DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: US Patent Application 17/181,684 (paragraph 0001) is now US Patent 11,793,101.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8, “determining a first timestamp of the plurality of timestamps is a
different pass than a second timestamp of the plurality of timestamps based, at least in part, on detecting a peak in the difference(s) between the monitored heading and the calculated heading for the first timestamp and the second timestamp” is not described in the original disclosure. Instead, the original disclosure from parent 17/181,684, (published application US 2021/0267117), paragraph 0040, discloses “determining a first timestamp of the plurality of timestamps is a different pass than a second timestamp of the plurality of timestamps based, at least in part, on detecting a peak between the first timestamp and the second timestamp.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8, “determining a first timestamp of the plurality of timestamps is a
different pass …” is indefinite because “a first timestamp” is not dimensionally compatible with “a different pass”. Examiner interprets the limitation to read
-- determining a first timestamp of the plurality of timestamps corresponding to [[is]] a
different pass …--.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Note Regarding 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.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea of "identifying a plurality of passes in the time-series data" (observation, mental process), "using the identified plurality of passes, identifying a plurality of location on the agricultural field in which the activity performed by the agricultural implement included a particular operational abnormality" (observation, mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application of the abstract idea including "generating a map of operational abnormalities for the agricultural field, the map of operational abnormalities including the plurality of locations on the agricultural field in which the activity performed by the agricultural implement included the particular operational abnormality" (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Thus, claims 1 and 8 and their respective dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-14 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a system and method for use in identifying operational abnormalities of agricultural implements comprising identifying passes by the agricultural implement in the time-series data, by determining a first timestamp of the plurality of timestamps is a different pass than a second timestamp of the plurality of timestamps based, at least in part, on detecting a peak in the difference(s) between the monitored heading and the calculated heading for the first timestamp and the second timestamp (claims 1, 8) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Heiniger et al. (US 2010/0185366) discloses a system comprising: one or more processors (paragraph 0049, lines 7-9); a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (paragraph 0049, lines 7-9), causes performance of:
receiving time-series data (78's, Fig. 2A; 80's, Fig. 2B) captured from an agricultural implement (4) performing an agronomic activity (paragraph 0006, lines 1-6) on an agricultural field (Fig. 2D),
identifying passes in the time-series data (paragraph 0006, lines 5- 6);
using the identified plurality of passes, identifying a plurality of location (78's, 80's) on the agricultural field in which the activity performed by the agricultural implement included a particular operational abnormality (course deviations, paragraph 0046);
generating a map of operational abnormalities (map of deviated data points, Fig. 2A, 2B; paragraph 0023; paragraph 0054, lines 7-12) for the agricultural field, the map of operational abnormalities including the plurality of locations on the agricultural field in which the activity performed by the agricultural implement included the particular operational abnormality (initial guide path 82b is corrected, paragraph 0054, lines 7-12).
However, Heiniger et al. does not disclose identifying passes in the time-series data by determining a first timestamp of the plurality of timestamps is a different pass than a second timestamp of the plurality of timestamps based, at least in part, on detecting a peak in the difference(s) between the monitored heading and the calculated heading for the first timestamp and the second timestamp.
Parent Bogdan et al. (US 11,793,101) claims a system (claim 1) comprising:
one or more processors (claim 1, line 2); and
a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of (claim 1, lines 3-4):
receiving time-series data captured from an agricultural implement
performing an agronomic activity on an agricultural field, the time-series data including, for each of a plurality of timestamps, a location of the agricultural implement (claim 1, lines 5-9);
identifying passes by the agricultural implement in the time-series data (claim 1, line 10);
using the identified passes, identifying a plurality of locations on the
agricultural field in which the agronomic activity performed by the agricultural implement included a particular operational abnormality (claim 1, lines 28-31); and
generating a map of operational abnormalities for the agricultural field,
the map of operational abnormalities including the plurality of locations on the agricultural field in which the agronomic activity performed by the agricultural implement included the particular operational abnormality (claim 1, lines 34-39).
Bogdan et al. (US 11,793,101) further claims a method (claim 7) comprising
receiving time-series data captured from an agricultural implement performing an agronomic activity on an agricultural field, the time-series data including, for each of a plurality of timestamps, a location of the agricultural implement (claim 7, lines 2-6);
identifying, in the time-series data (claim 7, line 7);
using the identified passes, identifying a plurality of locations on the agricultural field in which the agronomic activity performed by the agricultural implement included a particular operational abnormality (claim 7, lines 24-27);
generating a map of operational abnormalities for the agricultural field, the map of operational abnormalities including the plurality of locations on the agricultural field in which the agronomic activity performed by the agricultural implement included the particular operational abnormality (claim 7, lines 30-35).
However, Bogdan et al. does not claim determining a first timestamp of the plurality of timestamps is a different pass than a second timestamp of the plurality of timestamps based, at least in part, on detecting a peak in the difference(s) between the monitored heading and the calculated heading for the first timestamp and the second timestamp.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights