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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first receiving unit” “second receiving unit” “third receiving unit” “first determining unit” and “second determining unit” in claim 15, and “providing unit” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite “Use of” the determined product and determined application rate of method claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claims 1-10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A
PRONG ONE
The claims recite what amounts to no more than a mathematical formula for computing the amount of product necessary for an agricultural field. The independent claim merely recites steps of inputting variables such as application rates of the product, width of the vehicle, and vehicle route with application rate in each area to determine total amount of product needed. Thus, the claim is directed towards mathematical computing (an abstract idea).
PRONG TWO
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the calculation of an amount of product necessary, something which could be accomplished via pen and paper or even via thought. The claim does not recite a practical application of the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception because the method claim would preempt basic arithmetic for calculating amount of product required on an agricultural field.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, does not recite any particular machine or manufacture, and does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state. The claim is only generally linked to a field of use because the preamble recites the intended use and the application map in the body of the claim is linked to the route of an agricultural vehicle.
Regarding claims 2-9 are similarly patent ineligible because they recite more details of the calculation and more particulars of input variables.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites the CRM of storing the method of claim 1 and further recites execution on a processor. This claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply it” on a computer.
Regarding claim 15, a system claim, this claim recites various “units” which when interpreted under 112(f) recite the structure of a processor and programmed instructions to execute the various functions recited in each limitation. However, the claim similarly fails the eligibility test like method claim 1 because the additional structure of “units” does not transform the otherwise patent ineligible subject matter into eligible subject matter.
Claims 16 and 17 are patent eligible because the claims recite the application of loading or filling station to fill the vehicle with the computed product and the applying the product to the field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. US 5,050,771 in view of Peterson et al. US 2011/0084851 A1.
Hanson teaches:
1. (Currently amended) A computer-implemented method for estimating a product consumption of an agricultural product for an agricultural field, the method comprising the steps:
providing a target application rate map (10) comprising an application rate distribution of the agricultural product of the agricultural field, wherein the application rate distribution comprises different target areas with predetermined application rates of the agricultural product (S 100); [Fig. 4, application rate changes based on position in the map, Col. 8 ll. 21-30]
providing a route (34, 52) of an agricultural vehicle and/or an application device of the agricultural vehicle through the agricultural field for applying the agricultural product (S200); [Col. 8 ll. 31-50]
providing a working width (37, 52) of the agricultural vehicle and/or the application device of the agricultural vehicle; [Fig. 5 65 – SET WIDTH]
determining application rates of the agricultural vehicle and/or the application device of the agricultural vehicle at least based on the route (34, 52) of the agricultural vehicle and/or the application device of the agricultural vehicle through the agricultural field (S300); [Col. 8 ll. 21-31] and
Hanson does not teach the following limitation, however, Peterson teaches:
determining the product consumption for the agricultural field based on the determined application rates and the working width (37, 53) of the agricultural vehicle and/or the application device of the agricultural vehicle (S400). [para. 0037, “For example, based on tracking of average amounts of material used over particular distance intervals or over the course of a single pass across the field, the system 10 may notify the operator that the vehicle 12 will not be able to make a full pass across the field and back to the refill location 24 with the material remaining.”]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Peterson with those of Hanson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Peterson teaches that the amount of necessary agricultural product can be computed and then relayed to a filling station to load the desired amount to increase efficiency. (See para. 0042-0043).
Peterson teaches:
2. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of determining the application rates comprises determining a position of the agricultural vehicle and/or the application device of the agricultural vehicle in the target application rate map (10). [Fig. 1 18 “location-determining device”]
Hanson teaches:
3. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of determining the product consumption comprises determining a sub-area (21, 38, 39, 40, 51) with a sub-area application rate based on the working width (37, 53) of the agricultural vehicle and/or the application device of the agricultural vehicle and an intersection (35, 36) of the route (34, 52) with a target area border (33) of a target area. [Fig. 3 maps sub areas for differing application rates]
Peterson teaches:
4. (Currently amended) The method according to claim1, wherein the step of determining the product consumption of the agricultural field comprises a summation of the product consumption for the sub-area (21, 38, 39, 40, 51)s, wherein the product consumption for the sub-areas (21, 38, 39, 40, 51) is determined by multiplying the area of the sub-area (21, 38, 39, 40, 51) and the sub-area application rate. [para. 0007, “The factors used by the processing device may correspond with the amount of material in the container, the dimensions of a field to be covered by the agricultural vehicle, instructions for dispensing material in the field, rate at which the material in the container is dispensed, acceptable refill locations, a status of a refilling vehicle, and/or a location of a refilling vehicle relative to various refill locations.”]
Hanson teaches:
5. (Currently amended) The method according to claim1, further comprising the step of determining a formulation and/or mixture of the agricultural product based on the product consumption for the agricultural field. [Fig. 5 spray control 26 alters amount of material applied]
Hanson teaches:
6. (Currently amended) The method according to claim1, wherein the target application rate map (10) is based on performance/yield zones of the agricultural field. [Fig. 3 application rate changes for poor performing areas]
Hanson teaches:
7. (Currently amended) The method according to claim1, wherein the route (34, 52) is based on a tramline of the agricultural vehicle and the working width (37, 53) of the agricultural vehicle and/or the application device of the agricultural vehicle. [Fig. 5 65 – set width]
Peterson teaches:
8. (Currently amended) The method according to claim1, further comprising the step of identifying area overlaps (50) when applying the agricultural product based on the route (34, 52) and the working width (37, 53) and removing the area overlaps (50) when estimating the product consumption for the agricultural field. [para. 0041, “The average, median, and/or maximum amount of fuel and/or material used per some measurement unit may also depend on additional factors such as speed, incline, etc.”]
Hanson teaches:
9. (Currently amended) The method according to claim1, wherein the application rate is provided by a spray rate for applying a fluid and/or a scattering rate for applying solid. [Col. 2 ll. 49-54, “Also, the control can be programmed for an application of liquid fertilizer for selected spots in the field where growth may be visibly less than other spots during a harvesting operation, and the program can be used for application of fertilizer subsequently. A different rate of application can be used in particular spots,”]
Regarding CRM claim 10, this claim recites the storage encoded with instructions to provide a processor to execute the method of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds and rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding apparatus claim 15, this claims recites the apparatus and functions for implementing the execution of method claims above and is rejected on the same grounds and rationale as above.
Peterson teaches:
16. (Currently amended) A method for applying a product on an agricultural field, the method comprising:
providing a determined product consumption of an agricultural product for an agricultural field according to a method according to claim 1; [Fig. 4 316 determines amount of material necessary to complete a pass and compares to amount available]
controlling a controller unit of a loading or filling station for the agricultural product based on the determined product consumption when filling the agricultural product into an agricultural vehicle; [para. 0041-0042] and
applying the agricultural product onto the agricultural field. [para. 0043]
Regarding system claim 17, this claim recites similar limitations as claim 16 but alters claim scope by reciting “units” which provide the necessary product consumption information. This claim is rejected on the same ground and rationale as claim 16 above because the structure invoked of the “providing” unit is processor and computation algorithm (math) likewise recited in claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM 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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2115