DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA 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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments received 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image1.png
286
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the USPTO determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines. Applicant is particularly advised that, under the 2019 PEG, when assessing subject matter eligibility for a patent, examples of “determining or calculating parameters" that might be considered a judicial exception include claims that simply involve basic mathematical calculations, like determining a ratio between two values, computing the impedance from known values of voltage and current using a well-known Ohm's Law, frequency spectrums using Fourier-transform, or performing a straightforward arithmetic operation without any inventive application of that calculation to a specific technological problem; essentially, claims that are "directed to" a mathematical concept without adding a practical application. While a calculation itself may be considered abstract, if it's integrated into a novel process or system that solves a specific problem, it can be a patentable "Inventive concept".
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea of acquiring detailed weather related field data for planning/controlling farming activities but without reciting any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analysis as set forth in sections 3-4 below). While arguing about the “practical application of improving agricultural intelligence systems by enabling (and actually performing) precise, localized management of activities in a field, like planting or irrigation, thereby reducing waste and enhancing yield”, Applicant fails to show that any claimed limitation recited in the pending claims of the present application goes beyond just performing data analyses, manipulation/calculation, and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation. The claimed operations to determine/provide at least one field activity to an agricultural machine for performance in the field region and to physically control the agricultural machine to actually perform the determined at least one field activity in the field, under the BRI, encompass insignificant post-solution activities that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(g) concerns “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.” It describes, as an example, a mathematical calculation of an alarm limit and extra-solution activity of accordantly adjusting the alarm limit. This example is taken from Flook, which claimed method consists of a mathematical calculation of an alarm limit as a function of temperature, indescriptly monitoring the temperature, and accordingly adjusting the alarm limit. Flook, 437 U.S. at 585-86, 596-97. Applicant’s claimed invention similarly consists of a mathematical calculation (“weight values for the plurality of weather stations ”, “a plurality of weighted temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids”, and “a plurality of field condition data for the field region”), indescriptly collecting the inputs, and accordingly adjusting process parameters (for controlling the operation of the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region) to attain the calculated value/s. Also similar to Flook’s claim, the data collecting and adjusting steps of Applicant’s claim 1 are broad in scope (e.g., controlling, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region). They do not provide any detail/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, these additional elements are treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception but not be qualified for an improvement in the functioning of such as a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05 (f).
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image2.png
161
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 2 of Example 37 of USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples recites a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system. It is deemed that the claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG because the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, does not cover performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Further, the claim does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception. In the instance case, Examiner identified that the “heart” (bolded portion) of pending claim 1 reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process which amount to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the decision in Claim 2 of Example 37 is not analogous to the instant claims of the present application.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.3):
PNG
media_image3.png
203
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in details in section 4 below, various considerations are used to determine whether the pending claims recite any additional element that is sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. In particular, under the BRI to the claim, the additional elements to which the Applicant refers merely inherit attributes of the identified abstract idea (math + mental) or encompass data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. Examiner maintains the position that none of the additional limitations is qualified to be “significantly more”, such that it improves the functioning of a computer, a farming equipment/machine, or the relevant technology by using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine that is integral to the claim. That is, the claim as a whole does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, nor does it apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, none of the additional elements recited in the pending claims of the present application provides an inventive concept or reflect a qualified improvement (see MPEP 2106.05). What the inventors have invented exactly is merely an algorithm of weather data assimilation using mathematical concepts/relationships to yield respective combined outputs, while the remaining claim limitations regarding determining field activity based on the combined outputs of the field conditions and controlling the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region are merely insignificant post-solution activities that are well-known or common practices in the art. It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), but not qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. See discussion of the Flook in section 4 below. See also MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05 (f).
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.3):
PNG
media_image4.png
128
734
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Instant claim 10 recites the limitations: adjust at least one of the plurality of temperature readings based on a difference between a relative elevation of the temperature grid and an elevation the weather station(s) from which the at least one of the plurality of temperature readings is received; adjust at least one of the plurality of temperature readings based on a distance of the weather station(s) from which the at least one of the plurality of temperature readings is received from a body of water; and then based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, compute a plurality of weighted temperatures for the temperature grid … Under the BRI, these limitations encompass a series of data manipulation and/or mathematical calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper using mathematical concepts. They are treated as a portion of the identified the judicial exception under the 2019 PEG. The involved physical parameters are merely data characterization or descriptive of the information being manipulated/calculated. No additional element is found to be significantly more to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.4):
PNG
media_image5.png
248
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In McRO, the technological field was CGI animation and the technical solution was providing an automated way of syncing an animated character’s mouth movements to associated speech. As determined by the Federal Circuit, the claims in McRo focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology. The court identified that the claimed invention improves computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists, to set morph weights (relating to facial expressions as an animated character speaks) and transition parameters between phonemes (relating to sounds made when speaking). The McRO court examined how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process". Simply speaking, the logic in McRO can apply to things like improved ways of storing data in a computing system, thus makes everything the computing system does “improved”, while the abstract idea claimed by the present application is not improving the functioning of the computing system (or any specific machine which is used for performing field activity) but just one calculation (weather data assimilation) done BY a computing system. Therefore, McRo does not apply to the present application.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding claim eligibility are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the analysis under the 2019 PEG as set forth below in this Office Action, thus are deemed unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (REMARKS, p.5):
PNG
media_image6.png
293
715
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds to the Applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP 2111.01. Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With these principles in mind, Examiner maintains that Friedberg does teach or render obvious the limitation in question. Specifically, Examiner considers that Friedberg teaches: “obtaining historical weather data may include utilizing gridded temperature datasets” (para. 0039), “example system 206 may represent a system associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that provides precipitation data for predetermined geographical grid sizes (e.g., 2.5 miles by 2.5 miles)” (para. 0042). By inherency, to apply the historical gridded temperature datasets and/or the gridded datasets provided by NOAA to the field region specified by the user (para. 0038), one must identify or extract a group of specific temperature data grids from the big chunk of historical or NOAA-provided gridded temperature datasets to match the target field region. Thus, Applicant’s argument in this regard is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.5):
PNG
media_image7.png
217
697
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner considers that Friedberg’s teaching of “The temperature module 320 …. may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location” (para. 0054) reads on the claim limitation: computing weight values for the plurality of weather stations based on the plurality of weather station locations of the plurality of weather stations. Note, a parcel of land is commonly known as an area of land with a particular ownership, land use, or other characteristic, which is frequently used as the basis for a cadastre or land registration system. In addition, Friedberg’s computing of the plurality of weight values is implemented by interpolating multiple stations to create a single measurement for another location, which is equivalent to estimating a missing value by creating an interpolation function between two known points. Taking a linear interpolation as an example, assuming the interpolation function is: y = ax + b, where a and b are constants weight values; for given known points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), one can solve the equation set y1 = ax1 + b, and y2 = ax2 + b to obtain the values of a and b, thus enabling to perform interpolations for any (x, y) from the known points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2). Examiner admits Friedberg is not clear: said computing weight values for the plurality of weather stations is based on the plurality of weather station locations of the plurality of weather stations wherein weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to their respective temperature grids have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to their respective temperature grids. However, as discussed in detail in section 6 below, the combination of Friedberg and Leblanc remedies Friedberg’s deficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Leblanc’s teaching of interpolation algorithm for generating observation mosaics (i.e., gridded image) into Friedberg to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for refining the weather values to obtain relatively more accurate temperature estimates at the geographic grids of interest for the purpose of (numerical) weather forecasting (Friedberg, para. 0051: “the simulation may use weather data obtained from the closest proximate location to the parcels of land, while in other example embodiments, a user may specify one or more weather stations from which to obtain weather data for use in the simulation”; Leblanc, col. 2, lines 39-48; col. 9, lines 46-61). Applicant’s argument in this regard is therefore unpersuasive.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection or have been fully addressed by the detailed discussion of the prior art as set forth in sections 5-7 below in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea of planning and controlling farming related activities based on local field information.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for managing agricultural activities in a field region, the method comprising:
receiving, by an agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of field definition data identifying a field region;
retrieving, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of input data from a plurality of data networks for the identified field region, wherein the plurality of input data includes field-specific data for the field region;
identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of temperature grids for the field region;
identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of weather stations for the plurality of temperature grids, wherein a weather station of the plurality of weather stations is located at a weather station location, of a plurality of weather station locations, in a temperature grid of the plurality of temperature grids;
computing weight values for the plurality of weather stations based on the plurality of weather station locations of the plurality of weather stations, wherein weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to their respective temperature grids have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to their respective temperature grids;
receiving a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations;
based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, computing a plurality of weighted temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids;
computing a plurality of field condition data for the field region, for multiple projected intervals, based on the plurality of weighted temperatures and the field-specific data, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions;
based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determining at least one field activity for the field region;
providing the at least one field activity for the field region to an agricultural machine configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region; and
controlling, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each or the combination of the steps of “identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of temperature grids for the field region”, “identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of weather stations for the plurality of temperature grids, wherein a weather station of the plurality of weather stations is located at a weather station location, of a plurality of weather station locations, in a temperature grid of the plurality of temperature grids” and “ … determining at least one field activity for the field region” recited in the bolded portion as listed above encompasses the user mentally or manually matching up “a plurality of temperature grids for the field region”, “the plurality of weather stations for the plurality of temperature grids … in a temperature grid of the plurality of temperature grids” and “at least one field activity for the field region”. These steps can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under its BRI, each or the combination of the steps of “computing weight values for the plurality of weather stations … ”, “ … computing a plurality of weighted temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids”, and “computing a plurality of field condition data for the field region …” covers a series of mathematical steps, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper using mathematical concepts. The lack of specific math equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps.
That is, other than reciting “by the agricultural intelligence computer” nothing in the bolded portion precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or with pen and paper. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Each of the steps of “receiving … a plurality of field definition data identifying a field region;”, “retrieving … a plurality of input data from a plurality of data networks for the identified field region …;” and “receiving a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations;” recited in instant claim 1 is considered merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The step of “receiving a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations;” is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify how the “receiving” is performed and/or any sensor is used in certain particular manner. It could just as easily relate to the acquisition of temperature readings from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
Under the BRI to the claim, each or the combination of the limitations of “providing the at least one field activity for the field region to an agricultural machine configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region; and controlling, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region” encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(g) concerns “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.” It describes, as an example, a mathematical calculation of an alarm limit and extra-solution activity of accordantly adjusting the alarm limit. This example is taken from Flook, which claimed method consists of a mathematical calculation of an alarm limit as a function of temperature, indescriptly monitoring the temperature, and accordingly adjusting the alarm limit. Flook, 437 U.S. at 585-86, 596-97. Applicant’s claimed invention similarly consists of a mathematical calculation (“weight values for the plurality of weather stations ”, “a plurality of weighted temperatures for the plurality of temperature grids”, and “a plurality of field condition data for the field region”), indescriptly collecting the inputs, and accordingly adjusting process parameters (for controlling the operation of the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region) to attain the calculated value/s. Also similar to Flook’s claim, the data collecting and adjusting steps of Applicant’s claim 1 are broad in scope (e.g., controlling, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region). They do not provide any detail/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, these additional elements are treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception but not be qualified for an improvement in the functioning of such as a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a generic computer and/or link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A under the 2019 PEG. See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05 (f).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea 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.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-3 and 5-9 inherit attributes of the independent claim 8, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, the steps of “transmitting an alert to the user device including the at least one date for performing the at least one field activity” (claim 3) and “directing, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region” (claim 4) are considered insignificant post-solution activities (i.e., transmitting or displaying the algorithm results) that do not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself, while limitations such as “the field-specific data is received from the agricultural machine” (claim 5), “the field-specific data is received from the user device” (claim 6), “the at least one field activity includes: planting, nitrogen application, pest and disease treatment, irrigation application, scouting, and/or harvesting” (claim 7), etc. are all recited at a high level of generality. None of these elements is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation. At most, they generally link the use of the judicial exception (math + mental) to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 10-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 2-3, and 5-9 as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedberg et al. (US 20130332205 A1) in view of Leblanc (US 11199648 B2) and Anderson (US 20070250412 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Friedberg discloses a computer-implemented method, and a system for practicing the method, for managing agricultural activities in a field region (para. 0002, 0035) implemented using an agricultural intelligence computer system comprising a processor in communication with a memory (see Figs. 1, 18 and related text), the method, executed by the computer program on said processor, comprising: receiving, by an agricultural intelligence computer (e.g., 102 Fig. 1), a plurality of field definition data identifying a field region (para. 0038: “the user may be required to input information that identifies one or more of the land that the user farms, …”); retrieving, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of input data from a plurality of data networks for the identified field region, wherein the plurality of input data includes field-specific data for the field region (para. 0038: “Identification of land may include a lot and block number, a parcel number, geographic coordinates and boundaries … Historical data may include …, and so forth”; see also para. 0039); identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of temperature grids for the field region (para. 0039: “Other approaches for obtaining historical weather data may include utilizing gridded temperature datasets”; para. 0042: “… example system 206 may represent a system associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that provides precipitation data for predetermined geographical grid sizes (e.g., 2.5 miles by 2.5 miles)”; para. 0054: “Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations, or, alternatively, utilizing gridded temperature datasets”); identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of weather stations for the plurality of temperature grids (para. 0039: “in some example embodiments, historical weather data from the weather station located nearest to the location in question may be retrieved. In other example embodiments, the user may be prompted to select a weather station located near the location in question via a user interface. … a listing of weather stations located proximally to the location in question may be presented to the user via the user interface”), wherein a weather station of the plurality of weather stations is located at a weather station location, of a plurality of weather station locations, in a temperature grid of the plurality of temperature grids (para. 0039-0040, 0054); computing weight values for the plurality of weather stations based on the plurality of weather station locations of the plurality of weather stations (para. 0054: “The temperature module 320 may be used to determine the temperature of the identified parcels of land over a period of time …. may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location, which may be adjusted for factors such as elevation, land cover, and proximity to bodies of water”); receiving a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations (para. 054: “the temperature module 320 may … select one or more weather stations from which to obtain temperature data. … Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations”); based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, computing a plurality of weighted temperatures (para. 0054: “The temperature module 320 may be used to determine the temperature of the identified parcels of land over a period of time …. the temperature module 320 may access a list of weather stations located in the region of the parcels of land being used to grow the crop and may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location”; para. 0060: “simulated data may be generated with respect to temperature and/or precipitation data. Such simulations may be warranted if the temperature and precipitation data is obtained from a location other than the farm growing the crop”); computing a plurality of field condition data (e.g., “a policy document” or “categories of weather perils”) for the field region for multiple projected intervals (para. 0052: “The system 302 of FIG. 3A may also include a growth stage tracker module (not shown) to establish a range of dates for a category of weather peril corresponding to a portion of a planting season for the type of crop, wherein the payout rule utilizes a number of days within the range of dates when the threshold is exceeded …”), based on the plurality of weighted temperatures and the field-specific data, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions (para. 0039: “To aid in the assessment of risk, the pricing servers 120 may communicate with one or more modeling servers 124 to determine weather data related to the land on which the crop is grown”; para. 0049: “The pricing module may process data representing a plurality of factors. Example factors taken into account may include the type of crop being grown, the location of a property growing the crop, historical and estimated weather data (e.g., precipitation, temperature) …”; para. 0051: “The weather modeling module 312 may generate a plurality of simulations based on the obtained weather data and may estimate the weather of the parcels of land based on the plurality of simulations”; see also para. 0040, 0050-0052, 0054, 0061, 0077, 0079-0080); and based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determining at least one activity (e.g., a payment entitled to the policyholder) for the field region (para. 0035: “An insurance policy may simply say that if … then the policyholder will be entitled to a payment”; para. 0049: “The pricing module may process data representing a plurality of factors. Example factors taken into account may include the type of crop being grown … the probability of various perils occurring during different stages of the crop's growth cycle, and so forth”).
Friedberg does not mention explicitly: said computing weight values for the plurality of weather stations is based on the plurality of weather station locations of the plurality of weather stations wherein weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to their respective temperature grids have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to their respective temperature grids; and said plurality of weighted temperatures are computed for the plurality of temperature grids; wherein said one activity is a field activity for the field region which is provided to an agricultural machine configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region; and the agricultural intelligence computer is configured to control the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region.
Leblanc teaches an interpolation algorithm for computing weighted temperatures at given geographic grids (col. 2, lines 40-57), comprising: based on the location information of a plurality of weather stations (col. 4, lines 65-67) in the region of the given geographic grids, computing a plurality of weight values (col. 2, lines 31-35), such that weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to their respective grids have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to their respective grids (col. 9, lines 53-57; col. 9, line 66 – col. 10, line 3), and computing a plurality of weighted temperatures at given geographic grids based on a plurality of temperature readings provided by the weather stations and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, and said plurality of weighted temperatures are computed for a plurality of temperature grids (col. 1, lines 56-58; col. 2, lines 39-48; col. 4, lines 60-64; col. 9, lines 53-57).
Friedberg and Leblanc are in the same field of endeavor (interpolation algorithm for local air temperature estimates) and Friedberg teaches the general condition of the interpolation/simulation algorithm (Friedberg, para. 0051, 0054). In view of Friedberg and Leblanc, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Leblanc’s teaching of interpolation algorithm for generating observation mosaics (i.e., gridded image) into Friedberg to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for refining the weather values to obtain relatively more accurate temperature estimates at the geographic grids of interest for the purpose of (numerical) weather forecasting (Friedberg, para. 0051: “the simulation may use weather data obtained from the closest proximate location to the parcels of land, while in other example embodiments, a user may specify one or more weather stations from which to obtain weather data for use in the simulation”; Leblanc, col. 2, lines 39-48; col. 9, lines 46-61).
The combination of Friedberg and Leblanc is silent on: wherein said one activity is a field activity for the field region which is provided to an agricultural machine configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region; and the agricultural intelligence computer is configured to control the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region.
Anderson discloses a computer-implemented method for managing agricultural activities in a field region (para. 0017) implemented using an agricultural intelligence computer system comprising a processor in communication with a memory (para. 0012), comprising: computing a plurality of field condition data for the field region for multiple projected intervals, based on field-specific data, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions (para. 0012: “Processor 36 may additionally have connections with predictive sources, such as future weather conditions …”; para. 0017: “Such information includes soil type, topography, rainfall, temperature, irrigation water amounts and sources as well as external field and weather data to determine whether it is appropriate to harvest the crop in field 12”, “Further determinations may also be made to evaluate the impact of weather, which may cause chemical drift from an adjacent field 14 into field 12”; see also para. 0019); based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determining at least one activity (e.g., "safe to harvest") for the field region (para. 0017: “The evaluation process includes a "safe to enter" determinant that the farm equipment may enter and perform the operation as well as a "safe to harvest" determination, which may include insitu field and weather data that may be from field information node 34 or other predictive sources apart from field 12. … If a problem in field 12 does exist the identified reason may lead to the generation of a remediation plan for field 12, which may include waiting to harvest the field until a mandated waiting period has past after the application of a chemical”); wherein said one activity is a field activity for the field region which is provided to an agricultural machine (equipment 20 Fig. 1) configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region, and the agricultural intelligence computer is configured to control the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region (para. 0018-0019).
Friedberg and Anderson are in the same field of endeavor (planning and controlling farming related activities based on field information). In view of Friedberg and Anderson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Friedberg’s method for managing agricultural activities to Anderson’s method for managing the operation of agricultural machines based on field data to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for more accurately (Friedberg, para. 0051, 0054) controlling execution of the operation depending on authorized effect of the operation (Anderson, para. 0006).
Regarding claim 10, Friedberg discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor (see Figs. 1, 18 and related text), cause the at least one processor to: associate a field region (para. 0038: “the user may be required to input information that identifies one or more of the land that the user farms) with a temperature grid that contains at least part of the grids for a field region (para. 0039: “Other approaches for obtaining historical weather data may include utilizing gridded temperature datasets”; para. 0042: “… example system 206 may represent a system associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that provides precipitation data for predetermined geographical grid sizes (e.g., 2.5 miles by 2.5 miles)”; para. 0054: “Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations, or, alternatively, utilizing gridded temperature datasets”: by inherency, to apply the historical gridded temperature datasets and/or the gridded datasets provided by NOAA to the field region specified by the user, one must associate the field region with at least one temperature grid of a plurality of temperature grids that contains at least part of the grids for the field region); identify a plurality of weather stations for the temperature grid, wherein each of the plurality of weather stations is located at a corresponding weather station location within or adjacent to the temperature grid (para. 0039: “in some example embodiments, historical weather data from the weather station located nearest to the location in question may be retrieved. In other example embodiments, the user may be prompted to select a weather station located near the location in question via a user interface. … a listing of weather stations located proximally to the location in question may be presented to the user via the user interface”; see also para. 0040, 0054); compute a plurality of weight values based on the plurality of weather station locations of the plurality of weather stations (para. 0054: “The temperature module 320 …. may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location, which may be adjusted for factors such as elevation, land cover, and proximity to bodies of water”: Note, a parcel of land is commonly known as an area of land with a particular ownership, land use, or other characteristic, which is frequently used as the basis for a cadastre or land registration system. In addition, Friedberg’s computing of the plurality of weight values is implemented by interpolating multiple stations to create a single measurement for another location, which is equivalent to estimating a missing value by creating an interpolation function between two known points. Taking a linear interpolation as an example, assuming the interpolation function is: y = ax + b, where a and b are constants weight values; for given known points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), one can solve the equation set y1 = ax1 + b, and y2 = ax2 + b to obtain the values of a and b, thus enabling to perform interpolations for any (x, y) from the known points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) ); receive a plurality of temperature readings from the identified plurality of weather stations (para. 054: “the temperature module 320 may … select one or more weather stations from which to obtain temperature data. … Historical temperature data for the parcels of land or the area surrounding the parcels of land may be obtained from the selected one or more weather stations”); adjust at least one of the plurality of temperature readings based on a difference between a relative elevation of the temperature grid and an elevation the weather station(s) from which the at least one of the plurality of temperature readings is received, adjust at least one of the plurality of temperature readings based on a distance of the weather station(s) from which the at least one of the plurality of temperature readings is received from a body of water (para. 0054: “the temperature module 320 may access a list of weather stations located in the region of the parcels of land being used to grow the crop and may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location, which may be adjusted for factors such as elevation, land cover, and proximity to bodies of water”); and then based on the plurality of temperature readings and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, compute a plurality of weighted temperatures for the temperature grid (para. 0054: “The temperature module 320 may be used to determine the temperature of the identified parcels of land over a period of time …. the temperature module 320 may access a list of weather stations located in the region of the parcels of land being used to grow the crop and may interpolate multiple stations to create a single measurement for that location”; para. 0060: “simulated data may be generated with respect to temperature and/or precipitation data. Such simulations may be warranted if the temperature and precipitation data is obtained from a location other than the farm growing the crop”); compute a plurality of field condition data (e.g., “a policy document” or “categories of weather perils”) for the field region, for multiple projected intervals (para. 0052: “The system 302 of FIG. 3A may also include a growth stage tracker module (not shown) to establish a range of dates for a category of weather peril corresponding to a portion of a planting season for the type of crop, wherein the payout rule utilizes a number of days within the range of dates when the threshold is exceeded …”), based, at least in part, on the plurality of weighted temperatures, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions (para. 0039: “To aid in the assessment of risk, the pricing servers 120 may communicate with one or more modeling servers 124 to determine weather data related to the land on which the crop is grown”; para. 0049: “The pricing module may process data representing a plurality of factors. Example factors taken into account may include the type of crop being grown, the location of a property growing the crop, historical and estimated weather data (e.g., precipitation, temperature) …”; para. 0051: “The weather modeling module 312 may generate a plurality of simulations based on the obtained weather data and may estimate the weather of the parcels of land based on the plurality of simulations”; see also para. 0040, 0050-0052, 0054, 0061, 0077, 0079-0080); based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determine at least one field activity (e.g., a payment entitled to the policyholder) for the field region (para. 0035: “An insurance policy may simply say that if … then the policyholder will be entitled to a payment”; para. 0049: “The pricing module may process data representing a plurality of factors. Example factors taken into account may include the type of crop being grown … the probability of various perils occurring during different stages of the crop's growth cycle, and so forth”).
Friedberg does not mention explicitly: compute a plurality of weight values such that weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to the temperature grid have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to the temperature grid; wherein said at least one field activity is a field activity for the field region and is transmitted to an agricultural machine configured to perform agricultural activities in the field region; and the agricultural is directed to perform the at least one field activity in the field region.
Leblanc teaches an interpolation algorithm for computing weighted temperatures at given geographic grids (col. 2, lines 40-57), comprising: based on the location information of a plurality of weather stations (col. 4, lines 65-67) in the region of the given geographic grids, computing a plurality of weight values (col. 2, lines 31-35), such that weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are more proximate to their respective grids have higher weights than weather stations, of the plurality of weather stations, that are less proximate to their respective grids (col. 9, lines 53-57; col. 9, line 66 – col. 10, line 3), and computing a plurality of weighted temperatures at given geographic grids based on a plurality of temperature readings provided by the weather stations and the plurality of weight values computed for the plurality of weather stations, and said plurality of weighted temperatures are computed for a plurality of temperature grids (col. 1, lines 56-58; col. 2, lines 39-48; col. 4, lines 60-64; col. 9, lines 53-57).
Friedberg and Leblanc are in the same field of endeavor (interpolation algorithm for local air temperature estimates) and Friedberg teaches the general condition of the interpolation/simulation algorithm (Friedberg, para. 0051, 0054). In view of Friedberg and Leblanc, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Leblanc’s teaching of interpolation algorithm for generating observation mosaics (i.e., gridded image) into Friedberg to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for refining the weather values to obtain relatively more accurate temperature estimates at the geographic grids of interest for the purpose of (numerical) weather forecasting (Friedberg, para. 0051: “the simulation may use weather data obtained from the closest proximate location to the parcels of land, while in other example embodiments, a user may specify one or more weather stations from which to obtain weather data for use in the simulation”; Leblanc, col. 2, lines 39-48; col. 9, lines 46-61).
The combination of Friedberg and Leblanc is silent on: wherein said at least one field activity is a field activity for the field region and is transmitted to an agricultural machine configured to perform agricultural activities in the field region; and the agricultural is directed to perform the at least one field activity in the field region.
Anderson discloses a computer-implemented method for managing agricultural activities in a field region (para. 0017) implemented using an agricultural intelligence computer system comprising a processor in communication with a memory (para. 0012), comprising: computing a plurality of field condition data for the field region for multiple projected intervals, based on field-specific data, the field condition data including at least forecasted weather conditions (para. 0012: “Processor 36 may additionally have connections with predictive sources, such as future weather conditions …”; para. 0017: “Such information includes soil type, topography, rainfall, temperature, irrigation water amounts and sources as well as external field and weather data to determine whether it is appropriate to harvest the crop in field 12”, “Further determinations may also be made to evaluate the impact of weather, which may cause chemical drift from an adjacent field 14 into field 12”; see also para. 0019); based, at least in part, on the plurality of field condition data relative to one or more thresholds, determining at least one activity (e.g., "safe to harvest") for the field region (para. 0017: “The evaluation process includes a "safe to enter" determinant that the farm equipment may enter and perform the operation as well as a "safe to harvest" determination, which may include insitu field and weather data that may be from field information node 34 or other predictive sources apart from field 12. … If a problem in field 12 does exist the identified reason may lead to the generation of a remediation plan for field 12, which may include waiting to harvest the field until a mandated waiting period has past after the application of a chemical”); wherein said one activity is a field activity for the field region which is provided to an agricultural machine (equipment 20 Fig. 1) configured to perform the at least one field activity in the field region, and the agricultural intelligence computer is configured to control the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region (para. 0018-0019).
Friedberg and Anderson are in the same field of endeavor (planning and controlling farming related activities based on field information).
In view of Friedberg and Anderson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Friedberg’s method for managing agricultural activities to Anderson’s method for managing the operation of agricultural machines based on field data to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for more accurately (Friedberg, para. 0051, 0054) controlling execution of the operation depending on authorized effect of the operation (Anderson, para. 0006).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 18, Friedberg discloses: identifying, by the agricultural intelligence computer, at least one precipitation grid for the field region (para. 0042: “example system 206 may represent a system associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that provides precipitation data for predetermined geographical grid sizes”; para. 0090) and retrieving a set of recent precipitation data (para. 0038-0039, “Historical data may include … weather information (e.g., temperature, rainfall) to the extent maintained or accessible by the user, and so forth”) and a set of predicted (or estimated) precipitation data for the identified at least one precipitation grid for the field region (para. 0049); and wherein computing the plurality of field condition data is further based on the retrieved set of recent precipitation data and the retrieved set of predicted precipitation data (para. 0049).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Friedberg discloses: determining, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a workability index (e.g., payout rule/schedules for an insurance policy) for the field region based, at least in part, on the set of recent precipitation data and the set of predicted precipitation data (para. 0049); based, at least in part, on the workability index for the field region, determining, by the agricultural intelligence computer, at least one date for performing the at least one field activity in the field region (para. 0052: “to establish a range of dates for a category of weather peril corresponding to a portion of a planting season for the type of crop, wherein the payout rule utilizes a number of days within the range of dates when the threshold is exceeded. …”); and transmitting an alert to the user device including the at least one date for performing the at least one field activity (para. 0079-0080, 0083-0084, 0087: “The progress estimate is adjusted for early or delayed planting by tracking early season temperature and precipitation. Within the Planting Window, the Field Work Day Threshold and Trigger can determine an Estimated Planting Date. …”).
Regarding claim 6, Friedberg discloses: wherein the field-specific data is received from the user device (para. 0038: “the user may be prompted via one or more user interfaces to input identifying information about the user, including both personal information and information regarding the user's land, equipment, and/or agricultural assets sought to be protected”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Friedberg discloses: wherein the at least one field activity includes: planting, nitrogen application, pest and disease treatment, irrigation application, scouting, and/or harvesting (para. 0087: “… for early or delayed planting by tracking early season temperature and precipitation. Within the Planting Window, the Field Work Day Threshold and Trigger can determine an Estimated Planting Date”; see also para. 0091).
7. Claims 5, 8-9, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedberg et al. in view Leblanc and Anderson, further in view of Ochs et al. (US 11145420 B2).
Regarding claims 5, Friedberg is silent on: wherein the field-specific data is received from the agricultural machine.
Ochs discloses a system and method for managing a crop insurance program, comprising: based, at least in part, on a plurality of field condition data (see discussion of step S101 Fig. 3), determining at least one field activity for a target field region (col. 7, lines 5-28); and directing an agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity in the field region (col. 7, lines 17-28); wherein the plurality of field condition data comprises data that is computed based on field-specific data for the field region (col. 7, lines 17-20), and the field-specific data is received from the agricultural machine (col. 3, lines 16-18; col. 4, lines 14-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ochs’s teaching of directing the agricultural machine to perform the at least one field activity into Friedberg’s agricultural intelligence computer to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would obviously improve the feasibility and applicability of the Friedberg/Leblanc/Anderson combination, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable as the use of the technique taught by Ochs provides the rationale to arrive at the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claims 8-9, 15-16 and 20, the combination of Friedberg/Leblanc and Anderson is silent on: comparing, by the agricultural intelligence computer, the field condition data to the one or more thresholds, and in response to the field condition data satisfying the one or more thresholds, transmitting, by the agricultural intelligence computer, an alert relating to the at least one field activity to the user device and/or the agricultural machine; receiving, by the agricultural intelligence computer, a plurality of alert preferences from the user device; and identifying the one or more thresholds based on the plurality of alert preferences received from the user device.
The teaching of Ochs includes: comparing the field condition data to one or more thresholds, and in response to the field condition data satisfying the one or more thresholds, transmitting an alert relating to the at least one field activity to the user (col. 13, lines 32-36); receiving a plurality of alert preferences from the user device, and identifying the one or more thresholds based on the plurality of alert preferences received from the user device (col. 13, lines 36-42; see also claim 1: “if it is determined that the field is not compliant with the input management plan, sending an alert ….”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ochs’s teaching of real-time alert and the corresponding correction instruction into the Friedberg’s agricultural intelligence computer to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would obviously improve the feasibility and applicability of the Friedberg/Leblanc/Anderson combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable as the use of the technique taught by Ochs provides the rationale to arrive at the conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
8. 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.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. 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.
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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857