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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/31/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/31/2026, 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 8/31/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-17 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 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 a step of receiving and/or determining input information wherein the input information comprises and wherein the information is “information relating to” a variety of things, such as crop plant, growing a crop plant, crop plant protection product, etc. Comprises is open ended language so it is unclear as to what other bits of information may be received and/or determined. Additionally, it is unclear as to what exact information would be within the scope of “information relating to” the variety of subjects listed. The limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty what the metes and bounds are of the scope. As such, the limitations are considered to be vague and indefinite. Clarification via clearer claim wording is required.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom) comprise the step of
“predicting, using non-linear regression model” wherein the non-linear regression 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).
The steps are required to define how the process steps end in the recited
results. The claims are required to define more specifically the relationship between the trained non-linear regression model and its use for predicting an amount of a residue. For example, the claims indicate that the non-linear regression model is trained using training data comprising empirical amounts of residue and “information relating to” wherein a number of parameters are listed such as crop plant, amount of biomass and/or fruit mass, application rate, length of a period of time between the juncture of application of the crop protection product to the crop plants and the juncture of harvesting of the crop plants. It is unclear with the open ended language of “comprising” what else may be encompassed in the training data. It is further unclear as to what encompasses “information relating to” each of the listed parameters. Moreover, it is unclear as to how the data is used to train the non-linear regression model as many different types of training algorithms can be used wherein the selected training algorithm can produce different results. The steps are clear with regards to the results they produce, but are not clear as to exactly how they are produced. Without defining
each of the steps such as how the non-linear regression model is trained and more specifically 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.
Again, 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 training a non-linear regression 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.
Finally, claims 1 and 13-15 (and all claims dependent therefrom) comprise the final step of outputting either, information relating to or an amount of, the predicted amount of the residue and then adjust an application program of the crop product to the crop plant based on the predicted amount of the residue to reduce the amount of the residue. These final steps appear to be vague and indefinite. First it is unclear as to what the information is output to. Second some of the claims output information relating to the predicted amount of the residue but adjust an application program based on the predicted amount of the residue. It is unclear if the “information relating to” the predicted amount of the residue is the same as the predicted amount of the residue used to adjust the application program. Finally, the step of adjusting an application program based on the predicted amount of the residue appears vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what exactly is adjusted in the step of adjusting the application program and how it is executed based on the predicted amount of the residue. Clarification via clearer claim wording is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/31/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of applicant’s arguments and amendments to the independent claims. The amendments comprise a step of adjusting an application program, which is considered to satisfy the burden of integrating a recognized judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
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
Prosecution Insights