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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/22/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USPN 11,930,737 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. The previous double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and incorporating previously identified patent eligible subject matter have overcome the previous rejection under §101. Similarly, new claim 21 incorporating eligible and allowable subject matter are allowed.
However, claim 11 and its dependent claims are still rejected under §101 as the deficiencies cited in the rejection have not been addressed. For clarity, Examiner notes that the amendments to claim 1 claim and set forth a particular machine into which the identified abstract ideas are integrated. Claim 11 does not claim a particular machine and the abstract ideas identified are not integrated in a practical application because merely “acquiring data”, no matter the source is considered “mere data gathering”. It encompasses historical data, reading spreadsheets, and/or reading data loaded from storage. The abstract idea can be carried out solely within the confines of a black box of a generic computer and therefore is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(g); “Mere data gathering”.
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 1-4 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Legal Framework
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Office is guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, Examiners first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, Examiners turn to the second part of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of § 101 and further updated this guidance in October 2019. This guidance is now found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), and particularly Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). See MPEP §§ 2103–2106.07(c) (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020).
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, Examiners first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do Examiners then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(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.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Analysis
Examiners consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in light of the Specification at the time of filing.
The Examiner finds, under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, that claims 11-16 are directed to an apparatus and therefore all claims are directed to a statutory category.
Revised Step 2A, Prong One –recites a judicial exception
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (emphasis added). The Memorandum instructs Examiners first to determine whether each claim recites any judicial exception to patent eligibility. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The Memorandum identifies three judicially-excepted groupings: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. Id. at 52. Examiners primarily focus here on the first and third groupings - mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Independent claim 11 recites the limitations determine a mass of the crop material conveyed by the merger system based at least partially on the load signals and determine a crop yield based at least partially on the mass of crop material which under broadest reasonable interpretation fall under the group of mental processes.
Therefore independent claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Having determined that claim 11 recites an abstract idea, Examiners next look to determine whether the claims recite “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h); 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Reg. at 53–54. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54; see also id. at 55 (setting forth exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application).
In the current instance, there are no limitations integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application as there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, it is not used by a particular machine or to effect a particular transformation.
Step 2B–Inventive Concept
Because the Examiner has determined that claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea and it does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the Examiner looks to whether each claim provides an inventive concept, i.e., adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. That is not the case here. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that “the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself”).
Regarding independent claim 11, the additional limitation is a computer readable medium that when executed by a processor cause the processor to carry out the above-mentioned abstract ideas, data gathering and signal output. Merely providing information without it resulting in any further action to be taken is considered insignificant post solution activity. See Alice pg. 15, first paragraph: “The same is true with respect to the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]” previously known to the industry. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4). In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.”
Examiner notes that the limitations of independent claim 11 most resemble the Electric Power Group decision in which the Federal Circuit Court ruled that selecting information based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display was ineligible as the limitations were a combination of abstract ideas, routine data gathering and routine computer functions. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, because there are no additional elements that can provide an inventive concept, the Examiner concludes that claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter.
Turning to the dependent claims, claim 12 further defines the data gathering step which is considered insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
Claims 13-15 further define the abstract ideas of claim 11 and are therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites a display in the cab of the machine which is a generic computer component used to perform “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]” previously known to the industry. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4).
Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, the Examiner concludes that claims 11-16 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
There are no prior art rejections for claims 11-16 however the Examiner cannot comment on their allowability until the §101 rejections are overcome.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10 and 21-26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an agricultural windrower as claimed wherein the processing circuit is configured to acquire load signals from the load sensor at a certain frequency regarding the load at the frame mount of the merger system for an agricultural as crop material is deposited by an endless conveyor of the merger system in a strip on a ground surface, the certain frequency based on a period of time for half a rotation of the endless conveyor in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 4 and 6-10 are allowed based on their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 21, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an agricultural windrower as claimed wherein the processing circuit is configured to acquire load signals from a load sensor of the plurality of load sensors, the load signals being acquired at a certain frequency regarding the respective load at the respective frame mount of the plurality of frame mounts of the merger system for an agricultural as crop material is deposited by an endless conveyor of the merger system in a strip on a ground surface, the certain frequency based on a period of time for half a rotation of the endless conveyor in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 22-26 are allowed based on their dependence on claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250081893 discloses determining crop yield in a windrower with a load cell disposed on a merger drive actuator but is not available as prior art under 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).
US 20220087101 discloses an overload detection system for an agricultural machine where the load cells are located at the header and are sampled at a predetermined frequency.
US 20130124239 discloses a crop yield determining system where the load cells are on a conveyor in the harvester.
US 20180332771 generally discloses a triple windrow system.
US 20060046800 discloses determining crop mass using a load cell on the wheel hub of a harvester where load cell values are sampled at a predefined frequency.
US 20150242799 discloses determining crop yield of a harvester using load cells on the grain tank.
The remaining cited references represent the general state of the art.
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 NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights