Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/014,150

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTELLIGENT SOIL SAMPLING

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 31, 2022
Examiner
MAYO, TARA LEIGH
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Institut Biosens - Istrazivacko-Razvojni Institut Za Informacione Tehnologije Biosistema
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
960 granted / 1284 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1328
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1284 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Drawings The replacement drawings filed 02 October 2025 are not acceptable because the sheets are not numbered in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(t). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The abstract of the disclosure filed 02 October 2025 is objected to because: It well exceeds 150 words in length. It includes reference numerals that are not enclosed within parentheses. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The amendment filed 02 October 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows. On page 3, line 7, use of the K-means algorithm “for grouping pixels with similar spectral characteristics into homogeneous zones.” On page 3, lines 11-23, the use of spatial filtering. On page 5, lines 43-48, the collection and wireless transmission of data points by the robotic platform. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 10, section c, a robot localization module having the functionality to perform “iterative spatial filtration across multiple spatial resolutions” after the application of a clustering algorithm lacks in the originally filed specification. Claims 16 and 19 are rejected similarly to claim 10 for the recitation of spatial filtration. Claims 11-15, 17, 18 and 20-23 are rejected because they depend from one of claims 10, 16 and 19. 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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST. 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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. /TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /tm/ 16 January 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 31, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 02, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 15, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599051
GARDEN IMPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601160
RETENTION MECHANISM FOR GROUND ENGAGING TOOLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575470
SYSTEM FOR ELIMINATING DELAYED HITCH RESPONSE DUE TO AIR INGRESS WITHIN AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568875
SEED FLOW REGULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564119
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING OPERATING CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DISKS OF AN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1284 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month