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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the claims are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant continues the assertion stating, “the specific “resource planning related to planting, demand, availability, etc., define a complexity that is beyond conventional techniques. The pending claims provide for and implement modeling as a basis to make decisions about planting…” This can be considered a solution to a business problem, however, the solution to resource planning as described above, is not a technical solution to a technical problem. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. MPEP 2106.05(a). Here, the specification only describes the claimed invention as a solution to the process of decision making regarding planting or decisions about fulfilling agricultural demand for seeds which is not a technical solution.
In addition, on page 6 of the remarks, Applicant continues describing the purported technical improvement, but fails to point out any such improvement to technology and only references inventory decisions and a predictive analytics tool, etc. Examiner asserts that defining a manner of planting the available fields to produce product consistent with demand, carry-over and/or yield is not a technological solution. They are data analysis steps associated with business decisions that can be considered certain methods of organizing human activity as they relate to supply/demand which is a fundamental business process. Further, the claims relate to commercial interactions which is also certain methods of organizing human activity.
With respect to the technological improvement, the computing device merely functions to implement the abstract idea. The inclusion of the farm implements does not present a technological improvement. It merely applies the abstract idea thus not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Applicant comments about transformation, per MPEP 2016.05(c), [t]he physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. "Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. [emphasis added]. As claimed, the production fields are merely used and not transformed as required. This is different than the process of Diamond v. Diehr wherein a transformation exists.
Applicant compares the claimed invention to that of McRO arguing the claims define a specific technique that outperforms conventional techniques. Examiner notes that in McRO the Federal Circuit held the claims to be patent eligible because they were not directed to an abstract idea. The claims herein are directed to an abstract idea therefore the analysis in McRO does not apply here.
Applicant also argues the farm implement is not executing an existing process, but instead is functioning differently. This assertion is not supported by the specification. The specification merely discloses the planters may be loaded with desired seed, based on the instructions, and then operated to traverse the fields to plant the seed. It is clear there is no description of how the implements or plants are functioning differently or are improved. Rather, they are used in their ordinary capacity to implement the abstract idea. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to the claims overcomes the prior art of record. The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 has been 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 15, 17-19 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, 5-9, 15, 17-19 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 certain methods of organizing human activity.
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 multiple scenarios indicative of the probability distributions, for the multiple different seeds and for the production fields; and
planting, by one or more farm implements, the multiple production fields consistent with the production target plan.
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 multiple scenarios indicative of the probability distributions, for the multiple different seeds and for the production fields; and
direct one or more farm implements to plant the multiple production fields consistent with the production target plan.
The claims recite data analysis steps to generate a production target plan. The concept of data analysis is a fundamental business practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. The use of data analysis is also a building block of ingenuity in corporate planning. Thus, data analysis, like hedging, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of §101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2356.
In claim 15, directing one or more farm implements is part of the abstract idea because presenting instructions is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to following rules or instructions. The claim can also be construed as mental process as the steps comprise observations and evaluations that be practically performed in the mind or with pen and paper.
The nominal recitation of a computing device [claim 1] and a system comprising a computing device [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. The farm implement planting the fields amounts to using the words apply it with the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 2, 3, 5, 6, 17-19 each recite additional data analysis steps associated with independent claim 1. None of claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 17-19 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights