DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 09/10/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-15 are examined and pending. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-15 are currently amended and claims 3, 6-7, and 10 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as previously presented has been withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendment raises new rejection addressed below under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such the rejection(s) under 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Step 2A: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite that the controller is configured or programmed to (1) define a first area including the one or more headlands and a second area located inward of the first area based on at least one of the contour of the agricultural field, the working width, the overlap-on-headland, or the headland count; (2) create a travel route along which the agricultural machine is to travel to perform agricultural work with the working device in at least the second area of the first and second areas, based on at least the first area, the second area, the working width, the working direction, the overlap between the plurality of working widths, or the overlap-on- headland; and (3) calculate, based on the working width and the travel route, (i) a predicted work path which is a predicted work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted to perform the agricultural work with the working device while traveling based on the travel route and (ii) a predicted non-work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted not to perform the agricultural work with the working device. These functions (1) - (3) performed by the controller do not correspond to a judicial exception such as a mental process. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind, and a step or limitation that recites a function performed by a processor that requires action by the processor that cannot be practically applied in the human mind does not recite a mental process. In other words, a processor function that is not practically performed in the human mind is nota mental process. See, for example, the example in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) in which "a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites" does not recite a mental process because the claimed feature cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Like the MPEP example discussed above, the functions (1)-(3) performed by Applicant's controller cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, Applicant's claimed invention does not recite an abstract idea of a mental process..
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. The independent claim(s) recite defining a first area including the one or more headlands and a second area located inward of the first area based on at least one of the contour of the agricultural field, the working width, the overlap-on-headland, or the headland count; create a travel route along which the agricultural machine is to travel to perform agricultural work with the working device in at least the second area of the first and second areas, based on at least the first area, the second area, the working width, the working direction, the overlap between the plurality of working widths, or the overlap-on-headland; calculate, based on the working width and the travel route, (i) a predicted work path which is a predicted work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted to perform the agricultural work with the working device while traveling based on the travel route and (ii) a predicted non-work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted not to perform the agricultural work with the working device. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “the controller” nothing in the claim(s) limitation(s) preclude the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such as agricultural field data (headland counts, width of working area, headlands overlap, etc.,) could define a first area including the one or more headlands and a second area located inward of the first area based on at least one of the contour of the agricultural field, the working width, the overlap-on-headland, or the headland count; create a travel route along which the agricultural machine is to travel to perform agricultural work with the working device in at least the second area of the first and second areas, based on at least the first area, the second area, the working width, the working direction, the overlap between the plurality of working widths, or the overlap-on-headland; calculate, based on the working width and the travel route, (i) a predicted work path which is a predicted work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted to perform the agricultural work with the working device while traveling based on the travel route and (ii) a predicted non-work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted not to perform the agricultural work with the working device. The mere nominal recitation of the “the controller” to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
Secondly, applicant argues Step 2A, Prong 2 as follows:
Applicant respectfully submits that even assuming arguendo that Applicant's claimed invention could somehow be interpreted as reciting a judicial exception such as an abstract idea of a mental process, Applicant's amended claims would still be patent eligible because Applicant's claims would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because Applicant's claims represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer.
More specifically, MPEP 2106.05(a)(1)(example x.), which is based on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Nos. 2016-2684, 2017-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018) (hereinafter Core Wireless), explains that an improved display of data can represent an improvement to computer functionality. In Core Wireless, the CAFC held that claims directed to user-interfaces (i.e., displays) and the functions of an application and data associated therewith were patent eligible, finding that the claimed approach was an eligible improvement to a computer system rather than simply the use of computers as a tool. More specifically, the CAFC stated:
The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user
interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index, as argued
by LG on appeal. Although the generic idea of summarizing information
certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a
particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic
devices.... These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a
limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user
interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved
systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims
recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user
interface for electronic devices.
Similarly to Core Wireless, Applicant's claimed invention provides an improvement to an agricultural work assistance apparatus, including improvements directed to a user interface (i.e., a display and an input interface) for a computing device (i.e., a controller including a processor that performs functions based on an input). In particular, Applicant's claimed invention discloses a specific manner to (1) cause the display to display the predicted work path in an emphasized manner compared to the predicted non-work portion when the user selects the path prediction key (see, for example, Fig. 14B of Applicant's drawings), and (2) cause the display to display the predicted non-work portion in an emphasized manner compared to the predicted work path when the user selects the non-work portion key (see, for example, Fig. 15 of Applicant's drawings).
Therefore, even assuming arguendo that any of the features recited in
Applicant's claims could somehow be interpreted as reciting a mental process or other abstract idea, Applicant's claimed invention is patent eligible also because Applicant's claims amount to significantly more than a judicial exception itself because they represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer.
For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant's claimed invention is directed to patentable subject matter, and Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of Applicant's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 2 and respectfully disagree. The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of receive input, by a user, of at least one of a working width of a working device connected to an agricultural machine, an overlap between a plurality of the working widths, a headland count indicating a number of one or more headlands along the contour of the agricultural field in the agricultural field, an overlap-on-headland which is an overlap of the working width with one of the one or more headlands, or a working direction; the controller is configured or programmed to: define a first area including the one or more headlands and a second area located inward of the first area based on at least one of the contour of the agricultural field, the working width, the overlap-on-headland, or the headland count; cause the display to display a route creation screen including the contour of the agricultural field, the travel route, the predicted work path, the predicted non-work portion, a path prediction key, and a non-work portion key; cause the display to display the predicted work path in an emphasized manner compared to the predicted non-work portion when the user selects the path prediction key; and cause the display to display the predicted non-work portion in an emphasized manner compared to the predicted work path when the user selects the non-work portion key; a controller including a processor; a display; a memory, and an input interface. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data (headland counts, width of working area, headlands overlap, etc.,)), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the determining/planning step(s)) and amount to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited additional limitation(s) of a controller including a processor; a display; a memory, and an input interface are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, displaying, and devices (e.g. controller and processor) elements/steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under USC 101 is maintained herein.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 11-15 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.
In claim 1 lines 16-18, the recited limitation “define a first area including the one or more headlands and a second area located inward of the first area based on at least one of the contour of the agricultural field, the working width, the overlap-on-headland, or the headland count” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the predicted non-work portion recited previously or is a different predicted non-work portion.
In claim 3 lines 2-3, the recited limitation(s) “display the predicted work portion and predicted non-work portion in different manner” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what in different matter mean and what are the boundaries of the different manner.
In claim 5 line 4, the recited limitation “an actual non-work portion” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the actual non-work portion recited previously or is a different predicted non-work portion.
In claim 6 lines 2-3, the recited limitation(s) display the predicted work portion and predicted non-work portion in different manner” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what in different matter mean and what are the boundaries of the different manner.
In claim 8 line 3, the recited limitation “the number of one or more headlands set” is indefinite. there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the recited limitation “the one or more headlands” recited in line 5 is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the headlands set or is one or more headlands but not the set recited previously.
In claim 11, the recited limitation(s) “wherein the display is operable to display, in different manners” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what in different matter mean and what are the boundaries of the different manner.
In claim 12 lines 2-3, the recited limitation(s) “an agricultural machine” and agricultural work” are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the previously recited agricultural machine and agricultural work or if these are different limitations.
In claim 13 line 10, the recited limitation “a travel route” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is the travel route recited previously or is a different travel route.
In claim 14 line 4, the recited limitation(s) “a working device” and “agricultural work” in line 4 are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the working device and agricultural work recited previously or if these are different limitations.
In claim 15 line 4, the recited limitation “agricultural work” in line 3 is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the working device and agricultural work recited previously or if these are different limitations.
Claim 9 is rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. Independent claim 1 recite defining a first area including the one or more headlands and a second area located inward of the first area based on at least one of the contour of the agricultural field, the working width, the overlap-on-headland, or the headland count; create a travel route along which the agricultural machine is to travel to perform agricultural work with the working device in at least the second area of the first and second areas, based on at least the first area, the second area, the working width, the working direction, the overlap between the plurality of working widths, or the overlap-on-headland; calculate, based on the working width and the travel route, (i) a predicted work path which is a predicted work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted to perform the agricultural work with the working device while traveling based on the travel route and (ii) a predicted non-work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted not to perform the agricultural work with the working device. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “the controller” nothing in the claim(s) limitation(s) preclude the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such as agricultural field data (headland counts, width of working area, headlands overlap, etc.,) could define a first area including the one or more headlands and a second area located inward of the first area based on at least one of the contour of the agricultural field, the working width, the overlap-on-headland, or the headland count; create a travel route along which the agricultural machine is to travel to perform agricultural work with the working device in at least the second area of the first and second areas, based on at least the first area, the second area, the working width, the working direction, the overlap between the plurality of working widths, or the overlap-on-headland; calculate, based on the working width and the travel route, (i) a predicted work path which is a predicted work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted to perform the agricultural work with the working device while traveling based on the travel route and (ii) a predicted non-work portion where the agricultural machine is predicted not to perform the agricultural work with the working device. The mere nominal recitation of the “the controller” to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
Independent claim 1 recite the additional limitations/elements of The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of receive input, by a user, of at least one of a working width of a working device connected to an agricultural machine, an overlap between a plurality of the working widths, a headland count indicating a number of one or more headlands along the contour of the agricultural field in the agricultural field, an overlap-on-headland which is an overlap of the working width with one of the one or more headlands, or a working direction; the controller is configured or programmed to: define a first area including the one or more headlands and a second area located inward of the first area based on at least one of the contour of the agricultural field, the working width, the overlap-on-headland, or the headland count; cause the display to display a route creation screen including the contour of the agricultural field, the travel route, the predicted work path, the predicted non-work portion, a path prediction key, and a non-work portion key; cause the display to display the predicted work path in an emphasized manner compared to the predicted non-work portion when the user selects the path prediction key; and cause the display to display the predicted non-work portion in an emphasized manner compared to the predicted work path when the user selects the non-work portion key; a controller including a processor; a display; a memory, and an input interface. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data (headland counts, width of working area, headlands overlap, etc.,)), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the determining/planning step(s)) and amount to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited additional limitation(s) of a controller including a processor; a display; a memory, and an input interface are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, receiving and displaying steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-15 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 USC 101 set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667