DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information statement filed March 18, 2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-24 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, the phrase "preferably" in each of the claims renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 3, 6-7, 14, 16 and 18-24, the claims are rejected due to being dependent on, and incorporating the limitations of, claim 1, i.e. the aforementioned “preferably”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites “A method of using the method according to claim 1 for preventing adverse agricultural interventions, in particular human-induced pollination”. This does not limit the subject matter of claim 1 because it does add any limitations/steps to the method of claim 1. In particular, there are no steps regarding how the method of claim 1 is used to prevent human-induced pollination.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 18 is directed toward a computer program product. The claim does not recite, and the specification does not define, that the computer program product is limited to non-transitory embodiments. A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as applicant’s claimed computer program product, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”).
The claim may be amended to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter because the specification supports a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory embodiment.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17 and 19-23 are directed to methods/apparatuses and, therefore, fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for controlling actions of a mobile entity on a field management unit, the method comprising:
providing a database that is provided on a server, wherein georeferenced boundaries of field management units are stored in the database,
providing an assessment unit, comprising a processor,
determining a current position of a mobile entity by using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver for establishing a position of the mobile entity,
determining, by the assessment unit, a current field management unit, in which the mobile entity is located, based on the current position of the mobile entity and based on the georeferenced boundaries of the field management units stored in the database,
determining, by the assessment unit, one or more adjacent field management units, which are arranged adjacent to the current field management unit, based on the current position of the mobile entity and/or on the current field management unit and based on the georeferenced boundaries of the field management units stored in the database,
wherein at least one of the following characteristics of the mobile entity is stored in the database:
previous positions of the mobile entity and/or previous field management units, in which the mobile entity was located,
agricultural interventions that can be carried out by the mobile entity, wherein the agricultural interventions that can be carried out by the mobile entity include agricultural interventions that are dependent on the previous positions and/or previous field management units,
wherein at least the following information of the current field management unit and of at least one adjacent field management unit, preferably of all field management units, is stored in the database:
status information of the field management unit,
and at least one of the following:
required agricultural interventions,
adverse agricultural interventions,
carrying out an assessment, by the assessment unit, by assessing whether
the mobile entity is adapted to carry out a required agricultural intervention of the current field management unit and/or of an adjacent field management unit, and/or
the mobile entity is adapted to carry out an adverse agricultural intervention of the current field management unit and/or of an adjacent field management unit,
by comparing at least one of the stored characteristics of the mobile entity with the information of the current field management unit and/or of an adjacent field management unit,
generating a data signal based on the assessment by the assessment unit, and
generating a first alert based on a first distance between the mobile entity and the current field management unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The determining, by the assessment unit, a current field management unit, in which the mobile entity is located… merely requires the location of the mobile entity to be compared with the geofenced boundaries of the field management units to determine the current field management unit. For example, if the current location of the mobile entity is X latitude and Y longitude, it would be a simple matter to determine which field management unit bounds that location. The determining, by the assessment unit, one or more adjacent field management units, which are arranged adjacent to the current field management unit… merely requires determining, e.g. by looking at a map, which field management units border the current field management unit. The carrying out an assessment, by the assessment unit, by assessing whether the mobile entity is adapted to carry out a required agricultural intervention…or an adverse agricultural intervention…by comparing at least one of the stored characteristics of the mobile entity with the information of current field management unit and/or of an adjacent field management unit is a simple comparison between two sets of data regarding the configuration of the mobile entity and the information on the current field or the adjacent fields that could be practically performed mentally.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for controlling actions of a mobile entity on a field management unit, the method comprising:
providing a database that is provided on a server, wherein georeferenced boundaries of field management units are stored in the database,
providing an assessment unit, comprising a processor,
determining a current position of a mobile entity by using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver for establishing a position of the mobile entity,
determining, by the assessment unit, a current field management unit, in which the mobile entity is located, based on the current position of the mobile entity and based on the georeferenced boundaries of the field management units stored in the database,
determining, by the assessment unit, one or more adjacent field management units, which are arranged adjacent to the current field management unit, based on the current position of the mobile entity and/or on the current field management unit and based on the georeferenced boundaries of the field management units stored in the database,
wherein at least one of the following characteristics of the mobile entity is stored in the database:
previous positions of the mobile entity and/or previous field management units, in which the mobile entity was located,
agricultural interventions that can be carried out by the mobile entity, wherein the agricultural interventions that can be carried out by the mobile entity include agricultural interventions that are dependent on the previous positions and/or previous field management units,
wherein at least the following information of the current field management unit and of at least one adjacent field management unit, preferably of all field management units, is stored in the database:
status information of the field management unit,
and at least one of the following:
required agricultural interventions,
adverse agricultural interventions,
carrying out an assessment, by the assessment unit, by assessing whether
the mobile entity is adapted to carry out a required agricultural intervention of the current field management unit and/or of an adjacent field management unit, and/or
the mobile entity is adapted to carry out an adverse agricultural intervention of the current field management unit and/or of an adjacent field management unit,
by comparing at least one of the stored characteristics of the mobile entity with the information of the current field management unit and/or of an adjacent field management unit,
generating a data signal based on the assessment by the assessment unit, and
generating a first alert based on a first distance between the mobile entity and the current field management unit.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of providing a database that is provided on a server… and providing an assessment unit, comprising a processor, these limitations merely recite using one or more computers to implement the abstract idea. Similarly, the limitations of: wherein at least one of the following characteristics of the mobile entity is stored in the database… and wherein at least one of the following information of the current field management unit and of at least one adjacent field management unit…is stored in the database… merely recite what data is stored in the database.
Regarding the additional limitation of determining a current position of a mobile entity by using a global navigation (GNSS) receiver, this amounts to mere data gathering using a GNSS receiver, which is insignificant extra/pre-solution activity.
The limitations of generating a data signal… and generating a first alert… merely recite insignificant extra/post-solution activity of outputting the result of the mental process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of providing a database and providing an assessment unit amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Merely applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of determining a current position of a mobile entity by using a global navigation (GNSS) receiver, generating a data signal… and generating a first alert… are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17 recites a system that is configured to perform the method of claim 1 and does not comprise further additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
Dependent claim(s) 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17 and 20-23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17 and 20-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2, 16, 24 and 25 are eligible under 35 USC §101 because each of the claims fall within a statutory category and recite actual control of the mobile entity based on the result of the mental process, which integrates the mental process into a practical application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Supervisory Patent Examiner Peter Nolan, whose telephone number is 571-270-7016. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
The fax number for the organization to which this application or proceeding is assigned 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights