DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant states that the claims have been amended to “clarify the relationship between the claimed method and computing device and the spectroradiometer, humidity level and temperature value that are used in conjunction therewith to integrate any judicial exception into a practical application”. This is not persuasive, because, as written, the spectroradiometer is not a positively recited element, since its related measurements are not positively recited steps of the method, and therefore do not carry patentable weight. As written, the claims still recite data gathering, and using a neural network in its expected capacity to analyze the gathered data. Even if the additional data improves the output of the neural network, it does not improve or change how a neural network functions.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A method of improving the ability of a neural network system to correctly predict the percentage of organic matter in an unprocessed soil sample, the method comprising:
receiving a value for a spectral band identified from the unprocessed soil sample, the spectral band being generated by a spectroradiometer from the soil sample;
inputting the value for the spectral band to the neural network system that predicts a percentage of organic matter in the unprocessed soil sample using values of spectral bands; and
improving the ability of the neural network system to correctly predict the percentage of organic matter in the soil sample by further inputting an ambient humidity level to the neural network system wherein the humidity level indicates an amount of ambient moisture present proximate the spectroradiometer when the value for the spectral band was identified, and further inputting a temperature value to the system wherein the temperature value is an ambient temperature proximate the spectroradiometer when the value of the spectral band was identified, and the neural network system uses the ambient humidity level and the temperature value when predicting the percentage of organic matter.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “inputting the value for the spectral band to the neural network system that predicts a percentage of organic matter in the unprocessed soil sample using values of spectral bands (providing data); and
improving the ability of the neural network system to correctly predict the percentage of organic matter in the soil sample by further inputting an ambient humidity level to the neural network system wherein the humidity level indicates an amount of ambient moisture present proximate the spectroradiometer when the value for the spectral band was identified, and further inputting a temperature value to the system wherein the temperature value is an ambient temperature proximate the spectroradiometer when the value of the spectral band was identified, and the neural network system uses the ambient humidity level and the temperature value when predicting the percentage of organic matter (providing data)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: receiving a value for a spectral band identified from a soil sample; and a neural network.
The additional element receiving a value for a spectral band identified from a soil sample represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Inputting the ambient humidity to the already trained neural network system is considered using a neural network in its ordinary capacity is considered mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 10 is rejected as it merely describes a generic neural network, essentially claiming generally recited computer components (memory and processor) along with inputs to obtain an output. The names of the inputs and output only generally link the neural network to its field of use.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2, 4, 6-8, 12-14, 21 and 22 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 19, 20, and 23 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Shen et al. (Hyperspectral Estimation of Soil Organic Matter Content using Different Spectral Preprocessing Techniques and PLSR Method. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1206. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12071206), hereinafter “Shen”, is still considered by the Examiner to be the closes prior art of record. Shen, as best understood by the Examiner, when considered alone and in combination with the remaining prior art of record, does not seem to fairly teach wherein the humidity level indicates an amount of ambient moisture present when the value for the spectral band was identified, and further inputting a temperature value to the system wherein the temperature value is an ambient temperature when the value of the spectral band was identified.
Claims 19, 20, and 23 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 17.
Conclusion
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 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 CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights