DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 7/08/2026 submission filled in Application 18/374,847.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101 the Applicant argues “amended claim 1 bookends automatic interaction, from the initial automatic interaction with the agricultural working machine to request/obtain the data, to the automatic diagnosis of the plurality of potential faults, to the automatic identification of the constraints in various parts of the system (e.g., the service provider and the vehicle), to the automatic coordination of the service vehicle(s) and vehicle(s) for delivery of the plurality of parts. In this regard, the detailed automatic interaction is far more than a human user that facilitates and schedules a service.
In this regard, amended claim 1 recites limitations that are embedded within a practical application. Specifically, amended claim 1 is embedded within a practical application by integrating concepts of automatic interaction with the agricultural working machine, diagnostics, coordinating delivery into the functional and tangible context of automatically controlling the vehicle for delivery of the part that go far beyond any mere description or conceptualization.”
The Examiner disagrees that this amount to an integration into a practical application. The recited coordination of service to agricultural vehicles can be coordinated by a human user that facilitates and schedule the service. The fact that the claim has been amended to recite “wherein automatically coordinating the at least one autonomous vehicle comprises automatically commanding the at least one autonomous vehicle in order for the at least one autonomous vehicle to automatically transport the at least one part to the delivery location” does not save the claim. A human can command a vehicle to perform a task. The claims does not positively recite the vehicle is actually performing the task. Even if the claims did generically recited a final step of the vehicle actually delivering the parts this would not save the claims as it would amount to a general link to a particular technological environment. Adding a general link to a particular technological environment to an abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-13, 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-13, 21-32 are directed toward a method for providing technical service to an agricultural working machine. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of providing technical service to an agricultural working machine which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A method for providing technical service to an agricultural working machine, the method comprising:
receiving, from a customer, contact via a customer service;
generating, based on the contact from the customer, problem information regarding the agricultural working machine;
responsive to generating the problem information, automatically communicating with the agricultural working machine, to coordinate the technical service, a request for service, wherein at least one part is for transport by at least one vehicle from a service vehicle of the service providers or from one or more central storages for transport to a respective service provider;
responsive to receiving the one or more of the status information, the history information, or the sensor data, automatically analyzing the one or more of the status information, the history information, or the sensor data in order to identify a plurality of possible technical faults of the agricultural working machine that may cause at least one problem of the agricultural working machine;
automatically identifying, a plurality of parts and services needed to fix the plurality of possible technical faults;
automatically identifying, the request for service including the plurality of parts and at least one service needed to fix the at least one problem of the agricultural working machine;
automatically deriving, based on the at least one constraint of the at least one service provider, a plurality of service events for the at least one service provider, the plurality of service events including at least one service event in which the service provider provides services needed to fix the problem of the agricultural working machine by using one or more of the plurality of parts that are transported;
automatically selecting, from the respective locations of at least some of the plurality of service events, at least one delivery location at which to deliver the plurality of parts;
automatically determining, based on the at least one constraint of the at least one vehicle, transport to the at least one delivery location by the at least one vehicle of the plurality of parts for fixing the problem of the agricultural working machine the at least one service event, wherein the at least one service vehicle is manned with a respective service provider, wherein the at least one service vehicle comprises tools for servicing the agricultural working machine, wherein the at least one service vehicle is used to service multiple agricultural working machines with the tools;
automatically determining, one or more routes for the at least one vehicle to pick up one or more of the plurality of parts located at least one central storage and needed to fix the plurality of possible technical faults;
automatically scheduling the plurality of service events, including the at least one service event, based on the transport by the at least one vehicle of the plurality of parts, scheduling the plurality of service events based on timing of transport of the plurality of parts in order to fix the plurality of possible technical faults; and
automatically coordinating, the at least one vehicle, from a plurality of potential vehicles, for transport of the plurality of parts, and at least one service vehicle, from a plurality of available service vehicles, equipped to provide the service and including the respective service provider to perform the service of the plurality of service events according to the scheduling of the plurality of service events;
wherein automatically coordinating the at least one vehicle comprises automatically commanding the at least one vehicle in order for the at least one vehicle to transport the plurality of parts to the at least one delivery location.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations above are directed to coordinating the provision of service to an agricultural machine from a service provider and a part runner. This amounts to managing commercial interactions which is abstract. The fact that the claim has been amended to recited automatically commanding the at least one autonomous vehicle in order for the at least one autonomous vehicle to automatically transport the at least one part to the delivery location does not save the claim. Firstly, the claim does not state that the vehicle actually perform the task, merely that it receives a command to automatically transport the at least one part to the delivery location. A human can send a command to a vehicle to perform a task.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant case, the determining and the coordinating steps are directed to mental processes. A human can coordinate vehicles to perform a plurality of service events according to the scheduling of the plurality of service events. Further, the amendments directed to analyzing the one or more of the status information, the history information, or the sensor data in order to identify a plurality of possible technical faults, identifying, a plurality of parts and services needed to fix the plurality of possible technical faults, identifying, the request for service including the plurality of parts and at least one service needed to fix the at least one problem of the agricultural working machine can also be performed mentally as they are directed to observation and evaluation. The fact that the claim has been amended to recite automatically commanding the at least one autonomous vehicle in order for the at least one autonomous vehicle to automatically transport the at least one part to the delivery location does not save the claim. Firstly, the claim does not state that the vehicle actually performs the task, merely that a vehicle is commanded to automatically transport the at least one part to the delivery location. Further, even if the claim did recite a final step where the vehicle actually performs an autonomous task this would amount to a general link to a particular technical environment. In other words, the abstract idea of scheduling a technical service would be generally linked to the particular technical environment of a semi-autonomous vehicle network.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A method for providing technical service to an agricultural working machine, the method comprising:
at least one digital module that comprises a server, wherein the server comprises a database, wherein the database stores information about pickup locations of parts, information about service providers, and information about vehicles,
the digital module performing the recited abstract steps;
responsive to automatically communicating with the agricultural working machine, automatically receiving, by the at least one digital module from the agricultural working machine, one or more of status information, history information, or sensor data;
automatically accessing at least one constraint of at least one service provider that includes one or more of at least one previously-planned service event, at least one route, or at least one location, wherein the at least one service provider has at least one service vehicle;
automatically accessing at least one constraint of the at least one vehicle that includes one or both of at least one previously-planned route or availability;
However, the computer elements (the at least one digital module that comprises a server to perform the abstract idea) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the addition of the broadly recited database that stores information does not meaningfully limit the claim and as such amounts to insignificant extra solution activity.
Further, the receipt of status information, history information, or sensor data and accessing at least one constraint of at least one service provider are directed to data gathering which the MPEP state is insignificant extra solution activity.
Further, the fact that the service is performed at least in part by autonomous vehicles does not save the claim. This amounts to a general link to a particular technological environment. In other words, the abstract idea of scheduling a technical service is generally linked to the particular technological environment of a semi-autonomous vehicle network.
Viewing the generic processor in combination with the database and the general link to a particular technological environment does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the Examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, nothing in the claim indicates that the retrieval of information is anything other than conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d) that states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Further, a general link to a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) states storing and retrieving information in memory is conventional when claimed in a generic manner (see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Viewing the generic processor in combination with generic storage, data gathering and general link to a particular technological environment does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept.
Further Claims 2-3, 5-9, 12-13, 21-32 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claim 1, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, Claim 30 recites automatically transporting the part by the autonomous vehicle. This does not amount to integration into a practical application. The vehicle performing an autonomous task is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception
MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly automatically transporting of at least one part attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. Further, the claims do not state any particular means for controlling the vehicle. As such, the broadly recited control of the vehicle does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-13, 21-30 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a system or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
