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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 of the "AMENDMENT & RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.111" of 27 August 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment/Response").
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, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1 and 5 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “system” of claims 8 and 12 constitutes a machine under the statute, and the “non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums” of claims 15 and 19 constitutes a manufacture under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A ... method, comprising: receiving ... a plurality of parameters of a plurality of farms, wherein the plurality of parameters are captured ... at a plurality of time periods, ... wherein the plurality of parameters comprise information associated with the plurality of farms as (i) data monitored ... including ... satellite images, data on soil nutrients (N, P, K), soil organic carbon (SOC), a moisture, a temperature, pH, EC, CO2 ..., and (ii) one or more intermediate states; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... pre-processing ... the plurality of parameters to obtain a set of pre-processed data comprising a plurality of versions of the plurality of farms, wherein each version from the plurality of versions comprises (i) an associated state of each farm amongst the plurality of farms, and (ii) one or more associated events, wherein the set of pre-processed data comprises cause-effect relationships between each farm’s version details, along with one or more causes, referred as one or more factors leading to change in each farm’s version, wherein semantic inferences and relationships are stored ... as states, farm configurations, and metadata to distinctly identify set of activities and are clubbed together forming each farm version; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... determining ... a subset of parameters amongst the plurality of parameters based on the set of pre-processed data comprising the plurality of versions of the plurality of farms, wherein the subset of parameters comprise a temporal soil health, an improvement of a crop yield over period of time or seasons, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the seasons, a storage of soil carbon over the seasons, a reduction in a carbon footprint, and a farm’s resilience to calamities; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... computing ... a farm portability score for each of the plurality of farms based on at least the subset of parameters; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... identifying ... one or more target farms amongst the plurality of farms, wherein the one or more target farms are decided for portability to transform each target farm in a current state to a desired optimal state representing a region as yield, soil health, and carbon sequestration based on the farm portability score, and measures performance of each farm; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... analyzing ... spatial and temporal similarity of one or more source farms and the one or more target farms to obtain a farm portability similarity index for each of the one or more target farms, wherein the farm portability similarity index is computed by assigning a first weight to the spatial similarity and a second weight to the temporal similarity, wherein the farm portability similarity index is computed as a weighted combination of (i) the spatial similarity determined from static parameters comprising an agro-climatic zone, a weather pattern, and a soil, and (ii) the temporal similarity determined from activities occurring over the one or more source farms and the one or more target farms over a period of time, and wherein, for a given target farm, a source farm is a kth neighbor farm with the farm portability similarity index with respect to the given target farm is identified as a compatible source farm upon attainment of the desired optimal state; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... determining ... the optimal state for each of the one or more target farms based on the farm portability similarity index, wherein the optimal state is attained by each of the one or more target farms when performance affecting parameters reach an associated predefined threshold, wherein the performance affecting parameters are soil health and fertility, the crop yield, a quality, a return on investment (ROI), a water intake threshold, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and a sequestered carbon, and identifying an optimal traversal route for each of the one or more target farms to transform each target farm from the current state to the optimal state, wherein the optimal traversal route comprises a first set of instructions with one or more field operations practiced by the compatible source farm and ported to the given target farm, wherein the first set of instructions are generated using at least one of: ... one or more knowledge graphs, and defining a sequence of one or more intermediary farm versions between a current farm version of the given target farm and a target farm version corresponding to the optimal state, and wherein identifying the optimal traversal route, comprises: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
"... monitoring ... the current state and one or more intermediary states of the one or more target farms based on the first set of instructions performed by the one or more target farms at each intermediary farm version of sequence; ..." - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... determining presence of one or more deviations by comparing one or more intermediary states of each of the one or more target farms with one or more reference intermediary states, upon monitoring the current state, and the one or more intermediary states of the one or more target farms, wherein the one or more reference intermediary states are expected values of performance affecting parameters ported from the compatible source farm for corresponding intermediary farm versions, and wherein a deviation is determined when an actual progress of a performance affecting parameter attained by the given target farm at an intermediary farm version differs from the expected values ported from the compatible source farm for the intermediary farm version; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“...in response to determining the presence of the one or more deviations, generating ... an updated optimal traversal route comprising a second set of instructions generated using the ... one or more knowledge graphs for each of the one or more target farms, and communicating the second set of instructions to the one or more target farms to be performed thereby to transform each target farm from the current state to the optimal state, wherein the second set of instructions are ported from the compatible source farm or from another compatible source farm which are identified based on the farm portability similarity index.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “receiving” and "monitoring" steps), and evaluation and/or judgment (e.g., the recited “pre-processing,” “determining,” “computing,” “identifying,” “analyzing,” and “generating” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “method” is “processor implemented” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “receiving” is performed “via one or more hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “captured” involves “using one or more sensing devices ... wherein the one or more sensing devices are sensors deployed in proximity to the plurality of farms, drones, satellites, and image capturing devices” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “data monitored” involves “using on-field sensors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “pre-processing” is performed “via the one or more hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “stored” is “in a version management system” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “determining” is performed “via the one or more hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “computing” is performed “via the one or more hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “identifying” is performed “via the one or more hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “analyzing” is performed “via the one or more hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “determining” is performed “via the one or more hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “using at least one of” applies to “one or more semantic ontological databases” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed "monitoring" is performed "via the one or more hardware processors" - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “generating” is performed “via the one or more hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “using the at least one of” applies to “the one or more semantic ontological databases” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, and mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 5, the claim depends from independent claim 1, and expands upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claim is rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claim recites abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein the second set of instructions comprises instructions that are (i) different from the first set of instructions, or (ii) at least a subset of the first set of instructions” of claim 5). The dependent claim recites further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “processor implemented” of claim 5). Accordingly, claim 5 also is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 8 and 12, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1 and 5, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 5. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 5 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 8 and 12. Limitations recited by claims 8 and 12 that do not have a counterpart in claims 1 and 5, such as the recited “system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to” limitations of claim 8, fail to warrant a finding of eligibility, because such limitations amount to additional elements that fail to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, for the same reasons as the additional elements of claims 1 and 5. Claims 8 and 12 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1, 5, 8, and 12, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1, 5, 8, and 12. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 15 and 19. Claims 15 and 19 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Examiner Remarks
Prior art rejections have not been asserted against claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 because the claims distinguish over the closest prior art of record. Independent claim 1 is discussed here as an example. U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0132423 A1 to Rowan et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Rowan”), WIPO Int'l Pub. No. 2019/211853 A1 to Ben-ner et al. (hereinafter referred to as "Ben-ner"), and Kaur J, Prusty AK, Ravisankar N, Panwar AS, Shamim M, Walia SS, Chatterjee S, Pasha ML, Babu S, Jat ML, López-Ridaura S. Farm typology for planning targeted farming systems interventions for smallholders in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Scientific reports. 2021 Oct 25;11(1):20978 (hereinafter referred to as "Kaur"), are representative of the closest US, foreign, and non-patent literature references of record. All three of the references were cited previously during prosecution of the present application.
Turning first to Rowan, the references discloses "computer systems programmed with operations that are useful in agricultural management. The disclosure is also in the technical field of computer systems that are programmed or configured to generate management zone delineation options for agricultural fields using digital map data and pipelined data processing, to generate graphical representations of the management zone delineation options, and to generate computer-implemented recommendations for use in agriculture" (para. [0003]). Within that context, Rowan discloses obtaining various forms of field data (see para. [0088]) using sensors (see para. [0090]), obtaining the field data at different times of the year (see para. [0190]), delineating between management zones (see para. [0234]), and making recommendations to improve the zones (see para. [0166]), amongst other things, that read on some of the limitations of independent claim 1. But Rowan does not appear to disclose, teach, or suggest computing indices based on assigned weights, consideration of spatial and temporal similarities between farms over time, consideration of sequences of versions of farms, use of semantic ontological databases and/or knowledge graphs, monitoring current and intermediary states of farms, and thus, Rowan fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recited “analyzing, via the one or more hardware processors, spatial and temporal similarity of one or more source farms and the one or more target farms to obtain a farm portability similarity index for each of the one or more target farms, wherein the farm portability similarity index is computed by assigning a first weight to the spatial similarity and a second weight to the temporal similarity, wherein the farm portability similarity index is computed as a weighted combination of (i) the spatial similarity determined from static parameters comprising an agro-climatic zone, a weather pattern, and a soil, and (ii) the temporal similarity determined from activities occurring over the one or more source farms and the one or more target farms over a period of time, and wherein, for a given target farm, a source farm is a kth neighbor farm with the farm portability similarity index with respect to the given target farm is identified as a compatible source farm upon attainment of the desired optimal state; ... identifying an optimal traversal route for each of the one or more target farms to transform each target farm from the current state to the optimal state, wherein the optimal traversal route comprises a first set of instructions with one or more field operations practiced by the compatible source farm and ported to the given target farm, wherein the first set of instructions are generated using at least one of: one or more semantic ontological databases and one or more knowledge graphs, and defining a sequence of one or more intermediary farm versions between a current farm version of the given target farm and a target farm version corresponding to the optimal state, and wherein identifying the optimal traversal route, comprises: monitoring, via the one or more hardware processors, the current state and one or more intermediary states of the one or more target farms based on the first set of instructions performed by the one or more target farms at each intermediary farm version of sequence; determining presence of one or more deviations by comparing one or more intermediary states of each of the one or more target farms with one or more reference intermediary states, upon monitoring the current state, and the one or more intermediary states of the one or more target farms, wherein the one or more reference intermediary states are expected values of performance affecting parameters ported from the compatible source farm for corresponding intermediary farm versions, and wherein a deviation is determined when an actual progress of a performance affecting parameter attained by the given target farm at an intermediary farm version differs from the expected values ported from the compatible source farm for the intermediary farm version" limitations of claim 1. Claim 1, therefore, distinguishes over Rowan.
Ben-ner discloses aspects that overlap with aspects of Rowan. Ben-ner also discloses, "computing state parameter(s) indicative of a state of a target crop at the target field based on output of crop physiological sensor(s), and classifying by a classifier(s), the state parameter(s) and the agricultural practice(s) into instructions for administration of the agricultural practice(s) to the target field, wherein yield and/or quality of the target crop at a future target event is predicted to be increased when the instructions are implemented relative to the yield and/or quality of the target crop that is predicted at the future target event when an alternative administration of the agricultural practice(s) is implemented, wherein the classifier(s) computes the instructions based on previously obtained instructions associated with respective reference fields associated with respective state parameter(s), and yield and/or quality of respective reference crops at respective reference fields at historical reference events corresponding to the future target event" (Abstract), that is a bit more like the "target farm" and "source farm" aspects of independent claim 1 than what is disclosed in Rowan. But Ben-ner ultimately is deficient for similar reasons as Rowan, by failing to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of claim 1 highlighted in the immediately preceding paragraph. Claim 1, therefore, distinguishes over Ben-ner.
Kaur also discloses aspects that overlap to a degree with aspects of Rowan and Ben-ner. Kaur also discloses, "there is an urgent need to understand the diversity of farm households, identifying the main drivers deciding their system thus, classifying them into homogenous groups" and "low-cost interventions were planned for each farm type" (p. 1). While the classifying involves consideration of similarity, Kaur is ultimately deficient for similar reasons as Rowan and Ben-ner, by failing to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of claim 1 that were reproduced above. Claim 1, therefore, distinguishes over Kaur. Further, no combination of Rowan, Ben-ner, and/or Kaur teaches each and every element of the reproduced limitations of claim 1.
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1, and distinguishes over the closest prior art of record for at least the same reasons as claim 1, due to its dependency. Claims 8 and 12 and claims 15 and 19, while of different scope relative to claims 1 and 5, recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1 and 5. Claims 8 and 12 and claims 15 and 19, therefore, also distinguish over the closest prior art of record for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 12-23 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 103. The applicant argues that the claims are eligible based on MPEP 2106.05(e), based on various recitations of the independent claims. (See Amendment/Response, pp. 12-15.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The recitations emphasized by the applicant are almost entirely abstract idea elements of the claims. MPEP 2106.05(e) focuses less on the abstract idea elements (the judicial exception), and more on the additional elements. For example, MPEP 2106.05(e) states, "The claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase "meaningful limitations" has been used by the courts even before Alice and Mayo in various contexts to describe additional elements that provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole." When looking at the abstract idea elements and the additional elements separately (as outlined in the 35 USC 101 section above), and then considering the two types of elements together as a whole, it is clear that the additional elements of the claims merely link the abstract idea elements (judicial exception) to a generic, conventional technological environment.
The applicant also argues that the claimed subject matter integrates the judicial exception in terms of improvement in functionality of a computer. (See Amendment/Response, p. 15.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The claims establish use of the functionalities of a computer and related hardware, not their improvement. Use of the computer and related hardware is beneficial, but neither is improved by the claimed process. Furthermore, farm-state monitoring, cross-farm portability, and enabling traceability are not technical fields that are improved, but rather, abstract idea elements that are improved. Improvements to abstract idea elements do not warrant eligibility. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), "However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology").
The applicant also argues that the claims are patent eligible as they integrate the judicial exception to a practical application with effecting a transformation to a different state, in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(c). (See Amendment/Response, pp. 16-18.) The transformation allegedly involves transforming farms. (See id.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The claims involve processing data about transforming farms, resulting in outputting instructions for transforming farms. The claims do not actually recite transformation of any farms. The instructions for transforming farms are "to be performed" but are not actually performed, as claimed. Further, there is no particularity to the farms or any transformations thereof, and thus, no particular transformation under MPEP 2106.05(c).
The applicant also argues that the claims implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(b). (See Amendment/Response at pp. 18-20.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The claims recite no particularity with respect to the computer hardware and sensors recited by the claim. The claims recite what the sensors sense, but provide no specifics structurally or otherwise. Thus, the claims have no particular machine per MPEP 2106.05(b). Moreover, the claimed sensors are generic hardware that merely perform data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The applicant also argues that the "deviation" aspects of the claims warrant eligibility at Step 2B. (See Amendment/Response, pp. 20-23.) The examiner find the arguments unpersuasive. The "deviation" aspects of the claims are abstract idea elements, not additional elements, and thus, the "deviation" aspects cannot be significantly more than the abstract idea because they are the abstract idea. Further, the examiner does not see the relevance of rationales from XY vs. Trans Ova Genetics, as the claims of the present application do not recite real-time monitoring and corrective control of physical farms, as alleged (see Amendment/Response, p. 21). Nor does the examiner see the relevance of DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, as the claims of the present application do not relate to a technological problem. DDR holding involves generating a composite webpage, with relates to a technological problem. Farming optimization is not a technological problem. The examiner also does not see the relevance of rationales from Thales Visionix v. US, as the claims of the present application do not recite a new and useful technique for using sensors, but rather, using generic, conventional sensors. The examiner also does not see the relevance of rationales from Diamond v. Diehr, as the claims of the present application do not improve any other technology or technical field (they improve farming), and do not effect a transformation or reduction of any article to a different state or thing (because no farm is actually transformed in the claims, and it is questionable whether optimizing a farm is a transformation of said farm at all) (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0374161 A1 to Marvaniya et al. discloses, "Methods, systems, and computer program products for customizing agricultural practices to maximize crop yield are provided herein. A computer-implemented method includes obtaining data pertaining to (i) a geographical area comprising a plurality of regions and (ii) one or more agricultural practices applied to the geographical area; assigning each of the plurality of regions to a respective cluster of a set clusters, based at least in part on comparing features identified in the data, wherein similar ones of said regions are assigned to the same cluster; generating instructions that are specific to a given cluster in the set, wherein the instructions relate to agricultural tasks to be performed on the regions assigned to the given cluster; and triggering, based on said instructions, one or more automated farming processing devices, thereby carrying out at least a portion of said agricultural tasks." (Abstract.)
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 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 THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights