DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] 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
[2] 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 11 December 2025. It is noted that this application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 16/393,329 filed 24 April 2019, now United States Patent No. 11,710,196, which benefits from Provisional Patent Application Serial Nos. 62/662,209, 62/668,247, 62/703,846 filed 24 April 2018, 7 May 2018, and 26 July 2018, respectively. Claims 9, 18, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14-17, and 19 have been amended. Claim 25 has been added. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 12 December 2025 has been entered and considered. Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-24 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had possession of the claimed invention has/have been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are withdrawn.
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.
[5] Previous rejection of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-24 (now claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-25 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024. Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-25 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 10, and 19 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of receiving requests for agricultural assessing crop characteristics associated with the requests and listing crop products on a commercial exchange to facilitate transactions between parties to purchase and sell the agricultural goods, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed serves to list crops by a crop producer, receive requests to list crops from a producer, calculate an estimated quality characteristic of the crops, and broker a transaction from a buyer, which is an ineligible Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, namely: facilitating commercial or legal interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing interactions between people.
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 as presented by amendment includes:
“…accessing a training set of data comprising satellite image data corresponding to a crop product type and associated historic quality specification data corresponding to the crop product type…performing a measurement operation on the extracted canopy properties to measure a quality specification for the crop product type…populating a…listing a set of target crop products that satisfy one or more quality specification requirements selected by a user…”, “…for a location associated with a target crop product, identifying a set of conservation management practices based on canopy properties…”, and “…adding the target crop product to the list of crop products or removing the target crop product from the list of crop products based on the identified conservation management practices and the measured quality specification…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of receiving requests for agricultural assessing crop characteristics associated with the requests and listing crop products on a commercial exchange to facilitate transactions between parties to purchase and sell the agricultural goods, which is an ineligible Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, namely: facilitating commercial or legal interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing interactions between people (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Additionally, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, claim 1 as presented by amendment recites:
“…for a location associated with a target crop product, identifying a set of conservation management practices based on canopy properties extracted from the accessed satellite image data…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited system and training of the model, one of ordinary skill would be capable of observing images of a crop production location and associated canopy properties to identify potential conservation practices applied at the observed locations by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-25 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include: “online agricultural system”, “machine-learned model”, “…image processing operations…”, “…user interface…”, “…a client device…” and “satellite image data”.
With respect to these potential additional elements, the claimed “online system” is identified as generating crop listings. The claimed “machine-learned model” is identified as being trained based on data and applied to data. The recited “satellite image data” are identified in the claim as being accessed to be utilized as a training set for the recited “machine learned model” and further satellite data is accessed to be applied by the machine learned model to predict crop quality specifications. The “…image processing operations…” are identified as being performed “…on the satellite image data to identify one or more properties of the crop product type…”. The “…user interface…” is identified as being populated listing a set of crop products that satisfy one or more quality specification requirements selected by a user and further modified to include or remove target products based on a predicted quality specification. The “…client device…” is identified as displaying the interface.
Additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “online agricultural system”, “machine-learned model”, “…image processing operations…”, “…user interface…”, “…a client device…” and “satellite image data”. Claims 10 and 19, directed to a system and non-transitory storage medium introduce a “processor” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “online agricultural system”, “processor”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “machine-learned model” is identified as being a model that is trained to extract canopy properties from image data. The supportive disclosure provides a general statement that one or more trained machine learning algorithms and pattern recognition algorithms can be used to extract canopy properties using image processing operations (Specification paragraph [0106]).
(3) The “image processing operations” is identified as being applied to extract canopy properties (Interpreted in light of Specification paragraph [0106]).
(4) The “user interface” is identified as being populated listing a set of crop products that satisfy one or more quality specification requirements selected by a user and further modified to include or remove target products based on a predicted quality specification.
(5) The “a client device” is identified as displaying the interface.
(6) The “satellite image data” is identified as being acted upon by the general image processing operations to extract canopy properties (Interpreted in light of Specification paragraph [0106]).
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2103.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., data gathering using generic sensor arrangements – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
With respect to the claimed training and applying the “machine-learned model”, Examiner notes the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register on 17 July 2024. In particular, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Example 47, claim 2. Specifically, the instant recitations of “training” and “applying” the machine learned model are analogous to the training of an artificial neural network based on input data and receiving continuous training data of Examiner 47. Reasonably, the training data and feedback data are limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The actions performed by the trained machine-learned model are limited to a recitation of the inputs (e.g., images) and outputs (e.g., canopy properties) to be applied to an undefined training process absent any technical specificity regarding actual training. As noted above, these features are interpreted in light of the supportive disclosure which provides a general statement that one or more trained machine learning algorithms and pattern recognition algorithms can be used to extract canopy properties using image processing operations (Specification paragraph [0106]). Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are reasonably understood to constitute generic ML and image processing functions.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., data is accessed, mathematical models are adjusted or trained, crop listings are identified and displayed etc.) as associated with a respective “online system”, “client device”, or “interface”. Beyond the general statement that the method occurs in the online system, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “online system”, “client device”, or “interface” in producing the claimed results. A recitation of “by a system”, “applying algorithms” or “on an interface”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: transmitting data or information via a network (e.g., satellite image data), storing and retrieving information from a memory (e.g., crop data and listing), displaying and updating information on a generic computer display (e.g., crop product listings) and performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., identifying one or more properties of a crop product) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of receiving requests for agricultural assessing crop characteristics associated with the requests and listing crop products on a commercial exchange to facilitate transactions between parties to purchase and sell the agricultural goods using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed receiving requests for agricultural assessing crop characteristics associated with the requests and listing crop products on a commercial exchange to facilitate transactions between parties to purchase and sell the agricultural goods benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0037]-[0045]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “online agricultural system”, “processor”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “machine-learned model” is identified as being a model that is trained to extract canopy properties from image data. The supportive disclosure provides a general statement that one or more trained machine learning algorithms and pattern recognition algorithms can be used to extract canopy properties using image processing operations (Specification paragraph [0106]).
(3) The “image processing operations” is identified as being applied to extract canopy properties (Interpreted in light of Specification paragraph [0106]).
(4) The “user interface” is identified as being populated listing a set of crop products that satisfy one or more quality specification requirements selected by a user and further modified to include or remove target products based on a predicted quality specification.
(5) The “a client device” is identified as displaying the interface.
(6) The “satellite image data” is identified as being acted upon by the general image processing operations to extract canopy properties (Interpreted in light of Specification paragraph [0106]).
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: transmitting data or information via a network (e.g., satellite image data), storing and retrieving information from a memory (e.g., crop data and listing), displaying and updating information on a generic computer display (e.g., crop product listings) and performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., “processing” images to identify one or more properties of a crop product and adjusting a mathematical model).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of receiving requests for agricultural assessing crop characteristics associated with the requests and listing crop products on a commercial exchange to facilitate transactions between parties to purchase and sell the agricultural goods. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., receiving requests for agricultural assessing crop characteristics associated with the requests and listing crop products on a commercial exchange to facilitate transactions between parties to purchase and sell the agricultural goods, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of receiving requests for agricultural assessing crop characteristics associated with the requests and listing crop products on a commercial exchange to facilitate transactions between parties to purchase and sell the agricultural goods benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 10 and 19 are directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
New claim 25 lists sensor-based measurements that may be applied to measure crop quality including “…an optical measurement operation, a thermal measurement operation, a microwave measurement operation, a radar measurement operation, and a LIDAR measurement operation…”. While the listing provides clarity with respect to particular sensor measurements that may generally be applied to assess potential crop quality, the recitation(s) constitute adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., data gathering using generic sensor arrangements – see MPEP 2106.05(g)activity.
Dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, 21-25, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Subject Matter Overcoming Art of Record
[6] The most closely applicable prior art of record is presented as ‘cited not applied’ to McNew (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0246050). McNew provides a system and method for executing an agricultural product marketplace which includes determinations of pricing of goods at different locations by adjusting costs/prices based on a determined transportation cost and storage cost at various locations in the supply chain. The adjusted pricing is reasonably a form of translated price in the context of the instant application.
While McNew is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Specifically, while McNew calculates an adjusted price based on transportation costs and storage costs of a commodity, McNew fails to disclose a determination of quality characteristics assessed at a plurality of production locations including extracting canopy properties and determining crop quality specifications for a location based on determined conservation management practices determined based on the extracted canopy properties.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[7] Applicant's remarks filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-24 (now claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-25 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 12 August 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update), published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024. Additionally, Applicant substantially rehashes arguments previously presented in the prior response. These arguments are addressed in accordance with Examiner’s response in the prior Office Action(s) mailed 12 August 2025 and 27 February 2025, incorporated in response.
Conclusion
[8] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lorek, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM FOR IN-VIVO, REAL-TIME AGRICULTURE OPTIMIZATION CRIVEN BY LOW-COST, PERSISTENT MEASUREMENT OF PLANT-LIGHT INTERACTIONS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0059202, paragraphs [0048]-[0049]: Relevant Teachings: Lorek discloses a system/method that applies AI to near IR imaging of plant canopy to assess growing conditions at an agricultural site.
Mewes et al., MODELING AND PREDICTION OF BELOW-GROUND PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULATURAL BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS IN PRECISION AGRICULTURE, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/00507441, paragraphs [0034]-[0037]: Relevant Teachings: Mewes discloses a system/method that utilizes machine learning models to predict agricultural yields using satellite data as a model input.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625