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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed February 9th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 11-20 are currently pending in the Application.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been considered and overcome the art of record. Therefore, the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the objections of the drawings have been fully considered and remain objected. Specifically, the provided drawing FIG. 6b and FIG.6c is not clear and readable Therefore, the drawings remain objected.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 101 have been considered and remain rejected. Specifically..
Applicant asserts
As amended, the claims are directed to a technical improvement in the operation of
agricultural machinery, and not to an abstract idea or a mere mathematical relationship in the
abstract……The aforementioned features define the physical operation of a tractor-implement system, which involve sensor-based acquisition of real-world data, and therefore provide a practical
technological solution for improving agricultural implement operation.
Examiner response
The examiner has carefully considered applicant remarks but respectfully disagrees. The claim does not define the physical operation of a tractor implement system, instead it merely observes it. The limitation of sensor based acquisition of real-world data is merely data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claim concludes by “generating….a recommendation
to a user” which is simply providing information or a recommendation to a human operator does not physically control or improve the operation of the tractor.
Applicant asserts
As explained in Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), claims
that are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality are not abstract at Step 2A.
In the present invention, the claims recite a defined sensor-based data processing system for
acquiring and processing physical parameters of a tractor-implement system, including measured
forces and velocities, to determine soil condition and generate operational recommendations.
Accordingly, the amended claims provide a technical contribution and improvement over
conventional tractor operation techniques that do not dynamically process measured physical data
to determine optimal operating ranges.
Examiner response
The examiner has carefully considered applicant remarks but respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite a improvement to a computer functionality. The controller, the communication interface, and the IoT device are recited as generic components functioning in their conventional capacities to process data, and display a recommendation, which is merely using a generic computer to execute an abstract idea faster or more accurately is not an improvement to the computer itself.
Applicant asserts
The Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not merely recite data analysis or
mathematical relationships in the abstract. Instead, the claims, as amended, apply the recited
techniques to a specific technical context, namely operation of a tractor-implement system in an
agricultural environment, using defined sensor-based measurements and controller-driven
processing to transform measured physical forces and velocities into soil-condition determinations
and operational recommendations. The claimed invention therefore provides a technical solution
for determining optimal operational ranges of a tractor and its implement based on real-time
physical interaction with soil. The Applicant further submits that the claimed steps are not post-solution activity, nor are they mere data gathering
Examiner response
The examiner has carefully considered applicant remarks but respectfully disagrees. The physical components such as a tractor is merely the environment from which data is gathered. The final step that is recited of outputting a recommendation is insignificant post-solution activity, which is merely displaying the result of the abstract idea.
Applicant asserts
When considered as an ordered combination, the claims
recite non-conventional and non-generic arrangements, including sensor-based measurement of
draft forces at multiple hitch points, computation of a cumulative draft force for soil-type
determination, coordinated measurement of implement peripheral velocity and tractor forward
velocity, and generation of user recommendations based on comparison of a velocity ratio with
soil-specific optimal ranges.
The Applicant submits that the claimed features go beyond merely applying an abstract
idea using generic computing elements. Instead, the claimed invention provides a specific
technical solution to a technical problem of optimizing tractor-implement operation based on real-
time soil conditions, thereby improving agricultural work quality and efficiency. Accordingly, the
claims recite an inventive concept and constitute significantly more than any alleged abstract idea
under Step 2B.
Examiner response
The examiner has carefully considered applicant remarks but respectfully disagrees. When viewing as a ordered combination the claims recites the sequence of data gathering (sensor), transmitting data (communication interface), processing data (IoT device), and displaying output (generating a recommendation). The claims leaves the physical optimization entirely to the user who receives the recommendation.
Therefore, the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 101 are sustained.
Specification Objections
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract
is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in
the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative
applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of
a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed
to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process,
product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The
abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where
applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and
operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a
mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an
apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally
limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for
guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the provided drawing are not clear and readable. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites: A method for determining operational ranges of a tractor and an implement of the tractor, the method comprising:
measuring, by a sensor unit of the tractor, forces experienced at links of at least one hitch point of the tractor, and computing, by a controller of the tractor, a draft force by accumulating the measured forces;
determining, by the controller of the tractor, a type of soil on which the tractor is plying based on the computed draft force;
determining, by the sensor unit, a rotational peripheral velocity of the implement, connected to the tractor, and a forward velocity of the tractor;
transmitting, by the tractor, to an electronic/Internet of Things (IoT) device, through a communication interface, the computed draft force, the determined rotational peripheral velocity of the implement, and the measured forward velocity of the tractor; and
generating, by the electronic/Internet of Things (IoT) device, a recommendation to a user to adjust at least one of the rotational peripheral velocity of the implement and the forward velocity of the tractor by:
determining a ratio of the rotational peripheral velocity of the implement and the forward velocity of the tractor,
comparing the ratio of the rotational peripheral velocity of the implement and the forward velocity of the tractor with an optimal range associated with the determined type of soil, and providing the recommendation based on whether the ratio lies within the optimal range.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of a recommendation to adjust at least one of the rotational peripheral velocity of the implement and the forward velocity of the tractor based on the type of soil, the rotational peripheral velocity of the implement, and the forward velocity of the tractor. This is equivalent to a farmer that feels the tractor engine bog down and the seat pull backward as the implement digs into the dirt, mentally processing the physical resistance, wherein the farmer listens to the blades spinning extremely fast but the tractor is not moving, then the farmer forms a mental judgement on how to fix the issue by shifting up a gear to increase the forward speed.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person providing a recommendation to a tractor driver adjust velocities based on the soil type, and the mere nominal recitation that the transmission is being executed by a computer executing a program does not take the limitation out of the mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining operational ranges of a tractor and an implement of the tractor, the method comprising:
measuring, by a sensor unit of the tractor, forces experienced at links of at least one hitch point of the tractor, and computing, by a controller of the tractor, a draft force by accumulating the measured forces;
determining, by the controller of the tractor, a type of soil on which the tractor is plying based on the computed draft force;
determining, by the sensor unit, a rotational peripheral velocity of the implement, connected to the tractor, and a forward velocity of the tractor;
transmitting, by the tractor, to an electronic/Internet of Things (IoT) device, through a communication interface, the computed draft force, the determined rotational peripheral velocity of the implement, and the measured forward velocity of the tractor; and
generating, by the electronic/Internet of Things (IoT) device, a recommendation to a user to adjust at least one of the rotational peripheral velocity of the implement and the forward velocity of the tractor by:
determining a ratio of the rotational peripheral velocity of the implement and the forward velocity of the tractor,
comparing the ratio of the rotational peripheral velocity of the implement and the forward velocity of the tractor with an optimal range associated with the determined type of soil, and providing the recommendation based on whether the ratio lies within the optimal range.
The underlined portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
The “measuring..”, “determining, by the sensor unit..”, “transmitting, by the tractor..” steps recited in the claim is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “generating, by the electronic…”, and “providing the recommendation..” steps is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the mental process) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally, “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the process steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. 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 performance of an action 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).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 16 is likewise rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 12-15, and 17-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, In claim 12, the addition limitations of
“wherein: the type of the soil is one of a soft soil, a medium-hard soil, and a hard soil;
the type of soil is soft soil if the draft force is less than a first predefined threshold force;
the type of soil is medium-hard soil if the draft force is greater than the first predefined threshold force and less than a second predefined threshold force; and
the type of soil is hard soil if the draft force is greater than the second predefined threshold force”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. The method in claim 12, specifically the limitation above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, and abstract idea. It merely consists of identifying a difference in the texture of the soil types, such as soft, medium, and hard . This is equivalate to a person mentally observing the soils and identifying the texture mold based on thresholds.
As such, claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights