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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 05/12/2026.
Claims 1, 10, 13, and 16-17 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
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, 4-10, 13-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claim 10-16 are directed to using a system to perform the method, and claims 17-20 are directed to a system to implement a learning model. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for estimating an expected planting quality indicator, comprising:
receiving, via a processor, a plurality of types of data associated with planting via an agricultural planting implement;
combining, via the processor, the plurality of types of data to calculate an expected planting quality indicator; and
automatically updating, via the processor, a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality indicator;
wherein the expected planting quality indicator is calculated by: determining an optimal planting quality indicator; and
comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement;
wherein the expected planting quality indicator is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“receiving, via a processor, a plurality of types of data associated with planting via an agricultural planting implement” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“combining, via the processor, the plurality of types of data to calculate an expected planting quality indicator” is directed to math because the processing of calculating an expected planting quality indicator (EPQ) is a classic exercise in Multivariate Data Analysis and Predictive Modeling.
“wherein the expected planting quality indicator is calculated by:
determining an optimal planting quality indicator” is directed to math because expected planting quality indicator is calculating an expected value involves mathematical models that simulate crop growth and development based on variables like temperature, soil nutrients, and moisture. Optimal implies finding the maximum and minimum value of a function. Soil and planting quality indices are created by normalizing raw data and then combining them using mathematical processes such as addition, multiplication, or weighted average processes.
“comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement” is directed to math because comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data is an exercise in applied mathematics within the field of statistics, geometry, and optimization. When an agricultural implement operates, it is performing a high speed data matching calculation.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "combining, via the processor, the plurality of types of data to calculate an expected planting quality indicator; wherein the expected planting quality indicator is calculated by: determining an optimal planting quality indicator; and comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for estimating an expected planting quality indicator, comprising” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving, via a processor, a plurality of types of data associated with planting via an agricultural planting implement” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“combining, via the processor, the plurality of types of data to calculate an expected planting quality indicator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“automatically updating, via the processor, a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality indicator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein the expected planting quality indicator is calculated by: determining an optimal planting quality indicator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein the expected planting quality indicator is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for estimating an expected planting quality indicator, comprising” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving, via a processor, a plurality of types of data associated with planting via an agricultural planting implement” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“combining, via the processor, the plurality of types of data to calculate an expected planting quality indicator” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“automatically updating, via the processor, a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality indicator” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein the expected planting quality indicator is calculated by: determining an optimal planting quality indicator” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein the expected planting quality indicator is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 but recites a system for estimating an expected planting quality value, comprising: a processor; a display for display expected planting quality based on GPS position relative to a location on a map, wherein the processor is part of the display; a memory and/or a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations, the operations comprising the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 10 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 10.
Regarding claim 17:
A system for estimating an expected planting quality value of an agricultural planting implement, the system comprising:
at least one processor and at least one memory configured to train a learning model;
wherein the learning model is stored on one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions comprising:
collecting, in real time, data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement; and
generating and displaying the expected planting quality value for the collected data via a display;
wherein the processor is further configured to automatically update a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality value;
wherein the expected planting quality value is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“collecting, in real time, data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“generating and displaying the expected planting quality value for the collected data via a display” is directed to mental step of outputting result of analyzing data.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A system for estimating an expected planting quality value of an agricultural planting implement, the system comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory configured to train a learning model; wherein the learning model is stored on one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions comprising:” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“collecting, in real time, data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“generating and displaying the expected planting quality value for the collected data via a display” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“wherein the processor is further configured to automatically update a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality value” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein the expected planting quality value is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Claim 17 recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. a learning model, the learning model generated from training data, wherein the learning model is trained with a processor to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the learning model merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of the learning model to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A system for estimating an expected planting quality value of an agricultural planting implement, the system comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory configured to train a learning model; wherein the learning model is stored on one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions comprising:” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“collecting, in real time, data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“generating and displaying the expected planting quality value for the collected data via a display” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
“wherein the processor is further configured to automatically update a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality value” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein the expected planting quality value is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, “displaying the expected planting quality indicator on a display” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 5, “displaying a suggested change to one or more settings of the agricultural planting implement to improve the expected planting quality indicator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “storing the expected planting quality indicator and the plurality of types of data to a memory” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, “analyzing a plurality of expected planting quality indicators based upon the plurality of types of data to improve the agricultural planting implement” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 8, “wherein at least one of the plurality of types of data comprises ambient weather conditions” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 9, “wherein at least one of the plurality of types of data comprises GPS data” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 13, “wherein the display comprises a graphical user interface” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 14, “wherein a user can make a change to one or more settings of the agricultural planting implement, via the graphical user interface, based upon the expected planting quality value” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 16, “wherein the collected plurality of types of data and the expected planting quality value are saved in the memory and/or the non-transitory computer readable medium as a data pair comprising a location and the expected planting quality value” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 18, “wherein the expected planting quality value is stored on the at least one memory and/or the one or more non-transitory computer readable media” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 19, “wherein the instructions of the one or more non-transitory computer readable media further comprise generating and displaying, via the display, suggestions for improving the expected planting quality value” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 20, “wherein the plurality of data types comprises GPS data, ambient weather conditions, and settings of the agricultural planting implement” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 21, “wherein the operations further comprise: recording the plurality of types of data based on GPS position; and displaying, via the display, the plurality of types of data based on GPS position relative to a location on the map” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 22, “wherein the system is configured to automatically send information to an entity associated with the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality value” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1, 4-10, 13-14, 16-22 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, recites "automatically updating, via the processor, a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality indicator". Similarly, as noted herein, claim 17, as amended, recites "wherein the processor is further configured to automatically update a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality value". These amended features of claims 1 and 17 represent additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical
application and/or amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. These amended features of claims 1 and 17 provide an improvement to agricultural planting technology and also provide a meaningful claim element that goes beyond generally linking the use of the alleged judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a method for estimating an expected planting quality indicator, comprising:
receiving, via a processor, a plurality of types of data associated with planting via an agricultural planting implement;
combining, via the processor, the plurality of types of data to calculate an expected planting quality indicator; and
automatically updating, via the processor, a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality indicator;
wherein the expected planting quality indicator is calculated by: determining an optimal planting quality indicator; and
comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement;
wherein the expected planting quality indicator is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation.
Examiner notes that the claims are directed to estimating an expected planting quality indicator, the recited steps alone can be done by a human mind and/or using pen and paper, so they are abstract ideas, The steps of: “receiving, via a processor, a plurality of types of data associated with planting via an agricultural planting implement; combining, via the processor, the plurality of types of data to calculate an expected planting quality indicator; and automatically updating, via the processor, a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality indicator; wherein the expected planting quality indicator is calculated by: determining an optimal planting quality indicator; and comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement; wherein the expected planting quality indicator is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation” is where a computer is used to compute and analyzing data in these steps, and the computer recited at generic level to perform these abstract-idea steps does not amount significantly more to abstract ideas. Using a computer to estimate an expected planting quality indicator, receiving, via a processor, a plurality of types of data associated with planting via an agricultural planting implement; combining, via the processor, the plurality of types of data to calculate an expected planting quality indicator; and automatically updating, via the processor, a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality indicator; wherein the expected planting quality indicator is calculated by: determining an optimal planting quality indicator; and comparing the optimal planting quality value to the collected plurality of types of data associated with planting via the agricultural planting implement; wherein the expected planting quality indicator is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation is merely applying the abstract data processing to a computer, not an improvement to the computer itself.
The step of “automatically updating, via the processor, a setting of the agricultural planting implement based on the expected planting quality indicator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, “wherein the expected planting quality indicator is indicative of one or more expected metrics, further wherein the one or more expected metrics comprise expected population or expected singulation” as cited in claim 1.
Examiner agrees, therefore claims the rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 13-14, and 16-20 under 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights