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, beginning on page 8, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered, along with amendments, and are persuasive, insofar that the cited reference does not seem to fairly teach or suggest apply said known field specific characteristics and said current soil test value from said at least one first region to the soil test model to calculate a predicted nutrient level for said at least one second region. The rejections of claims 19, 2, 3, and 8-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been withdrawn.
As for argument (A) on page 8: Applicant states that claim 19 requires a specific model structure, not taught by the cited prior art, and specifically references the amendment from “or” to “and” for the combination of inputs. This is not persuasive because the claim still reads as “one or more of [the group comprising a and b]”, which still only requires one of the two options.
Further regarding argument (B): Although the cited Lee reference does teach using physical measurements of the properties of one or more fields as part of the modeling, Lee does not teach testing the soil from one area specifically to predict a separate area, in other words, “take a measurement from location A to predict a value for location B”.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13, Applicant states that the present invention provides a technical improvement by using a current, physical soil test value from a first region to predict the properties of a second, unsampled region. This is not persuasive because, although giving a model more data usually improves the output, it does not generally improve how the model itself works.
Similarly, Applicant then states that the claim “improves the functioning of the computerized prediction system itself”. Again, this is not persuasive because, although giving a model more data usually improves the output, it does not generally improve how the model itself works.
Finally, Applicant states that is integrated into a practical application since the system is “is specifically configured to ‘acquire a current soil test value...based on an actual soil test’ from a first region and apply it to predict for a second region”. This is not persuasive because acquiring a soil test value, as written in the claim, is considered mere data gathering, as the actual soil test is not a positively recited or performed step of the method. Additionally, using a model trained on one subject/region to make predictions about a different subject/region is not considered integration into a practical application, as that is merely using a model for its intended purpose.
The independent claims as written recite: receiving a request, getting a model, providing data to the model, and sharing the result.
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 19, 20 and 2-18 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, representative Claim 19 recites:
A system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing computer program instructions for predicting soil nutrient levels for a current growing season in a common agricultural field having a plurality of regions including at least one first region and at least one second region having a current soil test value that is unknown, the system, when executing the computer program instructions by the one or more processors, being configured to:
receive a request for a nutrient level in said at least one second region;
provide a soil test model which defines a statistical relationship between:
(i) nutrient levels for a given region of a training agricultural field in a given growing season, and
(ii) field specific characteristics for the given region in a previous growing season prior to the given growing season and nutrient levels in one or more of the given region and a proximate region of the training agricultural field from the given growing season;
acquire known field specific characteristics from a prior growing season prior to the current growing season for said at least one second region;
acquire a current soil test value for said at least one first region in which the current soil test value of the at least one first region is obtained from an actual soil test;
apply said known field specific characteristics and said current soil test value from said at least one first region to the soil test model to calculate a predicted nutrient level for said at least one second region; and
transmit the predicted nutrient level to a user.
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 (machine).
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 mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, step of “providing a soil test model which defines a statistical relationship between: (i) nutrient levels for a given region of a training agricultural field in a given growing season, and (ii) field specific characteristics for the given region in a previous growing season prior to the given growing season and nutrient levels in one or more of the given region or a proximate region of the training agricultural field from the given growing season (mathematical formula); and
applying said known field specific characteristics and said current soil test value from said at least one first region to the soil test model to calculate a predicted nutrient level for said at least one second region (inputting values into a formula)” is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “applying said known field specific characteristics and said current soil test value from said at least one first region to the soil test model to calculate a predicted nutrient level for said at least one second region (inputting values into a formula); and
transmitting the predicted nutrient level to a user (sharing the result)” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 20.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 19: A system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing computer program instructions for predicting soil nutrient levels for a current growing season in a common agricultural field having a plurality of regions including at least one first region and at least one second region having a current soil test value that is unknown, the system, when executing the computer program instructions by the one or more processors, being configured to: receive a request for a nutrient level in said at least one second region; acquire known field specific characteristics from a prior growing season prior to the current growing season for said at least one second region; acquire a current soil test value for said at least one first region in which the current soil test value of the at least one first region is obtained from an actual soil test;
Claim 20: A system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing computer program instructions for predicting soil nutrient levels for a current growing season in a common agricultural field having a plurality of regions including at least one first region and at least one second region having a current soil test value that is unknown, the system, when executing the computer program instructions by the one or more processors, being configured to: receive a request for a nutrient level in said at least one second region; acquire known field specific characteristics from a prior growing season prior to the current growing season for said at least one second region; acquire a current soil test value for said at least one first region in which the current soil test value of the at least one first region is obtained from an actual soil test.
The additional element in the preamble of “A system of predicting soil nutrient levels for a current growing season in a common agricultural field having a plurality of regions including at least one first region having a current soil test value that is known from an actual soil test and at least one second region having a current soil test value that is unknown” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Receiv[ing] a request for a nutrient level in said at least one second region; acquiring known field specific characteristics from a prior growing season prior to the current growing season for said at least one second region; acquir[ing] known field specific characteristics from a prior growing season prior to the current growing season for said at least one second region; acquir[ing] a current soil test value for said at least one first region in which the current soil test value of the at least one first region is obtained from an actual soil test represent mere data gathering steps and only add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. One or more memories (generic memory) and a one or more processors (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
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 2-18 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.
The Examiner notes that there are no longer any prior art rejections, as stated in the response to arguments above.
Conclusion
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights