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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 20, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To fall in line with MPEP 2106.05(f) and in response to amendments, Examiner presents the following analysis under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the accessing and generating steps are abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accessing data and generating a production target plan involves observations and evaluations that can practically be performed with pen and paper or in the human mind. The specific modelling used to generate the plan involves mathematical concepts. Use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to perform these steps amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is examiner’s position that planting the multiple production fields consistent with the target plan amounts to adding the words apply it with the abstract idea. Using a farm implement to perform the planting amounts to using the farm implement in its ordinary capacity. Invoking the farm implement, in its ordinary capacity, merely as a tool to execute the abstract idea does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) There is no improvement to any computer or technology.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, Examiner notes that generating a plan and then planting, by one or more farm implements, … consistent with the plan, does not offer any improvement to any computer or technology. The planting, by farm implements is the mere application of the plan and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As stated by Applicant, the claims are directed to how production fields and seeds are utilized which is an evaluation that one could perform in the mind or with pen and paper and in this case, using mathematical concepts. Applicant continues by arguing the claims are not directed to mental process seemingly because the computations and evaluations are too complex, however, performing the claimed evaluation steps by a computer amounts to using the computer in its ordinary capacity to carry out the abstract idea and any improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Under step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant emphasizes the mathematical processing is applied to determine a production target plan identifying production fields and seeds to be planted therein, which is then implemented through planting operations. As stated above, designating production fields and which seeds are to be planted in the designated fields are party of the production target plan determination and is an abstract idea which includes mental processes and mathematical concepts. Implementing
through planting operations amounts to adding the words apply it with the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, Applicant asserts the claims the eligible. Examiner notes that while the claim have been designated as novel under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, that novelty lies within the abstract generating and determining steps. The additional elements of the claim are evaluated, alone and in combination to determine if they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Prong 2 and if the additional elements in combination with the abstract idea amount to significantly more. Here, the additional elements are the computing device and the planting step and taken in combination with the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and use of a machine in its ordinary capacity. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The formula includes several variables which are not defined in the claim. Please make appropriate corrections.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9, 15, 18, 19 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9, 15, 18, 19 is/are directed to a method and system. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental process and mathematical concepts.
More specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
accessing data representative of: a seed offering including multiple different seeds, a capacity of multiple production fields, and probability distributions for yield across the multiple fields and for demand for the multiple different seeds, and further based on:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
generating a production target plan, based on a stochastic model including multiple scenarios generated from the probability distributions of yield, demand and carry-in inventory, for the multiple different seeds and for the production fields and wherein the production target plan includes designations of the production fields and indications of seeds to be planted in the designated production fields;
Independent claim 15 recites:
access data representative of: a seed offering including multiple different seeds, a capacity of multiple production fields, and probability distributions for yield across the multiple fields and for demand for the multiple different seeds, the probability distributions including one or more yield distributions, one or more carry-in distributions, and one or more demand distributions;
generate a production target plan, based on a stochastic model including multiple scenarios generated from the probability distributions of yield, demand and carry-in inventory, for the multiple different seeds and for the production fields and wherein the production target plan includes designations of the production fields and indications of seeds to be planted in the designated production fields;
In both claim 1 and claim 15, accessing data representative of seed offerings and generating a production target plan is an abstract mental process that can practically be performed in the mind or with pen and paper. One can practically gather the data and use observations and evaluation to generate the plan. The use of a stochastic model, as claimed, is a mathematical concept.
The nominal recitation of a computing device and planting by a farm implement [claim 1] and a system comprising a computing device and direct a farm implement [claim 15] does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using 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 claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The computer system devices of independent claims 1 and 15 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to perform these steps amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is examiner’s position that planting the multiple production fields consistent with the target plan amounts to adding the words apply it with the abstract idea. Using a farm implement to perform the planting amounts to using the farm implement in its ordinary capacity. Invoking the farm implement, in its ordinary capacity, merely as a tool to execute the abstract idea does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) There is no improvement to any computer or technology.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 3, 6, 18, 19 each recite additional abstract mental and mathematical data analysis steps associated with independent claim 1. None of claims 3, 6, 18, 19 recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 7-9 each recite steps of delivering seeds, packaging seeds and directing seeds to containers which each amount to adding the words apply it with the abstract idea. These claims do not offer any technical improvement and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bull et al, US 2023/0177622 – Hybrid Seed Selection and Seed Portfolio Optimization by Field - generating, by a server, representative yield values for a group of seeds based on historical agricultural data, generating a dataset of risk values for the seeds, and generating a dataset of target seeds from the seeds for planting in one or more target fields based on: the dataset of risk values, the representative yield values, and properties for the target field(s). The method also includes generating, by the server, allocation instructions for the target seeds included in the dataset of target seeds, where the allocation instructions are indicative of, for each target seed, a planting quantity for the target seed and a planting location for the target seed within the target field
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights