DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. No foreign priority has been claimed. This application is a continuation of applications 17/827,247 now US Pat # 11,797,895 filled on 05/27/2022, which is a continuation of application 17/103,836 now US Pat # 11,348,696 filled on 11/24/2020, which is a continuation of application 16/797,850 now US Pat # 10,878,967 filled on 02/21/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with the previous response.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 9/19/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for determining topographic attributes and environmental characteristics for environments, comprising:
determining respective topographic attributes and respective underlying environmental characteristics by processing raw machine data corresponding to a plurality of environments, each environment located within a respective agricultural field,
wherein processing the raw machine data includes encoding the respective topographic attributes the and respective underlying environmental characteristics into one or more respective hexagrid data structures, and
wherein each respective hexagrid data structure corresponds to an n-meter hexagonal interlocking cell in a grid corresponding to at least one of the agricultural fields; and
storing the one or more respective hexagrid data structures in one or more non- transitory computer-readable memories.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8, 15 and 21.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 8 is a system claim and claim 15 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental/ mathematical process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “determining respective topographic attributes and respective underlying environmental characteristics by processing raw machine data corresponding to a plurality of environments, each environment located within a respective agricultural field,
wherein processing the raw machine data includes encoding the respective topographic attributes the and respective underlying environmental characteristics into one or more respective hexagrid data structures, and
wherein each respective hexagrid data structure corresponds to or consists of a plurality of an n-meter hexagonal interlocking cell(s) in a grid corresponding to at least one of the agricultural fields which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8, 15 and 21.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “storing the one or more respective hexagrid data structures in one or more non- transitory computer-readable memories” (claims 1, 8, 15 and 21) which merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “a computer or processor” (claims 1, 8, 15 and 21) however the “computer or processor” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0030] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processor” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, the data is merely stored.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). Additionally, the use of hexagonal grids for encoding geographical/spatial related data as claimed is found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by Applicant’s Specification (e.g. [0025], [0047]) describing the use of commercial or open-source shape files and using standardized software libraries to generate the maps and/or shape files. Additional evidence of conventionality of the use of hexagonal grids for geospatial analysis can be found in Birch et al.1, e.g. P. 348 col. 2: “The application of grids is so frequent and routine that it is often unstated: their presence may be implicit rather than explicit even in the methods sections of scientific papers.”, P. 348 col. 1: “There are three regular tessellations of a plane: hexagons, squares and triangles (Carr et al., 1992)… The hexagonal tessellation has been used for a long time”.
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14, and 16-20, these claims merely recite further limitations that are part of the abstract idea, e.g. mental processes.
Some of the dependent claims also recite the additional elements of “displaying” data on a “graphical user interface” (claims 4-6, 11-13, 18-20) and receiving user input via a GUI (claim 5, 12, 19), however such input and output of information via a display/interface is merely the use of a general purpose computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea and/or is merely insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering or output) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, when reevaluated under Step 2B the claims are found to merely use a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea, and the insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. inputting and outputting of data on a computer, is further found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions as evidenced by the examples set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, the dependent claims also fail to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more.
Additionally, dependent claims 7 and 14 recite the processing of data “using a trained machine learning model” however this provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the recitation of “using a trained machine learning model” merely attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment of using generic “machine learning” to perform the analysis that is otherwise abstract. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application under Prong 2 and similarly fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 in view of Birch et al. NPL: Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology.
With regards to claims 1, 8 and 15 Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches a computer-implemented method and system for determining topographic attributes and environmental characteristics for environments, comprising:
determining respective topographic attributes and respective underlying environmental characteristics by processing raw machine data corresponding to a plurality of environments, each environment located within a respective agricultural field, (paragraph 0154- 0158)
wherein processing the raw machine data includes encoding the respective topographic attributes the and respective underlying environmental characteristics into one or more respective data structures, (figure 6) (paragraph 0154-0158)and
wherein each respective data structure corresponds to an n-meter interlocking cell in a grid corresponding to at least one of the agricultural fields; (figure 6) (paragraph 0154- 0158) and
storing the one or more respective data structures in one or more non- transitory computer-readable memories. (figure 6) (paragraph 0160)
Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches the claimed invention but does not appear to teach the use of a hexagrid structure.
Birch et al. (NPL) teaches the use of a hexagrid structure to survey vegetation. (Page 350, section 3.2 Field survey, lines 1-22)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Aldor-Noiman et al. invention to use hexagonal grid structure to arrive at the claimed invention as the application of grids is so frequent and routine that is often unstated. (page 348, section 2. A study of the current use of grids, lines 1-10) (Page 348, column 1, paragraph 2, lines 8-21)
Note: Although, the claimed invention refers to agricultural data and the Birch et al. reference is directed to ecological data there is overlap the two areas. Specifically, ecology is defined as the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms(an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form) to one another and to their physical surroundings. Agriculture is defined as the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products. As both may be related to plants and animals the fields are considered to be analogous in this context as agriculture and ecology may include both plants and animals.
With regards to claims 2, 9 and 16 Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches identifying a treatment difference or a product performance corresponding to one or more of the plurality of environments. (paragraph 0079)
With regards to claims 3, 10 and 17 Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches comparing one or more adjacent grids by interpolating first machine data stored in at least one of the grids with second machine data stored in a different at least one of the grids. (paragraph 0072)
With regards to claims 4, 11 and 18 Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches displaying the one or more grid data structures on a graphical user interface including one or more spatial points. (paragraph 0061) (figure 6)
With regards to claims 5, 12 and 19 Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches in response to a user selection of one of the spatial points, displaying one or more detail points on a graphical user interface, the detail points corresponding to the selected one of the spatial points. (paragraph 0061, 0128, 0143-144) (figure 6)
With regards to claims 6, 13 and 20 Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches determining one or more matching spatial points corresponding to the one or more grid data structures using a spatial distance function; and displaying the one more matching points on a graphical user interface to allow a user to visually assess matching points. (paragraph 0061, 0128, 0143-144)
With regards to claims 7 and 14 Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches determining the respective topographic attributes and respective underlying environmental characteristics by processing the raw machine data corresponding to a plurality of environments includes processing the raw machine data using a trained machine learning model. (agricultural intelligence computer; paragraph 0051)
With regards to claim 21 Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches a computing system, comprising:
One or more processors (paragraph 0060) and
One or more memories storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processor cause the computing system to(paragraph 0060):
determining respective topographic attributes and respective underlying environmental characteristics by processing raw machine data corresponding to a plurality of environments, each environment located within a respective agricultural field, (paragraph 0154- 0158)
wherein processing the raw machine data includes encoding the respective topographic attributes the and respective underlying environmental characteristics into one or more respective data structures, (figure 6) (paragraph 0154-0158)and
wherein each respective data structure consists of a plurality of n-meter interlocking cell in a grid corresponding to at least one of the agricultural fields; (abstract)(figure 6) (paragraph 0154- 0158) and
storing the one or more respective data structures in one or more non- transitory computer-readable memories. (figure 6) (paragraph 0160)
Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches the claimed invention but does not appear to teach the use of a hexagrid structure.
Birch et al. (NPL) teaches the use of a hexagrid structure to survey vegetation. (Page 350, section 3.2 Field survey, lines 1-22)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Aldor-Noiman et al. invention to use hexagonal grid structure to arrive at the claimed invention as the application of grids is so frequent and routine that is often unstated. (page 348, section 2. A study of the current use of grids, lines 1-10) (Page 348, column 1, paragraph 2, lines 8-21)
Note: Although, the claimed invention refers to agricultural data and the Birch et al. reference is directed to ecological data there is overlap the two areas. Specifically, ecology is defined as the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms(an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form) to one another and to their physical surroundings. Agriculture is defined as the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products. As both may be related to plants and animals the fields are considered to be analogous in this context as agriculture and ecology may include both plants and animals.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks filed 11/04/2025, hereinafter “Remarks”) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 are fully considered but unpersuasive. Specifically:
Argument 1. The claimed invention does not recite a mental process, and the claim limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The pending claims are directed to a computer-implemented method, system, and computer-readable medium for determining topographic attributes and environmental characteristics for agricultural environments using complex data processing techniques, including encoding information into hexagrid data structures. These steps operate on large- scale, raw machine data gathered from multiple environments-processing that is infeasible to perform in the human mind or with pen and paper. Further, certain claims (e.g., claims 7 and 14) recite processing using a trained machine learning model, which by its nature can only be performed by specialized computational hardware and software. In accordance with the USPTO's August 2025 memorandum (("Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101"; hereinafter "Reminders Memo"), examiners are instructed not to expand mental process grouping to encompass limitations that cannot practically be performed by a human. Thus, the asserted judicial exception which characterized these claims as a mental process is not applicable, and a rejection on this ground is not proper.
The claims are directed to a mental process as highlighted in the office action. Specifically, the “determining step” is considered abstract. Determinations are directed to a mental process capable of being performed by a human. The wherein clauses further expand upon this abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the data not being feasible or practical to be performed by a human, it is immaterial to the patent eligibility analysis that human minds are unable to parse, standardize, and digest the data like a computer in doing so. Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026). With regards to the “reminders memo”, the mental process grouping has not been expanded and the claims have been analyzed in accordance with the MPEP. Further, the use of a trained machine learning model merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Argument 2. The claims, at most, involve-but do not recite-a judicial exception such as a mathematical concept or abstract idea. The claims do not set forth any specific mathematical equations, relationships, or algorithms. Instead, they describe technical operations such as encoding topographic attributes into hexagrid data structures and using machine learning models to process complex environmental data. As clarified by USPTO guidance, claims that merely "involve" mathematical concepts by using them as tools or components do not recite a judicial exception itself. See Reminders Memorandum and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (explaining that, for eligibility purposes, there is a distinction between claims that recite a mathematical concept, and those that merely involve or are based on such a concept). Therefore, these claims do not fall within the scope of Step 2A, Prong 1 as reciting a mathematical concept, and eligibility analysis should not proceed further down the Alice/Mayo framework for that reason.
The independent claims do not appear to explicitly recite a mathematical concept as pointed out by the applicant. The spatial points and distance function, maybe considered a mathematical concept which are recited in some of applicants dependent claims. While these dependent claims do not explicitly list mathematical equations or algorithms the claim is still directed to an abstract idea, such as a "mental process" or a "method of organizing human activity". Applicant points to the “ encoding” step as a technical operation that is not abstract. The term “encode is interpreted as converting (information or an instruction) into a particular form. This can be done using paper and pencil. For example, a human may draw a hexagonal grid and write topographical and/or environmental data into each cell of the grid thereby “encoding” it into the hexagrid. It should be noted that the courts have explicitly found “encoding” data to be an abstract idea, e.g. MPEP 2106.05: “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). “ Further, the use of a machine learning model that maybe used merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “machine learning model” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Argument 3. The claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and recite a particular technical solution to a technical problem. When evaluated under Step 2A, Prong Two, the pending claims clearly integrate any alleged mathematical concept or mental process into a practical application. The specification explicitly describes how the claimed methods and systems solve longstanding technical challenges in spatial environmental analysis within agriculture. As recited in the background section ([0003]-[0004]), conventional approaches to field analysis are limited to crude field-level means and lack depth or spatial resolution, resulting in less informative and less actionable metrics for field comparisons and crop management. The invention addresses these problems by processing raw machine data from agricultural implements and encoding it into hexagrid data structures representing n-meter hexagonal interlocking cells mapped to agricultural fields ([0005], [0080]). This grid-based encoding facilitates fine-grained spatial segmentation and enables rich, datapoint-level resolution analysis, as opposed to prior strip-wise or field-wise averaging ([0003], [0101]). The hexagrid representation is not a generic or incidental feature; the specification describes its advantages in efficiently tiling irregularly shaped fields, facilitating seamless data interpolation, and enhancing map-based visualizations (see [0081], [0082], and Figures 2, 3, 5, 6). Even if the claims were viewed as reciting a judicial exception, they are nonetheless directed to a practical application that improves technology in a specific field. The claimed invention provides a novel and concrete solution to technical challenges in geospatial data analysis for agricultural management: raw machine data is transformed into spatially organized hexagrid data structures, which facilitates new forms of data interpolation, visualization, and user interaction not previously available in the art. When considered as a whole, these elements cooperate to achieve a meaningful improvement in the technical process of agricultural field mapping and data utilization. Per the Reminders Memo, the specification describes the advantages of such approaches, including increased accuracy and efficiency, which would be apparent to a POSITA. The claims cover a particular way of implementing these improvements, not just the idea of mapping or analyzing data.
Accordingly, the claims integrate any recited exception into a practical application, as required by Step 2A, Prong Two. See MPEP § 2106.05(a), (c), (e); Reminders Memo; and relevant specification passages ([0003]-[0007], [0080]-[0082], [0054]-[0058], [0084]-[0085], [0102]-[0103]). The claims are thus patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Applicant has not specified which particular claim limitation integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is limit to a determining step, two wherein clauses that further define the elements in the determining step and a storing step. As the determining step, and the wherein clauses are considered the abstract idea. It would appear that the applicant regards the storing step as being the practical application, but is considered to merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) The storing step is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document)
Further, applicant argues numerous advantages described in applicant’s specification and cites the “Reminders memo”. Applicant is reminded that after the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that if the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues) Applicant has failed to particularly point to the limitation that corresponds to the arguments made using applicant’s specification.
Argument 4. The claims do not merely represent the "apply it" paradigm and instead recite more than generic implementation. Contrary to the assertion that the claims merely instruct the application of an abstract idea using a computer, the present claims instead recite a sequence of specific, technical steps including hexagridding, spatial comparison, interpolation, user interaction via a GUI, and, in some cases, machine learning analysis. The claims detail how the solution is implemented and do not simply recite results-oriented functionalities. Consistent with the USPTO memo, claims that go beyond merely instructing to "apply" a concept, and instead claim particular technical details, improvements, and novel data structures, must be deemed patent eligible.
It is unclear what “hexagridding” entails, however in accordance with applicant’s specification (figure 2-3) and within the context of applicant’s invention a hexagrid is merely a honeycomb type pattern that is used breakdown an agricultural space in a grid pattern. The individual cells within the grid are labeled with different characteristics topographic (elevation, soil type, etc.) at particular location within the agricultural field. A human may map an agricultural field and break the field into a hexagrid pattern indicating different attributes (topographic and/or environmental characteristics) in each individual grid cell. Spatial comparison and interpolation are mathematical concepts that applicant has failed to integrate into a practical application. The GUI is considered extra solution activity and is found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). Finally, the “machine learning analysis” merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Argument 5. The Office must establish ineligibility by a preponderance of the evidence and refrain from rejecting claims where eligibility is a close call. The Reminders Memo makes clear that a rejection under §101 can only be maintained where it is more likely than not that the claims are ineligible. Where, as here, the claims articulate a particular technological solution that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, combine technical steps into an improved workflow, and rely on advanced computational techniques such as machine learning, the evidence weighs in favor of eligibility. To the extent that the examiner is uncertain, a rejection is not proper; the claims must be considered eligible.
In this instance the eligibility is not considered to be a “close call”. The claims have been analyzed in accordance with the MPEP. Again applicant argues that the data not being feasible or practical to be performed in the human mind, but as previously cited it is immaterial to the patent eligibility analysis that human minds are unable to parse, standardize, and digest the data like a computer in doing so. Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026).
Argument 6. The statements regarding "frequent and routine" lack required findings under Berkheimer standard . Applicant respectfully submits that the assertion that "application of grids is so frequent and routine that it is often unstated" (Birch, p. 348) is insufficient under current law and USPTO procedure to support the conclusion that the claimed implementation of a hexagonal grid data structure is "well-understood, routine, and conventional" under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Step 2B). As set forth in the USPTO's Berkheimer Memorandum and incorporated guidance in M.P.E.P. §2106.07(b), a finding that additional claim features are "well-understood, routine, and conventional" must be supported by record-based factual evidence, not merely by conclusory statements or generalized references.
Under the Berkheimer Memo and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), it is required that such a contention be demonstrated by citation to an express statement in the prior art, a relevant court decision, or a publication describing the element as such, or alternatively by taking official notice in compliance with proper procedure. The mere fact that a prior art reference-here, Birch- states generally that grids are used "so frequently and routinely as to be often unstated" in ecological field observation does not suffice to establish that the specific technical implementation claimed (mapping and encoding complex agricultural machine data into an interlocking hexagonal grid data structure) was itself well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant field.
Importantly, the cited portion of Birch refers to grids in the context of ecological field sampling and observation, not to the sophisticated, high-frequency, multi-dimensional agricultural data processing required by the claims. There is no evidence in Birch or elsewhere in the record that the detailed use and implementation of a hexagrid for spatially encoding agricultural machine data and supporting advanced analytics was widely practiced, or even disclosed, in the art at the time. As made clear in Berkheimer v. HP /nc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and explicitly incorporated into the M.P.E.P., "the mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional." Generic references or anecdotal statements regarding what is "routine" in other contexts do not constitute the requisite evidentiary support.
Accordingly, in the absence of record-based factual evidence specifically addressing the conventionality of the claimed hexagrid data encoding for agricultural machine data, the Office has not met its burden under Berkheimer and USPTO guidance. The statement relied upon in the rejection is conclusory and does not provide the factual support required for a step 2B "well- understood, routine, and conventional" finding. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn in light of the Berkheimer Memo, M.P.E.P. § 2106.07(b), and M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II).
It is the offices position, that the Birch citation meets the Berheimer standard. Specifically, under the Berkheimer Memo and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), it is required that such a contention be demonstrated by citation to an express statement in the prior art. The statement is explicit that the use of a hexagrid is well known and routine. The Birch reference meets the standard for prior art in accordance with the MPEP. The Birch reference is directed towards a
ecological data as opposed explicitly citing agricultural data but there is significant overlap in the two areas. Specifically, ecology is defined as the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms(an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form) to one another and to their physical surroundings. Agriculture is defined as the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products. As both may be related to plants, soils and animals the fields are considered to be analogous in this context as agriculture and ecology may include both plants, soils and animals. Therefore, the rejection under USC 101 and the use of the Birch reference as evidence that hexagrids are well known, routine and conventional is deemed proper. Further, applicants own specification states “In some embodiments, the present techniques may generate one or more spatial data files encoded in a suitable file format, such as a commercial or open source shapefile, a GeoJSON format, a Geography Markup Language (GML) file, etc. Such spatial data files may include one or more layers (i.e., map layers, wherein each layer represents an agricultural characteristic.”[0024] is sufficient Berkheimer evidence in and of itself to establish conventionality.
Argument 7. Conclusion re. 35 U.S.C. § 101
In summary, when analyzed under the USPTO's latest guidance, M.P.E.P. § 2106 and the Reminders Memo, the pending claims do not recite a mental process or mathematical concept, integrate any alleged exception into a practical application, and advance a particular technological improvement in geospatial agricultural data analysis. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections.
For the reasons stated above the USC 101 rejections have been deemed proper in light of the MPEP, “reminders memo” and applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Rejections under U.S.C 103 have not been found persuasive .
Applicant argues the following:
Argument 1:
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach processing of raw machine data to determine topographic attributes and environmental characteristics.
Topographic attributes are interpreted as any attribute that helps defines the shape, elevation and features or the Earth’s surface
Environmental characteristics are broadly interpreted as any characteristic having to do with the environment.
Paragraph 0079 clearly states “analyze metrics such as yield, hybrid, population, SSURGO, soil tests, or elevation, among others.” Elevation is clearly a topographical attribute.
Paragraph 0079 further teaches soil tests. This may be interpreted as an environmental characteristic as soil is related to the environment.
Paragraphs 0078-0079 are reproduced below and
[0078] In one embodiment, field health instructions 214 are programmed to provide timely remote sensing images highlighting in-season crop variation and potential concerns. Example programmed functions include cloud checking, to identify possible clouds or cloud shadows; determining nitrogen indices based on field images; graphical visualization of scouting layers, including, for example, those related to field health, and viewing and/or sharing of scouting notes; and/or downloading satellite images from multiple sources and prioritizing the images for the grower, among others.
[0079] In one embodiment, performance instructions 216 are programmed to provide reports, analysis, and insight tools using on-farm data for evaluation, insights and decisions. This enables the grower to seek improved outcomes for the next year through fact-based conclusions about why return on investment was at prior levels, and insight into yield-limiting factors. The performance instructions 216 may be programmed to communicate via the network(s) 109 to back-end analytics programs executed at external data server computer 108 and configured to analyze metrics such as yield, hybrid, population, SSURGO, soil tests, or elevation, among others. Programmed reports and analysis may include yield variability analysis, benchmarking of yield and other metrics against other growers based on anonymized data collected from many growers, or data for seeds and planting, among others.
On farm data evaluation of the soil test and elevation reads on the claim limitation data evaluation is processing of raw data and the elevation and soil tests are considered to be topographical and environmental attributes.
Argument 2:
Applicant also argues that the prior art does not teach encoding of such data into one or more hexagrid data structures.
Encoding in a computing environment is interpreted as converting the data into a form the machine can process. If a machine is processing data, it is within reasonable interpretation to conclude that the data is encoded into the proper format for the machine to process. The claims are believed to read on the cited section below.
Paragraph 0154 discusses decomposing a large set of crop yield values into smaller subsets as shown in figure 6. While the data is represented in a square configuration in figure 6, the rejection is a USC 103 and states it is obvious modification as evidenced by the prior art to substitute a hexagonal structure.
[0140] A singular value decomposition (SVD) approach is typically used to reduce an input dataset. More specifically, SVD is usually used to reduce an input dataset containing a large number of values to an output dataset containing significantly fewer value.
Argument 3:
Applicant further argues that the use of n-meter hexagonal interlocking cell is not taught by the prior art
As stated in the office action Aldor-Noiman et al. US Pub # 2017/0228475 teaches the claimed invention but does not appear to teach the use of a hexagrid structure.
Birch et al. (NPL) teaches the use of a hexagrid structure to survey vegetation. (Page 350, section 3.2 Field survey, lines 1-22)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Aldor-Noiman et al. invention to use hexagonal grid structure to arrive at the claimed invention as the application of grids is so frequent and routine that is often unstated. (page 348, section 2. A study of the current use of grids, lines 1-10) (Page 348, column 1, paragraph 2, lines 8-21)
Note: Although, the claimed invention refers to agricultural data and the Birch et al. reference is directed to ecological data there is overlap the two areas. Specifically, ecology is defined as the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms(an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form) to one another and to their physical surroundings. Agriculture is defined as the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products. As both may be related to plants and animals the fields are considered to be analogous in this context as agriculture and ecology may include both plants and animals.
Also see pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch which clearly states substituting a hexagonal grid in place of a square grid maybe appropriate depending on the requirements and objectives of the application.
“Therefore the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.”
Argument 4:
Applicant also argues that the prior art at most describes receiving crop yield data from agricultural agencies (rather than raw machine data) represents this information in square or rectangular tables and not disclose nor suggest encoding the particular attributes with technical approach recited in the claims. Applicant also argues that Birch cannot cure these deficiencies as Birch teachings regarding ecological field observations through hexagonal tessellation do not address or suggest specific technological context, purpose or implementation of the claimed invention.
First it should be noted that where the data comes from is not claimed, only that it is processed so the claims would still read on the prior art of record. Further, applicants specification does not have an explicit definition of raw machine data, only examples and broad statements of what it may be. Therefore, even if the data is gathered form agricultural agencies, the prior art reads on the claims.
With regards to the Birch argument, Birch teaches using the rectangular and/or hexagonal formats based on the preference.
See pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch. “The difficulties associated with hexagonal co-ordinates and composition and decomposition of hexagonal grids can be overcome (Her, 1993, 1995; Beecham and Farnsworth, 1998; Sahr et al., 2003). Here we have demonstrated that using or generating a hexagonal lattice in field survey is straight- forward. Currently GIS rasters in ecology are almost always rectangular grids. However, there is no intrinsic reason why they cannot be hexagonal grids. In principle remotely sensed images can just as well be rectified to hexagonal grids as rectangular grids. Therefore the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.”
Argument 5:
Applicant further argues that the combination of the prior art references would render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. Applicant goes on to state that the Aldor-Noiman reference relies on square blocks with intersections along regular x and y axes corresponding to rows and columns. Applicant states that this is a fundamental incompatibility as recognized in re Fritch and in re Ratti. Applicant refers to their response on April 30.
With regards to the Birch argument, Birch teaches using the rectangular and/or hexagonal formats based on the preference. See cited section of Birch below:
See pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch. “The difficulties associated with hexagonal co-ordinates and composition and decomposition of hexagonal grids can be overcome (Her, 1993, 1995; Beecham and Farnsworth, 1998; Sahr et al., 2003). Here we have demonstrated that using or generating a hexagonal lattice in field survey is straight- forward. Currently GIS rasters in ecology are almost always rectangular grids. However, there is no intrinsic reason why they cannot be hexagonal grids. In principle remotely sensed images can just as well be rectified to hexagonal grids as rectangular grids. Therefore the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.”
Argument 6:
Applicant also argues that there is not proper motivation to combine and that a general need for grids does not meet the standard required for obviousness. Applicant cites Pacemakers, Inc v. ST Jude medical, Inc “recognition of a need does not render obvious the achievement that meets that need.”
A key rationale from KSR is perform a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Birch (page 357) states “The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application.” Therefore, substituting a rectangular grid for a hexagonal would render predictable results.
Argument 7:
Applicant argues that the office relies on impressible hindsight. Applicant states that the rationale-i.e. that “application of grids is so frequent and routine that it is often unstated” is conclusionary and doesn’t provide a articulated reasoning for why a skilled person in the art would substitute the hexagrid structure in the claimed manner. Applicant emphasized that the offices approach was recognizing a technical problem and using backward reasoning from the claimed solution which does not satisfy the requirements under KSR.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case the examiner takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure as a proper 103 rejection uses only knowledge known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Hexagrids and the use of hexagrids as opposed to rectangular format is well documented as evidenced by Birch
See pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch. “The difficulties associated with hexagonal co-ordinates and composition and decomposition of hexagonal grids can be overcome (Her, 1993, 1995; Beecham and Farnsworth, 1998; Sahr et al., 2003). Here we have demonstrated that using or generating a hexagonal lattice in field survey is straight- forward. Currently GIS rasters in ecology are almost always rectangular grids. However, there is no intrinsic reason why they cannot be hexagonal grids. In principle remotely sensed images can just as well be rectified to hexagonal grids as rectangular grids. Therefore the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.”
For the reasons mentioned above the rejections have been deemed proper and maintained.
Argument 8
Applicant argues that the references are not properly analogous and the office has not established motivation to combine in the claimed context.
Both may be related to plants, soils and animals the fields are considered to be analogous in this context as agriculture and ecology may include both plants, soils and animals. AS previously stated, the prior art teaches elevation which is a topographical attribute and soil testing which is considered a environmental characteristic as required by the claim language.
Argument 9
Applicant argues the Birch teaching are limited to ecological field sampling not large scale agricultural machine data modeling.
There is nothing regarding the scale in the claim language. The ecological field sampling that is done in the prior art of record overlaps in context with what applicant is doing in their claimed invention. Specifically the claim only mentions topography, an agricultural field and environments. Applicant is narrowly interpreting a claim which is broadly written. An agricultural field maybe a field with crops i.e. plants grown on it. All fields have some sort of topography and environment. Therefore, the claim provides nothing specific that would make it specific to an agricultural field as opposed to a ecological field.
Argument 10
No teaching suggestion or motivation for substitution or combination in this context.
See pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch which clearly states substituting a hexagonal grid in place of a square grid maybe appropriate depending on the requirements and objectives of the application.
“Therefore the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.”
Argument 11
Technical advantages or unexpected results not disclosed or suggested by the prior art.
As seen in Birch pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch(below) substituting a square grid for a hexagonal grid is a design choice based on convenience, requirements or objectives of the application. It is unclear what technical advantage or unexpected result is achieved from the claimed invention.
“Therefore the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.”
Argument 12
Allegations of obviousness rest on conclusionary reasoning
While Birch states that the used of hex girds is so common it often goes unstated, Birch also explicitly teaches in pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch that the selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application.
The office has met the standard required by USC 103 and the rejection is deemed appropriate.
New claim 21
Applicant added new claim 21 with similar limitations to claim 15 with the difference being “consists of a plurality of”.
Argument 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the limitation is plainly not directed to a mental process, nor can it be practically performed in the human mind. The specific recitation of a computer-implemented step- structurally encoding spatial environmental data into a composite of n-meter interlocking hexagonal cells conforming to an actual agricultural field's geographic boundary-entails computational tasks and spatial partitioning impossible without computerized support and geospatially referenced data.
The claims are directed to a mental process as highlighted in the office action. Specifically, the “determining step” is considered abstract. Determinations are directed to a mental process capable of being performed by a human. The wherein clauses further expand upon this abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the data not being feasible or practical to be performed by a human, it is immaterial to the patent eligibility analysis that human minds are unable to parse, standardize, and digest the data like a computer in doing so. Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026).
Argument 2
Step 2A, Prong 2, is also satisfied, as the amended claim is even more tightly integrated into a practical application: representing one or more real-world agricultural fields with a data structure that models the actual (often irregular) field boundaries itself, as described in the specification at, for example, [0080] ("allows the data representation of the agricultural field ... to more efficiently tile irregularly-shaped fields..."). This structuring not only departs from mere abstract data manipulation, but also demonstrates a specific, technological improvement on prior field-representation and storage methods.
As seen in Birch pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch(below) substituting a square grid for a hexagonal grid is a design choice based on convenience, requirements or objectives of the application. Therefore, it is unclear what specific technological improvement applicant is referring to as the substitution would provide predictable results.
“Therefore the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.”
Argument 3
Under Step 2B, the additional limitation recited in claim 21 is neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional in the relevant art. The Office has offered no evidence-nor does any exist-that computer-implemented hexagonal data structures constrained to match actual field boundaries, as opposed to generic grids, were widely prevalent, much less commonplace, in agricultural data storage or analysis. This technical structuring goes beyond mere field sampling, and, as required by the Berkheimer Memo and MPEP § 2106.05(d), cannot be dismissed as conventional based on generalized statements about grids or grid geometries. The new limitation represents an integrated, unconventional step confining the claim to a particular, non-abstract application.
Under the Berkheimer Memo and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), it is required that such a contention be demonstrated by citation to an express statement in the prior art, a relevant court decision, or a publication describing the element as such, or alternatively by taking official notice in compliance with proper procedure. The mere fact that a prior art reference-here, Birch- states generally that grids are used "so frequently and routinely as to be often unstated" in ecological field observation does not suffice to establish that the specific technical implementation claimed (mapping and encoding complex agricultural machine data into an interlocking hexagonal grid data structure) was itself well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant field.
Importantly, the cited portion of Birch refers to grids in the context of ecological field sampling and observation, not to the sophisticated, high-frequency, multi-dimensional agricultural data processing required by the claims. There is no evidence in Birch or elsewhere in the record that the detailed use and implementation of a hexagrid for spatially encoding agricultural machine data and supporting advanced analytics was widely practiced, or even disclosed, in the art at the time. As made clear in Berkheimer v. HP /nc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and explicitly incorporated into the M.P.E.P., "the mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional." Generic references or anecdotal statements regarding what is "routine" in other contexts do not constitute the requisite evidentiary support.
Accordingly, in the absence of record-based factual evidence specifically addressing the conventionality of the claimed hexagrid data encoding for agricultural machine data, the Office has not met its burden under Berkheimer and USPTO guidance. The statement relied upon in the rejection is conclusory and does not provide the factual support required for a step 2B "well- understood, routine, and conventional" finding. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn in light of the Berkheimer Memo, M.P.E.P. § 2106.07(b), and M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II).
It is the offices position, that the Birch citation meets the Berheimer standard. Specifically, under the Berkheimer Memo and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), it is required that such a contention be demonstrated by citation to an express statement in the prior art. The statement is explicit that the use of a hexagrid is well known and routine. The Birch reference meets the standard for prior art in accordance with the MPEP. The Birch reference is directed towards a
ecological data as opposed explicitly citing agricultural data but there is significant overlap in the two areas. Specifically, ecology is defined as the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms(an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form) to one another and to their physical surroundings. Agriculture is defined as the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products. As both may be related to plants, soils and animals the fields are considered to be analogous in this context as agriculture and ecology may include both plants, soils and animals. Therefore, the rejection under USC 101 and the use of the Birch reference as evidence that hexagrids are well known, routine and conventional is deemed proper. Further, applicants own specification states “In some embodiments, the present techniques may generate one or more spatial data files encoded in a suitable file format, such as a commercial or open source shapefile, a GeoJSON format, a Geography Markup Language (GML) file, etc. Such spatial data files may include one or more layers (i.e., map layers, wherein each layer represents an agricultural characteristic.”[0024] is sufficient Berkheimer evidence in and of itself to establish conventionality.
Further, as seen in Birch pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch states substituting a square grid for a hexagonal grid is a design choice based on convenience, requirements or objectives of the application. Therefore, the office has met its burden to establish conventionality.
Argument 4
In light of the August 2025 Reminders Memo, the amended claims-particularly as set forth in new claim 21-are fully consistent with the USPTO's refined guidance. The claim now recites a specific, technical structuring of spatial data that cannot be performed mentally and does not recite or describe an abstract mathematical concept. The amendment integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a technological solution to the recognized problem of efficiently tiling and storing data for irregularly-shaped agricultural fields-an improvement over prior art approaches using generic grids, and fully supported by the specification at [0080]-[0081]. The Office has neither identified any passage in the cited art that teaches or suggests the claimed limitation, nor provided an articulated rationale as required under current USPTO and controlling law. In accordance with both the "close call" and "particularity" standards of the Memo, the record supports withdrawal of the §101 and §103 rejections.
In this instance the eligibility is not considered to be a “close call”. The claims have been analyzed in accordance with the MPEP. Again applicant argues that the data not being feasible or practical to be performed in the human mind, but as previously cited it is immaterial to the patent eligibility analysis that human minds are unable to parse, standardize, and digest the data like a computer in doing so. Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026).
Further Birch pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -357; first paragraph of Birch states substituting a square grid for a hexagonal grid is a design choice based on convenience, requirements or objectives of the application. Therefore, the office has met its burden to establish conventionality and is not persuaded that a technical improvement has been made.
“Therefore the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.”
Argument 5
The language newly added to claim 21-requiring each respective hexagrid data structure to consist of a plurality of n-meter hexagonal interlocking cells that overlap a geographic boundary of at least one of the agricultural fields-is directly supported by the specification not merely as a geometric convenience, but as a specific technological improvement. As set forth at [0080]-[0081], boundary-conforming hexagrids enable the representation and computational processing of only those portions of a grid that lie within the actual, often irregular, boundaries of an agricultural field. This resolves a longstanding problem in the art: when rectangular or arbitrary grids are imposed over a landscape, much of the grid may cover non-arable, non-farmable, or irrelevant areas-resulting in spurious data interpolation, wasted computational resources, and inaccurate agronomic analysis.
Birch pages 356; column 2, last paragraph -356; first paragraph of Birch specifically states that GIS raster in ecology are almost always rectangular grids. However, there is no intrinsic reason why they cannot be hexagonal grids. This citation provides evidence that the use of the hexagonal grid is a geometric convivence and not a technological improvement.
Argument 6
The specification (e.g., [0081]) makes explicit that interpolation and other analytic operations are performed with reference to the "edges of each hexagrid to blend ... to adjacent hexagrids and the enclosing boundaries of each agricultural field," ensuring that analytic processing is confined to true field areas. It is repeatedly made clear that points and data outside agricultural fields are neither assigned field data nor visualized for user analysis ([0082], [0084], [0085]). Accordingly, the claimed structuring results in more faithful, precise, and agronomically valid field analytics: decisions and algorithms are confined to the actual arable area, and the artifacts/distortions of non-farmable regions are eliminated.
Again Birch states “the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.” This section in conjunction with the previously cited section that the use of a hexagonal grid is so common that it often goes unstated provides evidence that the use of a hexagonal grid is routine and conventional based on requirements and objectives of the user.
Argument 7
In sum, the specification describes not just a storage or tiling advantage, but a technical improvement that ensures computation, display, and interpolation are performed only for field areas, materially advancing the reliability and accuracy of computer-implemented agricultural analytics. This is exactly the kind of field-specific, real-world technical improvement contemplated by the USPTO's Reminders Memo and controlling case law.
Again Birch states “the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.” This section in conjunction with the previously cited section that the use of a hexagonal grid is so common that it often goes unstated provides evidence that the use of a hexagonal grid is routine and conventional based on requirements and objectives of the user.
Argument 8 (USC 103)
Turning to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the newly added limitation of claim 21 further distinguishes the claims from the cited art and underscores the non-obviousness of the invention. Aldor-Noiman et al. fails entirely to disclose or suggest encoding environmental or topographic attributes into a grid structure composed specifically of n-meter hexagonal interlocking cells that are limited to those overlapping an actual agricultural field boundary. Aldor-Noiman is silent on any partitioning or representation that restricts data structures to the portion of a hexagrid that spatially conforms to real-world, irregular field boundaries; instead, Aldor-Noiman relies on rectangular or square data tables and generic spatial referencing, not topological or geographic congruence with the underlying field. Birch, for its part, discusses the advantages of hexagonal tessellations but does so in the context of generalized ecological observation and makes no mention of restricting the data structure solely to those hexagrid cells actually overlapping an agricultural field as claimed. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the artisan to incorporate such a boundary-conforming partition in the specialized context of agricultural machine data storage, nor would such a modification have been readily apparent or expected from the cited combination.
As previously discussed, the claim as written does not provide any details that are exclusive to agricultural fields or are not inherent to a field. Further as discussed in previous responses to arguments above, substituting the hexagonal grid in place of the rectangular one would only require routine and conventional skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Argument 9
Moreover, this boundary-conforming data structuring not only addresses longstanding inefficiencies in conventional rectangular or square-bound grid encodings-especially with respect to irregularly-shaped fields as identified in the specification ([0080], [0081])-but also produces practical computational and memory-storage improvements not disclosed or suggested by the cited art. The narrowing limitation is clearly structural, objectively definite, and fully supported by the specification. For all these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 21 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and non-obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and respectfully requests withdrawal of the outstanding rejections. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 21 is patentable over the art of record, and patent-eligible.
Again Birch states “the hexagonal grid should be preferred when it has advantages for the construction or representation of nearest neighborhood, movement or connectivity. Visualization as a rectangular grid map may also be undesirable. However, when the differences between the grids are minor, the rectangular grid may be more convenient. Moreover, the specific properties of the rectangular grid may be useful, such as the contrasts between orthogonal and diagonal nearest neighbor interactions (Birch, 2006). The selection of an appropriate grid should be based on the requirements and objectives of the application. The reasons for using a particular grid should be made clear in the methods sections of related publications.” This section in conjunction with the previously cited section that the use of a hexagonal grid is so common that it often goes unstated provides evidence that the use of a hexagonal grid is routine and conventional based on requirements and objectives of the user.
For the reasons stated above, it is believed that the all the applicants arguments have been addressed and that the rejections are proper.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
14. 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.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
17. 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.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
19. 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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 6, 2026
1 Birch, Colin PD, Sander P. Oom, and Jonathan A. Beecham. "Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology." Ecological modelling 206.3-4 (2007): 347-359.
Prosecution Insights