DETAILED ACTION
This action is filed in response to the amendment filed on 7/15/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/15/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed on 7/10/2026. This IDS has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 with regard to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 2 of the remarks filed 7/15/2026, that independent claims 1, 13, and 17 are not directed towards abstract ideas because the claims are “directed to processing scan-derived agricultural information rather than to merely observing or evaluating information mentally.” Examiner notes this argument is not persuasive as the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person' s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.' ' ). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.
Regarding the instant application, although the method recites using a computer to generate a model, overlaying a map on that model, and then performing mathematics based on that model there is nothing inherent to the claim that would prevent the abstract limitations of the overlay and alignment of points onto a map to be interpreted as mental process that could be performed with pen and paper, while selecting crops based on the output of a mathematical equation is a mental evaluation that can be performed in the human mind.
Applicant next argues on page 3 of the Remarks that the independent claims contain additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas because the operations in the claims improve the manner in which crop performance information is generated and evaluated. Examiner notes this argument is not persuasive because, as recited in MPEP 2106.05(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Here the only additional elements to the abstract ideas are routine data gathering or routine and conventional model generation, neither of which are an improvement.
Applicant further argues on Remarks page 4 the newly amended limitation of selecting a crop based on the yield is a real-world application thus integrating the abstract idea. The process of selecting a crop can be reasonably performed in the human mind is therefore does not meet the standard of significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Lastly, applicant argues, on page 5, that because the Claims contain allowable subject matter, that in itself is an indication of significantly more than the abstract ideas. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
For at least these reasons, and the additional rationales fully enumerated in the rejection below, the 35 USC 101 rejections for Claims 1-9, 12-14, and 16-19 are maintained.
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 1-9, 12-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. Claim 1, and similarly Claims 13 and 17 recites the following abstract concepts in BOLD of:
A computer-implemented method for use in adjusting yield values for crops based on scan data associated with the crops, the method comprising:
Capturing scan data specific to a plot;
generating by a computing device, a canopy height model (CHM) for the captured scan data, wherein the CHM defines height above ground values for each pixel in the captured scan data;
overlaying, by the computing device, the CHM on a map of the plot;
computing, by the computing device, a plant height for plants in the plot based on canopy hits in the CHM aligned with the plants in the map of the plot;
determining, by the computing device, a neighboring plant height difference based on the plant height for the plot and a plant height for each of at least one neighboring plot to said plot;
computing, by the computing device, a yield adjustment based on the determined neighboring plant height difference(s) and the following equation:
Yij = μ + αi + bj + β*(Δ_1/2 + Δ_r/2) + εij;
wherein Yij is the yield of the jth plant in the ith plot, Δ_1 is the difference between the given plot plant height and the left neighboring plot plant height, Δ_r is the difference between the given plot plant height and the right neighboring plot plant height, μ is the overall mean yield, αi is the effect of the ith plot, bj is the effect of the jth plant, β is the effect of the covariate of (Δ_1/2 + Δ_r/2), and εij is a residual of the jth plant in the ith plot; and
determining, by the computing device, a plot yield for the plot, based on the yield adjustment; and
select a crop included in the plot, based on the plot yield for the plot, to advance in a breeding pipeline.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category because Claim 1 teaches a method, Claim 13 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and Claim 17 teaches a system.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps. The steps of overlaying the CHM on a map of the plot, determining a neighboring plant height difference, determining a plot yield, and selecting a crop included in the plot yield can all be interpreted as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. While the steps of computing a plant height and computing a yield adjustment can both be interpreted as performing mathematics.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, nor do they represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Examiner also notes the improvement cannot be the abstract idea itself (See MPEP 2106.05(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”).
Under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claims 1 and 17 include the additional element of a computing device, and Claim 13 includes at least one processor. Both are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Furthermore, the step of capturing scan data recites necessary data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
And finally, the step of generating a canopy height model for the captured scan data invokes computers as a tool to perform an existing process, which constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception and not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
Claims 2-9, 12, 14,16, and 18-19 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea:
Claims 2, 9, 14, and 18 further limit the abstract idea determining a canopy height model.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 12, 16 and 19 recite necessary data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea of determining the neighboring plant height difference.
Claim 5 further limits the mathematics performed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 12-14, 16-19 contain allowable subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 17 Examiner notes the closest prior art to be Yuan (US20220156917 A1) and Jearakongman et al. "Effect of Plot Size on Accuracy of Yield Estimation of Rainfed Lowland Rice Genotypes with Different Plant Heights and Grown under Different Soll Ferlllity Conditions." Plant Production Science, Vol. 6, 2003, pages 95-102 (hereinafter "Jearakongman").
None of the prior art discloses or renders obvious the method as claimed wherein “a yield adjustment based on the determined neighboring plant height difference(s) and the following equation: Yij = μ + αi + bj + β*(Δ_1/2 + Δ_r/2) + εij; wherein Yij is the yield of the jth plant in the ith plot, Δ_1 is the difference between the given plot plant height and the left neighboring plot plant height, Δ_r is the difference between the given plot plant height and the right neighboring plot plant height, μ is the overall mean yield, αi is the effect of the ith plot, bj is the effect of the jth plant, β is the effect of the covariate of (Δ_1/2 + Δ_r/2), and εij is a residual of the jth plant in the ith plot.”
Claims 2-9 and 12 would be allowable based on their dependence on Claim 1.
Claims 14 and 16 would be allowable based on their dependence on Claim 13.
Claims 18 and 19 would be allowable based on their dependence on Claim 17.
Conclusion
Examiner notes there are no prior art rejections, but Examiner is unable to comment on the allowability of the claims until the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections are addressed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYLA GAVIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1592. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/NYLA GAVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights