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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the Allowance of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on December 17, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 19, and 23 were amended; and claim 24 was added. Claims 6 and 10 reman cancelled. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
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 1-5, 7-9, and 11-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A method of selecting a treatment recommendation for nitrogen loss in a field, the method comprising: measuring a first characteristic of a soil sample from the field that is related to biologic nitrogen loss to produce a measured value; measuring a second characteristic of the soil sample, wherein the second characteristic comprises a soil texture of the soil sample; using the second characteristic to select a sample group for the soil sample; scaling the measured value based on the soil sample group the soil sample is placed into to form a scaled measure; and using the scaled measure to select a treatment recommendation for the field. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 11 and 16.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 11 is a process claim, and claim 16 is also a process claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “using the second characteristic to select a sample group for the soil sample…” (See, for example, FIG. 2; ¶35, of the instant specification), and “scaling the measured value based on the soil sample group the soil sample is placed into to form a scaled measure…” (See, for example, FIG. 2; ¶36, of the instant specification), each of which encompasses mathematical concepts requiring specific mathematical calculations (The group selection module 116 described in ¶35, and the soil texture scaling module 120 described in ¶36, of the instant specification.) to perform the selecting a treatment recommendation for nitrogen loss in a field, and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. For example, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of “using the second characteristic,” and “scaling the measured value” are performed using one are more algorithms (model(s)/module(s).
Claim 1 additionally recites the claim limitation of “using the scaled measure to select a treatment recommendation for the field” (See, for example, FIGS. 4-5; ¶49, of the instant specification), which comprises the judicial exception of a mental process because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements (The treatment recommendation engine 500 described in ¶¶49-51 of the instant specification.) capable of being performed mentally. Claims 11 and 16 recites analogous judicial exceptions.
In claim 1, the steps of: “using the second characteristic,” and “scaling the measured value” each fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas; and the step of “using the scaled measure” falls within the mental concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Claims 11 and 16 recites recite similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Each of the process steps “using the second characteristic,” “scaling the measured value,” and “using the scaled measure” are recited as being performed by a computer (“the soil texture determined above is provided to a group selection module 116 executed by a processor (not shown) in a computing device 180, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, a collection of client/server systems, and the like.” FIG. 2; ¶¶35-37, and “FIG. 16 provides an example of a computing device 10 that can be used to implement each of computing devices 180, 502 and 524 above. Computing device 10 includes a processing unit 12, a system memory 14,” FIG. 16; ¶¶76-78, of the instant specification). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“computing device”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process steps The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements of “a field, and data comprising “a first characteristic of a soil sample from the field,” “a second characteristic of the soil sample, wherein the second characteristic comprises a soil texture of the soil sample,” and “a measured value” (See, for example, FIG. 2; ¶¶35-37, of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). The Examiner notes that the limitations of “using the scaled measure to select a treatment recommendation,” and newly presented “wherein the second characteristic comprises a soil texture of the soil sample” each comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” {post solution activity(ies).}. Additionally, displaying a user interface depicting the scaled denitrification count that the limitation of “displaying a user interface depicting the scaled denitrification count,” substantially recited in claims 11 and 16, also comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post solution activity(ies).}. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 11 and 16 recites analogous additional elements.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 16, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once a treatment recommendation for the field is selected.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 11. 16). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 16, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 16, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, 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 22 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the outstanding section 101 rejections.
The primary reason for the indicated allowability of dependent claim 22, is that, in combination with the other claim elements, the limitations of “the treatment recommendation comprises instituting water management, applying one or more biological products, applying slow-release nitrogen, or starting 4Rs management” would integrate the judicial exceptions recited in base Claim 1 into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claim 22 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the outstanding section 101 rejections.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites limitations found within claim 22, and would be allowable under the same rationale applied to the indicated allowability of claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 17, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have overcome the previous prior art rejections. Applicant is thanked for their arguments and amendments which were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 persists.
In regard claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-21, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner’s position and supporting remarks are presented in the rejection above.
As noted in the rejection above, claim 1 was amended to recite “using the scaled measure to select a treatment recommendation for the field.” However, the Examiner notes that the newly presented step of “using the scaled measure to select a treatment recommendation for the field” comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post solution activity(ies).}. Additionally, displaying a user interface depicting the scaled denitrification count that the limitation of “displaying a user interface depicting the scaled denitrification count,” substantially recited in claims 11 and 16, also comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post solution activity(ies).}. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 11 and 16 recites analogous additional elements.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 16, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once a treatment recommendation for the field is selected.
Therefore, the rejection of the independent claims, claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 16, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Similarly, the rejection of the dependent claims, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4216. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Shelby Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857