Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/503,896

METHODS, SYSTEMS, APPARATUS, AND ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE OF AN AGRICULTURAL VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 07, 2023
Examiner
ISMAIL, MAHMOUD S
Art Unit
3662
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Deere & Company
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 778 resolved
+36.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
817
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 778 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The remarks filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-24 pending in Instant Application. Examiner Note Examiner attempted to contact Applicant’s Representative, Mark C. Zimmerman (reg. no. 44,006), to file a Terminal Disclaimer in order to expedite prosecution to overcome the Double Patenting rejection. However, Examiner was not able to get a hold of Applicant’s Representative. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2025 and 12/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1, 3, 6,-7, 9, 11, 14-15, 17, 19, and 22-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 17-18, 20-21, and 23 of Vandike et al., co-pending Application 18/446,189. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations. In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1, 3, 6,-7, 9, 11, 14-15, 17, 19, and 22-23 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 17-18, 20-21, and 23 of US co-pending application 18/446,189, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-24 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer would be filed and approved to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action. Relevant Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2024/0020331 - Provides electronic data processing, and more particularly, relates to image processing methods, computer program products and systems for enhancing a plant image database for improved damage identification on plants. USPGPub 2022/03989928 - Provides reducing erroneous classification results even in a case where there is a class with an insufficient training images acquired. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM. 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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. /MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2023
Application Filed
May 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jul 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 25, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602045
Autonomous Operation Method, Work Vehicle, And Autonomous Operation System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602053
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, MOVING BODY CONTROL SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603772
Vehicle Diagnostic System, Method, and Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601144
WORKING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588671
METHOD FOR CALIBRATING AN AGRICULTURAL SPRAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+11.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 778 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month