DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a non-final. Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 12-24 are pending. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 11/21/2025, amended claims 1, 4, 8, 12, 18, and 19; claims 6-7 and 10-11 have been canceled; and added new claims 20-24.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-6 and 8-19, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-6 and 8-19, under 35 USC 112(a), have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 11/21/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
With respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant's remarks filed on 21 November 2025 (page 21 in particular) were deemed to be persuasive and adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why claims are allowable over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “Applicant submit that at least the step of "positioning a sensor for measuring soil moisture at one of the locations in the field based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets" is an additional element.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements of claim 1, and similarly claims 18-19 do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 1 include positioning a sensor for measuring soil is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea because the operation amounts to no more than mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g) that does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of obtain, normalize, obtain, determine, determine, and generate. In view of the above, the additional elements of claim 1 and similarly claims 18 and 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant asserts that “the claimed subject matter recites elements that are integrated into a practical application and therefore are patent-eligible under the Second Prong of Step 2A.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 18-19, are the recitations of “generating a moisture-based productivity map for a field the method comprising: obtaining a plurality of seasonal yield datasets for a field, each of the plurality of seasonal yield datasets containing a respective plurality of point yields corresponding to a plurality of locations of the field; normalizing the plurality of seasonal yield datasets; obtaining moisture data for the field; determining, based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets and the soil moisture data a trend line for each location in the field that represents a relationship between yield and moisture based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield in that location datasets and soil moisture; measuring soil moisture at one of the locations in the field based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets; positioning a sensor for measuring soil moisture at one of the locations in the field based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets; determining a yield potential for the location based on soil moisture measured by the sensor; determining a moisture-based yield potential for each other location in the field based on the trend lines and the yield potential for the location; and generating moisture-based productivity map for the field based on the moisture-based yield potential for each location in the field are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
Applicant asserts that “the independent claims, as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore, the subject matter of the amended claims is patent eligible under Step 2B.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP America at 11. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3.
Here, under Step 2B, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 18-19, are the recitations of “generating a moisture-based productivity map for a field the method comprising: obtaining a plurality of seasonal yield datasets for a field, each of the plurality of seasonal yield datasets containing a respective plurality of point yields corresponding to a plurality of locations of the field; normalizing the plurality of seasonal yield datasets; obtaining moisture data for the field; determining, based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets and the soil moisture data a trend line for each location in the field that represents a relationship between yield and moisture based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield in that location datasets and soil moisture; measuring soil moisture at one of the locations in the field based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets; positioning a sensor for measuring soil moisture at one of the locations in the field based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets; determining a yield potential for the location based on soil moisture measured by the sensor; determining a moisture-based yield potential for each other location in the field based on the trend lines and the yield potential for the location; and generating moisture-based productivity map for the field based on the moisture-based yield potential for each location in the field are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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, 8-9, and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-5, 8-9, and 12-24 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1 and 18-19 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 18-19 include “obtaining a plurality of seasonal yield datasets for a field, each of the plurality of seasonal yield datasets containing a respective plurality of point yields corresponding to a plurality of locations of the field; normalizing the plurality of seasonal yield datasets; obtaining moisture data for the field; determining, based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets and the soil
moisture data a trend line for each location in the field that represents a relationship between yield and moisture based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield in that location datasets and soil moisture; measuring soil moisture at one of the locations in the field based on the normalized plurality of seasonal yield datasets; determining a yield potential for the location based on soil moisture measured; determining a moisture-based yield potential for each other location in the field based on the trend lines and the yield potential for the location; and generating moisture-based productivity map for the field based on the moisture-based yield potential for each location in the field”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical calculations because the elements describe a process for managing soil moisture. As a result, claims 1 and 18-19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-6 and 8-17 further describe the process for managing soil moisture. As a result, claims 2-6 and 8-17 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 18-19.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1 and 18-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 18-19 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1 and 18-19 include a digital, a processor, a memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1 and 18-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 8-10, 12-14, and 16-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1 and 18-19. As a result, claims 8-10, 12-14, and 16-17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 18-19.
Claims 2-6, 11, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-6, 11, and 15 include a proximal sensor, a remote sensor, a sensor, a remote sensing satellite, an airplane, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2-6, 11, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1 and 18-19 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1 and 18-19 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1 and 18-19 include a digital, a processor, a memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1 and 18-19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 8-10, 12-14, and 16-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1 and 18-19. As a result, claims 8-10, 12-14, and 16-17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 18-19.
Claims 2-6, 11, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-6, 11, and 15 include a proximal sensor, a remote sensor, a sensor, a remote sensing satellite, an airplane, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2-6, 11, and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 8-9, and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US Pub No. 2022/0128358 and US Pat No. 8,104,498).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 03/23/2026