Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/060,299

SYSTEMS AND APPARATUSES FOR SOIL AND SEED MONITORING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 30, 2022
Examiner
TC 3600, DOCKET
Art Unit
3600
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Precision Planting, LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
4%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 1m
To Grant
5%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 4% of cases
4%
Career Allow Rate
5 granted / 142 resolved
-48.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 1m
Avg Prosecution
206 currently pending
Career history
348
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
36.1%
-3.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§102
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 142 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 in view of Petrov et al. US 2011/0054776 A1. With respect to claim 1, Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 disclose a processing system (Figs. 1-4C, 11-23, Para. [0032] regarding a central processing unit) comprising: a processing unit (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including a central processing unit ("CPU"), Para. [0032]) to execute instructions for processing agricultural data (the system 300 preferably determines a desired depth based on the retrieved soil data, Para. [0052]); and a memory (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including...memory, Para. [0032]) to store agricultural data (soil data may be stored in the memory of the monitor 50, Para. [0052]), the processing unit (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including a central processing unit ("CPU"), Para. [(0032]) is configured to execute instructions to obtain properties for seed environment data. including at least one of soil color, residue, topography, soil texture, organic matter, seed shape and size, seed cold germ, and predicted wind speed, and to determine seed environment data based on the properties. As to claim 2, Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1discloses wherein the processing unit (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including a central processing unit ("CPU"), Para. [0032]) is further configured to generate a seed environment indicator (planting recommendation window 2035, Fig. 20) to indicate whether soil conditions are ready for planting during a specified time period (a planting recommendation window 2035 displaying a recommendation indicating whether planting is recommended (e.g., “Keep Planting”) or not recommended (e.g., "Stop Planting"), the monitor 50 preferably determines which recommendation to display based on current moisture and/or temperature measurements made by the system 300 or the average measurements made during the current planting operation (e.g., in the current field), Para. [0098]). Regarding Claim 3, Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 discloses wherein the processing unit (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including a central processing unit ("CPU"), Para. [0032]) is further configured to generate an indicator (window 2015, Fig. 20) to indicate whether soi! conditions will remain acceptable through at least germination and emergence (the screen 2000 also preferably includes a window 2015 displaying an estimate of the probability P of successful germination of seeds planted during the current planting operation (e.g., in the current field), Para. [0094], plant emergence, Para. {0085)). Regarding Claim 4, Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 discloses wherein the processing unit (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including a central processing unit ("CPU"), Para. [0032}) is further configured to generate a seed environment score (at window 2015, Fig. 20, a window 2015 displaying an estimate of the probability P of successful germination of seeds, Para. [0094]) based on the seed environment data (the monitor 50 is preferably configured to display a germination summary screen 2000, a window 2005 preferably displays the percentage of seeds S planted at a desired moisture level, Para. [0086], the germination summary screen 2000 also preferably includes a window 2010 displaying the percentage of seeds R planted at a desired temperature, Para. [0091]) with a display device (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including . . . graphical user interface ("GUI") (e.g., a touch-screen interface), Para. [(0032]) to display the seed environment score (at window 2015, Fig. 20, a window 2015 displaying an estimate of the probability P of successful germination of seeds, Para. [0094]). Regarding claim 5, Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 discloses the processing system wherein the display device (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including . . . graphical user interface ("GUI") (e.g., a touch-screen interface), Para. [0032]) to display the seed environment score (at window 2015, Fig. 20, a window 2015 displaying an estimate of the probability P of successful germination of seeds, Para. [0094]) including a first indicator to indicate acceptable planting conditions (at planting recommendation window 2035, Fig. 20, a planting recommendation window 2035 displaying a recommendation indicating whether planting is recommended (e.g., "Keep Planting"), Para. [0098]) or a second indicator to indicate unacceptable planting conditions (at planting recommendation window 2035, Fig. 20, a planting recommendation window 2035 displaying a recommendation indicating whether planting is…not recommended (e.g., "Stop Planting”), Para. [0098]). Regarding claim 6, Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 discloses wherein the display device (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including a central processing unit ("CPU"), Para. [0032]) to display seed environment score (at window 2015, Fig. 20, a window 2015 displaying an estimate of the probability P of successful germination of seeds, Para. [0094]) properties includes a current temperature (the screen 2000 preferably includes a window 2025 displaying the average of the current temperature measurements obtained from the temperature sensors 360, Para. [0097]), a current moisture (the screen 2000 preferably includes a window 2020 displaying the average of the current moisture measurements obtained from the moisture sensors 350. Para. [0097]). As to claim 7, the seed environment data (soil data may be stored in the memory of the monitor 50, Para. [0052]) further comprises at least one of: soil type, soil temperature (from temperature sensors 360, Fig. 4A), soil moisture (from moisture sensors 350), furrow depth, predicted temperature, predicted precipitation, and predicted cloud cover. Claim 1 distinguishes over Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 in requiring the seed environment data to include at least one of soil color, residue, topography, soil texture, organic matter, seed shape and size, seed cold germ, and predicted wind speed, and to determine seed environment data based on the properties. Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 disclose seed environment data including a weather data server 340 in communication with the processing unit (at implement monitor 50, Fig. 1, an implement monitor 50 preferably including a central processing unit ("CPU"), Para. [0032]) to execute instructions for processing agricultural data (the system 300 preferably determines a desired depth based on the retrieved soil data, Para. [0052]). Petrov et al. US 2011/0054776 A1 disclose a weather data server network 14 (see the disclosure in paragraph [0022], lines 3 and 4) including “predicted weather properties” (lines 10 and 9 from the end of paragraph [0022] that include “wind speed” (line 8 from the end of paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized predicted wind speed as disclosed in Petrov et al. US 2011/0054776 A1 as seed environment data for the processing system of Sauder et al. US 2016/0037709 A1 for greater versatility in use and operation. Examiner Request The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sauder et al. US 2010/0010667 A1 discloses an agricultural apparatus. Any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J NOVOSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6993. The examiner can normally be reached on a variable schedule. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rocca M Joseph 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. /Christopher J. Novosad/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 February 2, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 30, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 26, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 8813663
SEEDING MACHINE WITH SEED DELIVERY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2014
Patent null
Interconnection module of the ornamental electrical molding
Granted
Patent null
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTITY SPECIFIC, DATA CAPTURE AND EXCHANGE OVER A NETWORK
Granted
Patent null
Systems and Methods for Performing Workflow
Granted
Patent null
DISTRIBUTED LEDGER PROTOCOL TO INCENTIVIZE TRANSACTIONAL AND NON-TRANSACTIONAL COMMERCE
Granted
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
4%
Grant Probability
5%
With Interview (+1.5%)
1y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 142 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