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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 were rejected in a final rejection dated October 7, 2025. In the RCE, submitted on January 21, 2026, claims 1, 12, and 14 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants Remarks, on pages 6 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicants Remarks, on pages 6-8 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Page 7 of the Response, Applicant argues “the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong Two and, in any event, recite significantly more under Step 2B….which implement the same operative manufacturing-control limitation…The Office Action's ‘Response to Arguments’ repeatedly relied on the prior final-step language (‘initiating or controlling a production process...’) and reasoned that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, that step could be satisfied by ‘submitting a purchase order,’ i.e., activity that does not operate or control manufacturing equipment. It is respectfully submitted that this rationale no longer applies, as amended claim 1 now recites: ‘generating ... control data for a manufacturing process ... the control data comprising a processing signal that triggers a computing device to perform the manufacturing process.’ Claim 1 now recites an actual machine-triggering control operation, including a processing signal that causes a computing device to execute the manufacturing process, rather than a business instruction or generalized "initiation." Under any reasonable broadest interpretation, amended claim 1 recites computer-to-computer/computer-to-process control signaling for manufacturing execution, which is precisely the ‘data [Wingdings font/0xE0] control action’ linkage the Office previously stated was missing.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that nothing in the claims or specification explains what occurs when a computing device performs the manufacturing process. For example, Para. 28 of the PG Publication discloses “Based on the information about the area, i.e. the size of the area, it is possible to estimate the consumption of an agricultural product for the geographical region. As a result, manufacturing processes, logistics processes and warehouse activities can be planned and executed in a much safer and more predictable manner, significantly reducing the associated costs of planning and occurring forecast errors.” However, nothing in the claims or specification discloses what “actual machine-triggering control operation” is occurring as alleged. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a computing device submitting a purchase order would fall under “a computing device to perform the manufacturing process.” Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 8-9, in comparing the claims to eligible examples, Applicant argues “The estimate is not merely output for display, storage, or planning. Instead the claim recites that the estimate be operationalized into control data whose processing signal triggers a computing device to perform the manufacturing process. The claimed output is thus a control signal with an execution effect in a manufacturing context. Moreover, this is directly aligned with the USPTO's own eligibility analysis in Example 46, where claims are found eligible when computed results are used to control industrial equipment via a control signal (e.g., operating a sorting gate in a livestock-management context). In Example 46, the USPTO explains that the presence of a control-signal limitation that changes/controls operation of equipment meaningfully limits the claim to a practical application in an industrial process, rather than an abstract calculation. Applicant's amended limitation is the same kind of limitation: it is a control output that causes execution ("triggers a computing device to perform the manufacturing process"), not a business directive and not insignificant post-solution activity. The USPTO's AI Examples 47-49 further reinforce that claims are eligible at Prong Two when software/model outputs are tied to specific, automated technical actions rather than merely producing information for human consideration. Here, claim 1 recites an automated, machine-triggering control output: a processing signal that triggers performance of a manufacturing process, reinforcing the practical-application integration…the claim as a whole integrates it into a practical manufacturing-control application under Step 2A, Prong Two.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes nothing in the claims or specification explains what occurs when a computing device performs the manufacturing process. Merely including a “control signal with an execution effect in a manufacturing context” is not analogous to “automatically sending a control signal to the feed dispenser to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany” in claim 2 of Example 46, or “automatically operating the sorting gate, by the processor sending a control signal to the sorting gate to route the animal into a holding pen when the analysis results from step (iii) for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern, and by the processor sending a control signal to the sorting gate to permit the animal to freely pass through the sorting gate…” in claim 3 of Example 46. As discussed above, merely reciting “generating…control data…comprising a processing signal that triggers a computing device to perform a manufacturing process” is broadly recited such that it could encompass a computing device submitting a purchase order.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the claimed “triggers a computing device to perform a manufacturing process” is dissimilar to: (i) the “dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time; and ….blocking future traffic from the source address” of claim 3, Example 47, which is an improvement in the technical field of network intrusion; (ii) “synthesizing speech waveforms from the masked clusters, wherein each speech waveform corresponds to a different source sn,” and “combining the speech waveforms to generate a mixed speech signal x' by stitching together the speech waveforms corresponding to the different sources sn, excluding the speech waveform from a target source ss such that the mixed speech signal x' includes speech signals from the different sources sn, where n ∈ {1, . . . N}, and excludes the speech signal from the target source ss”, which create a new speech signal that no longer contains extraneous speech signals from unwanted sources in claim 2 of Example 48; (iii) “using the DNN to convert a time-frequency representation of the mixed speech signal x into embeddings in a feature space as a function of the mixed speech signal x; …clustering the embeddings using a k-means clustering algorithm;…applying binary masks to the clusters to obtain masked clusters” which recite a practical application of speech-to-text conversion of a speech signal corresponding to one source of the mixed speech signal, in claim 3 of Example 48; and (iv) “administering an appropriate treatment to the glaucoma patient at high risk of PI after microstent implant surgery….wherein the appropriate treatment is Compound X eye drops” in claim 2 of Example 49, which relies on the determination of patient risk to administer Compound X eye drops to glaucoma patients at high risk of PI after microstent implant surgery and is therefore a particular treatment for a medical condition such that the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, Applicant’s argument that the “specific, automated technical actions rather than merely producing information for human consideration” of the eligible claims of Examples 47-49 is similar to “generating….a processing signal that triggers a computing device to perform a manufacturing process” is not found persuasive.
On Pages 9-10 of the Response, Applicant further argues “…claim 1 addresses that critique by reciting control data, including a processing signal, that triggers a computing device to perform the manufacturing process. Under Desjardins, the eligibility analysis should credit this control-signal-driven manufacturing execution when assessing what the claim is ‘directed to’ at Step 2A…the amendment provides a processing signal that triggers performance of a manufacturing process by a computing device. That is not token post-solution activity, but the mechanism that ties the estimate to an industrial control application, consistent with the USPTO's reasoning for eligible control-signal claims in Example 46….the inventive concept lies in the non-generic, control-oriented arrangement: the estimate is converted into control data having an execution-triggering processing signal used to perform manufacturing. Moreover, whether elements are ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional" is a factual determination requiring evidentiary support (Berheimer), and an inventive concept can reside in a non- conventional arrangement of otherwise-known elements (BASCOM). The Office Action does not provide evidence that this specific ordered combination, particularly the machine-triggering control- signal limitation, was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant technological context….where claim 1 recites a statutory process (and the related claims recite statutory machines and manufactures) and, at minimum, integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, it is ‘more likely than not’ that the claim is patent eligible and thus the rejection should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and as re-iterated above, the broad recitation of “generating…control data…comprising a processing signal that triggers a computing device to perform a manufacturing process” could encompass a computing device submitting a purchase order. Nothing in the claims or specification recites a “control-signal-driven manufacturing execution” akin to the “automatically sending a control signal to the feed dispenser to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany” in claim 2 of Example 46, or “automatically operating the sorting gate, by the processor sending a control signal to the sorting gate to route the animal into a holding pen when the analysis results from step (iii) for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern, and by the processor sending a control signal to the sorting gate to permit the animal to freely pass through the sorting gate…” in claim 3 of Example 46. As discussed, nothing in the claims or specification even discloses what “actual machine-triggering control operation” is occurring as alleged. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Lastly, it is unclear how “The Office Action does not provide evidence that this specific ordered combination, particularly the machine-triggering control- signal limitation, was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant technological context” when the limitation has only been presented in this RCE, and further, as none of the additional elements in the previous office action were deemed to be well-understood, routine and conventional – thus triggering the requisite Berkheimer evidence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.--
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 14 recite “ determining an area of the geographical region cultivated with a specific crop at least based on a comparison of the provided crop growth index data with plant-specific reference data”. Examiner notes original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171.
Here, -- the specification fails to disclose how to “determin[e] an area of the geographic region…based on a comparison of the provided crop growth index data with plant-specific reference data” (emphasis added) in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. See MPEP § 2161.01(I). For example, Para. [0039] of the PG Publication explains that “the crop growth index data is Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) data and the reference data is crop specific NDVI data. The reference data, for example the NDVI data, can be used not only to determine the specific crop by comparison of the data, but also, for example, to determine or compare whether the specific crop is healthy, damaged or diseased. The latter can be compared, specified and quantified particularly well with NDVI data, since crop leaves reflect the light differently according to their condition.” However, nothing in the specification explains how area (which under broadest reasonable interpretation is length x width = area, for example for rectangular shapes) is determined based on a comparison of the NVDI data and the reference data that is crop specific NDVI area. Therefore, because -- the specification fails to disclose how to “determin[e] an area of the geographic region…based on a comparison of the provided crop growth index data with plant-specific reference data” (emphasis), the specification then also fails to disclose how to “estimate a consumption of the agricultural product at least based on the area…” and “providing an estimation of the consumption of the agricultural product for the determined area of the geographical region cultivated with the specific crop for the geographical region at least based on the determined area cultivated with the specific crop using the product consumption model”. Thus, the specification fails to show that the inventor was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 2-13 and 15 are rejected by virtue of dependency, as they do not solve the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method (i.e., process), and claims 14-15 are directed to an apparatus comprising a computing node (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-15 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 and 14 recite a series of steps/functions of: estimating a consumption of an agricultural product for an area of a geographical region cultivated with a specific crop, the method comprising: providing crop growth index data for the geographical region; determining an area of the geographical region cultivated with a specific crop at least based on a comparison of the provided crop growth index data with plant-specific reference data; providing a product consumption model for the agricultural product configured to estimate a consumption of the agricultural product at least based on the area of the geographical region cultivated with the specific crop; providing an estimation of the consumption of the agricultural product for the determined area of the geographical region cultivated with the specific crop at least based on the determined area cultivated with the specific crop using the product consumption model; and generating control data for a manufacturing process of the agricultural product based on the estimated consumption, the control data triggers to perform the manufacturing process
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices or principles. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 14 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) a computer implemented method (claim 1), (ii) an apparatus comprising: one or more computing nodes and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more computing nodes, cause the apparatus to perform steps (claim 14); and (iii) a processing signal that triggers a computing device to perform a step.
The additional element of (i) a computer implemented method (claim 1), is recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (ii) an apparatus comprising: one or more computing nodes and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more computing nodes, cause the apparatus to perform steps (claim 14), is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iii) a processing signal that triggers a computing device to perform a step, is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (e.g., Fig. 2) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 11-12, further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claim 1, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-7, 9, and 11-12 are also ineligible.
Claim 8 adds the additional element of a central/and or distributed computing environment (for providing data). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 10 further narrows the abstract idea by including that the product consumption model for the area cultivated with the specific crop is based on the results of an algorithm configured to estimate the consumption of the agricultural product at least based on the area of the geographical region cultivated with the specific crop. Claim 10 adds the additional element of a machine learning model for performing the estimating the consumption. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (machine learning) See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (machine learning). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 13 further narrows the abstract idea by estimating a consumption of an agricultural product for an area of a geographical region cultivated with a specific crop. Claim 13 adds the additional element of a machine learning model for performing the estimating with training data. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (machine learning) See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (machine learning). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 15 adds the additional element of non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions encoded thereon which, when executed on one or more computing node(s), cause the one or more computing node(s) to carry out the steps of a method. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Allowable over Prior Art
The claims are allowable over the prior art but rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Prior Art
Examiner notes that while the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of possession, nothing in the prior art teaches “ determining an area of the geographical region cultivated with a specific crop at least based on a comparison of the provided crop growth index data with plant-specific reference data” in combination with the other claim limitations in the independent claims.
The following is the closest prior art for claims 1 and 14 (and therefore dependent claims 2-13, and 15).
U.S. Patent No. 7,904,332 to Merkley et al. (hereinafter “Merkley”). Merkley discloses a producer data processing system (e.g., a crop planner) provides crop planning data (e.g., a crop plan) for a producer for a geographic area and growing season. For example, the crop planner may provide an estimate of the quantity and type of seed required, the quantity and type of fertilizer, the quantity and type of herbicide, the quantity and type of pesticide, and other agronomic inputs required for the producer's land usage during an upcoming growing season.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0350478 Ethington et al. (hereinafter “Ethington”). Ethington discloses based on the first input and the carbon load present in the field, generating application data that include at least an amount of the starter fertilizer that provides nutrients to seeds throughout a nutrient immobilization period between the planting date and a beginning of a microorganism mineralization period.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0177330 to Readick et al. (hereinafter “Readick”). Readick discloses a method of training a neural network for determining a cultivar regimen recommendation comprising: collecting from a database a plurality of historical growing conditions; creating a first training set comprising: a first plurality the collected historical growing conditions wherein each historical growing condition is associated with the historical crop yield; and a second plurality the collected historical growing conditions wherein each historical growing condition is disassociated from the historical crop yield; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set to determine a predicted crop yield; creating a second training set for a second stage of training comprising the first training set and one or more of the second plurality of the collected historical growing conditions wherein a difference between the determined crop yield and the predicted crop yield is greater than a set amount; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set; wherein the cultivar regimen recommendation, the historical cultivar regimen, or both comprise a fertilizer quantity adjustment, a pruning quantity adjustment, a pesticide quantity adjustment, an irrigation quantity adjustment.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0147962 to Vollmar et al. (hereinafter “Vollmar”). Vollmar discloses supply forecasting (e.g., for suppliers of seed, fertilizer, or other treatment material).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/025305 to Rojas (hereinafter “Rojas”). Rojas discloses comparing a measured leaf area index of a stand that is determined from remotely sensed data to an expected leaf area index. The computer system identifies stands or portions of stands where the measured leaf area index is greater than the expected leaf area index and/or stands or portions of stands where the measured leaf area index is less than the expected leaf area index. The comparison is used to identify stands or portions thereof where silviculture treatments may be necessary.
U.S. Patent No. 11,406,053 to Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”). Hu discloses fertilizer recommendation instructions that estimate a recommended nitrogen fertilizer amount to add to the field or portions thereof.Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Extract dosages of Fertilizers for Precision Agriculture by Singh et al. (hereinafter “Singh”), dated 2020. Singh discloses to apply precision agriculture is predicting the exact amount of fertilisers to be added in a farmland. Earlier fertiliser was added into the farms as per the blanket recommendations suggested by the agriculturists for each crop. For example, the blanket recommendation for indigenous varieties of wheat was 80:40:40 for N:P:K. Now a days, a new approach is used. The entire nation is divided into zones and the fertilisers for each zone are recommended crop wise and category wise.
“Precision Farming: A New Approach to Crop Management” by Stephen Searcy, dated July 1997 (hereinafter “Searcy”). Searcy discloses a strategy that employs detailed, site specific information to precisely manage production inputs. This concept is sometimes called precision agriculture, prescription farming, or site-specific management. The idea is to know the soil and crop characteristics unique to each part of the field, and to optimize the production inputs within small portions of the field. The philosophy behind precision agriculture is that production inputs (seed, fertilizer, chemicals, etc.) should be applied only as needed and where needed for the most economic production.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628