DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 3/30/2026 submission filled in Application 18/374,847.
Claims 4-8, 10-11, 14-20 have been cancelled. Claims 28-30 have been added, Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-13, 21-30 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101 the Applicant argues “In this regard, amended claim 1 recites limitations that are embedded within a practical application, namely controlling an autonomous vehicle in order to deliver a part to the delivery location. Specifically, amended claim 1 is embedded within a practical application by integrating concepts of scheduling delivery into the functional and tangible context of automatically controlling the autonomous vehicle for delivery of the part that go far beyond any mere description or conceptualization. In fact, controlling the autonomous vehicle transforms an idea into a real-world context, involving the physical act of automatically delivering the part. As such, Applicant respectfully contends that amended claim 1 complies with 35 U.S.C. 101.”
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.
Regarding the rejection under 101 the Applicant argues “More specifically, new claim 29 recites that the scheduling of the services events in based on "both of the respective locations of the plurality of service events and timing at which to deliver the at least one part to the respective locations using the automatic transport by the at least one autonomous vehicle." Emphasis added. Such a timing limitation is a further refinement of control of the autonomous vehicle. In particular, the scheduling of the service events (based on both timing and the different service locations) may, in turn, affect the control of the autonomous vehicle in terms of which delivery location to automatically transport the part to. As one example, timing may comprise the length of time for the autonomous vehicle to deliver the part to the delivery location (e.g., whether delivery is to the service location when the delivery location is the same as the service location; or whether delivery is to a previous service location, which may be a shorter distance than to the location of the service event). Ultimately, responsive to determining the schedule of the service events, the automated vehicle may be automatically controlled to deliver the part to the delivery location. Again, such limitations further refine the control of the autonomous vehicle, thereby further embedding the claims within a practical application, rendering compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A human can scheduling the plurality of service events is based on both of the respective locations of the plurality of service events and timing at which to deliver the at least one part to the respective locations. Limitations that can be classified as abstract cannot also integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, Claims 29 and 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.
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, 21-30 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, 21-30 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:
receiving, a request for service, the request for service including at least one part and at least one service needed to fix at least one problem of the agricultural working machine,
automatically deriving, a plurality of service events for one or more service providers, 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 the at least one part needed, that is automatically transported;
automatically scheduling the plurality of service events, including the at least one service event, wherein each of the plurality of service events has a respective location;
automatically selecting, from the respective locations of at least some of the plurality of service events, a delivery location at which to deliver the at least one part;
automatically determining, transport to the delivery location by the at least one vehicle of the at least one part needed to fix the problem of the agricultural working machine at least one service event, wherein the service vehicles are vehicles manned with a respective service provider, wherein the service vehicles comprise tools for servicing the agricultural working machine, wherein the service vehicles are used to service multiple agricultural working machines with the tools;
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 at least one part: and
automatically coordinating, by the digital service module, the at least one vehicle, from a plurality of potential vehicles, for transport of the at least one part, 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 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.
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. 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. Further, even if the claim did recite the vehicle performing 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:
a digital service module of a server configured to perform the abstract idea,
wherein the server comprises a database, wherein the database stores information about pickup locations of parts, information about service providers, and information about part runners autonomous vehicles, wherein the at least one part is for transport by at least one autonomous vehicle from a service vehicle of the service providers, or from one or more central storages that need to be sent for automatic transport to the a respective service provider;
the use of autonomous vehicles
However, the computer elements (the 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 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, 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 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, 21-30 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
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
Prosecution Insights