmitted. Additionally, the instant claims do not provide any details with regards to how the machine learning model is trained using the details of the training data that are now recited. Example 48 provides detail steps as to how the speech separation method is carried out and results in the creation of a new speech signal that is then transmitted. The instant claims provide no details as to how the machine learning model is trained using the types of data now recited for training data. Additionally, the recited method does not result in a the production of a new speech signal but results instead in a data value, such as the amount of a residue of the crop production product wherein the output is information related to the amount of the residue. Due to the clear distinctions between example 48 and the instantly claimed method, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the instantly claimed method is a technical improvement in the field as typical methods involve lab testing whereas the instant method uses a trained algorithm.
Applicant argument is not found persuasive as it does not appear to be supported by any evidence other than just by statement of argument. In other words, there is no evidence pointed to in the specification of the specific improvement nor does it appear that its commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as the claimed invention does not appear it necessarily results in any technical improvement in the field. Such positions should be supported by evidence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/21/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of applicant’s amendments and arguments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights