DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 16-27 and 30-39 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-27 and 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 16, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 16-27 and 30-39 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner will analyze Claim 16, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim 17.
The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method for preparing a treatment product for treating a plot of land by a localized spray system.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 16 limitation of
a step of generating a vegetation forecast map, wherein a vegetation forecast map is generated from an earlier vegetation map and from a plant growth model that models the growth of the plants being cultivated in the plot of land [Mental process. A person can predict and create vegetation forecast map];
each map spatially dividing the plot of land into a set of vegetation areas [also mental process. A person can divide a plot of land for vegetation area];
each vegetation area being associated with a vegetation indicator representative of a state for the cultivated plants present in said vegetation area [Also mental process];
a step of generating a spraying forecast map, wherein a spraying forecast map is generated from the vegetation forecast map [a mental process as well. A farmer can determine as to when and where to spray]; and
each spraying area spatially corresponding to a vegetation area and being associated with a quantity of treatment product to be sprayed as a function of the vegetation indicator of the corresponding vegetation area and a step of determining a total quantity of treatment product required to treat the plot of land, wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas [mathematical concept]; wherein the step of determining the total quantity of treatment product comprises: a sub-step of determining a functional safety margin, wherein a functional safety margin is determined based on parameters of the localized spraying system or meteorological data at the forecasted treatment date; and a sub-step of calculating the total quantity of treatment product, wherein the total quantity of treatment product is calculated as a function of the quantities of treatment product to be sprayed of the different spraying areas and of the functional safety margin [also a mathematical concept], are directed to an abstract.
The claims are related to mental process and mathematical concept by having an agronomist to evaluate a farm and determine/calculate/estimate the amount of the product needed to treat the farm.
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No.
A spray system and agriculture machine are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions.
A step of obtaining an earlier vegetation map generated from image of the plot of land, [data gathering] which is insignificant extra solution activity.
The vegetation forecast map and the earlier vegetation map being a graphical representation of the plot of land at a forecasted treatment date and at a date prior to the forecasted treatment date, respectively there is no improvement to the graphical user interface.
The spraying forecast map being a graphical representation of the plot of land spatially dividing the plot of land into a set of spraying areas there is no improvement to the graphical user interface.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the claims do not amount to significantly more.
The Examiner finds that Claims 18-27 and 30-39 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for analyzing image to forecast a treatment plan.
Thus, claims 16-27 and 30-39 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 35 and 36 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 35 and 36 defines a program embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a non-transitory computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). That is, the scope of the presently claimed a program can range from paper on which the program is written, to a program simply contemplated and memorized by a person.
NOTE: No pertinent prior art is found for rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights