DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments and request for continued examination filed on November 3, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 8, 13. Currently, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-14 are pending. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/3/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-14 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, 8, 13.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-14 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, 8, 13. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejection in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 11/3/25 have been considered but are not persuasive in regards to the 101 rejection. Applicant argues on p. 6 of the remarks that the 101 rejection is improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on p. 6 of the remarks that the claims recite a technical improvement to a computer. Examiner disagrees and notes McRO improved computer animation whereas applicant’s claims improve an abstract idea and use computers and technology to implement the abstract idea of receiving a plurality of agricultural data records, which include a yield property(ies) of products grown in a given field and continuous data indicative of multiple raw field features specific to the given field and identifying ones of the agricultural data records, for which the products grown in the given field include multiple products concurrently grown in the given field and identifying, in the identified ones of the agricultural records, a subset including multiple ones of the multiple raw field features of the products, the multiple ones of the multiple raw field features including at least one soil feature and/or at least one topography feature and for each raw field feature included in the subset, transforming the continuous data for the raw field feature into one of multiple distinct feature classes based on a value of the continuous data of the raw field feature relative to distinct numeric classification criteria of the feature classes and generating using a best linear unbiased prediction model and the distinct feature classes but not the continuous data for the subset of the multiple ones of the multiple raw field features, genomic-by-environmental relationships between the one or more products and generating based at least in part on the genomic-by- environmental relationships, predicted yield performance for a set of products associated with one or more target environments and generating product recommendations for the one or more target environments based on the predicted yield performance for the set of products. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained. Applicant notes applicant’s arguments related to the 103 rejections on p. 9-11 of the remarks are persuasive.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-14 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method and computer readable medium). Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 8 recite the abstract idea of receiving a plurality of agricultural data records, which include a yield property(ies) of products grown in a given field and continuous data indicative of multiple raw field features specific to the given field and identifying ones of the agricultural data records, for which the products grown in the given field include multiple products concurrently grown in the given field and identifying, in the identified ones of the agricultural records, a subset including multiple ones of the multiple raw field features of the products, the multiple ones of the multiple raw field features including at least one soil feature and/or at least one topography feature and for each raw field feature included in the subset, transforming the continuous data for the raw field feature into one of multiple distinct feature classes based on a value of the continuous data of the raw field feature relative to distinct numeric classification criteria of the feature classes and generating using a best linear unbiased prediction model and the distinct feature classes but not the continuous data for the subset of the multiple ones of the multiple raw field features, genomic-by-environmental relationships between the one or more products and generating based at least in part on the genomic-by- environmental relationships, predicted yield performance for a set of products associated with one or more target environments and generating product recommendations for the one or more target environments based on the predicted yield performance for the set of products. The claims are directed to product recommendations based on predicted performance on received data. The first prong of Step 2A is satisfied because the claims are abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity such as commercial interactions (including business relations). Applicant’s claims show receiving business records such as agricultural data and analyzing the data to make product recommendations which are a type of commercial interactions based received data. The second prong of Step 2A is satisfied because the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a server computer system and providing one or more instructions configured to cause display, on a display device communicatively coupled to the server computer system, of the product recommendations and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions which when executed by one or more processors cause performing operations) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2B is satisfied because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a server computer system and providing one or more instructions configured to cause display, on a display device communicatively coupled to the server computer system, of the product recommendations and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions which when executed by one or more processors cause performing operations (as evidenced by para [0044]-[0052], [0065]-[0069], [0119]-[0126] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing specific ways of generating the relationships or wherein the product recommendations are for soybean varieties or storing key feature classifications, wherein the feature classes include various ranges including a pH range and generating the genomic-by- environmental relationships between genetic features of the one or more products, the transformed multiple raw field features of the given field, and the yield properties of the one or more products.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
White et al. (US 2020/0163272 A1), a system for agricultural management-zone delineation to be done over broad geographic extents without overly-localized field-specific data that guides precision agricultural sampling and management by delineating enhanced management zones based upon remote sensing and artificial intelligence and combining the two with data derived from an existing countrywide soil survey database
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624