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 . Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-27 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 07/14/2026, amended claims, previously cancelled claims 2-3 and 11-12, and added claims 24-27. Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-27 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The amended claims overcame the 102/103 Rejections and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends claims are not directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity as they are not directed towards the enumerated categories.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity as the claims are directed towards predicting yield during harvesting of a field. The claims recite a fundamental economic practice (i.e. business relations) as they determine product yield.
Applicant contends that the claims are not directed towards mental processes as the amended claims do not recite mental processes and points to SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco… as the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant further argues that a human mind cannot make predictions during yield and further cannot transmit…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards mental process as the claims are directed towards obtaining spatial data, receiving actual yield, dynamically generating yield prediction model, and determining information related to yield all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper). Examiner further notes that while real-time calculations are not recited even if they were the use of real-time implies a general purpose computing device. The step of step transmitting is an additional element which is addressed as a “apply it” in the full rejection below.
Applicant contends that the claims are similar to Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys. Finding that specific steps accomplish a desired result. Applicant further contends that the software can make non-abstract improvement to a computing system and points to Spec. [03-05, 13-14].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional element are each recited at a high level of generality and do not constitute an improvement to the computing system as a whole. The additional elements are analyzed both individually as well as in combination and determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that accurate and calibrated predictions, including scaling factors… are not certain methods of organizing human activities. Applicant contends that the claims are not directed towards enumerated activities and cites to the MPEP. Applicant further argues claims are not directed towards mathematical concepts.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity as the claims are directed towards predicting yield during harvesting of a field. The claims recite a fundamental economic practice (i.e. business relations) as they determine product yield. Regarding the assertion of mathematical concepts, the Examiner has not categorized the claims as mathematical processes.
Applicant points to several court cases and asserts that the claims disclose an inventive arrangement for accomplishing results.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are each identified and analyzed below and determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) when analyzing the elements of the claim both individually as well as in combination.
Applicant contends that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, further pointing to Luminati Networks…
Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive as the additional elements have been analyzed both individually as well as in combination and determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that are integrated into a practical application as the claims recite dynamically calibrated yield prediction…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of calibrated yield predictions , determining based on actual yield…, scaling factors…., predicting a time and location.. are all abstract concepts. The recitation of dynamically implies the use of a general purpose computer and transmitting is addressed similarly as seen below.
Applicant contends at Step 2A- P2 that the claims are tied to a specific application (accurate and dynamic yield prediction). Applicant further points to Fair Warning and Countour Ip Holding… and asserts the claims do not use a computer in an ordinary capacity and when read as a whole improves relevant technology and further asserts Examiner should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are analyzed both individually as well as in combination and recite additional elements at a high level of generality as previously stated above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that the claims provide a specific technological solution.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are analyzed both individually as well as in combination and recite additional elements at a high level of generality as previously stated above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant further points to Ex Parte Annakov. Applicant asserts that the Examiner cannot shortcut the Alice analysis by simply alleging recited structural components that interact with each other.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite additional elements (computer; a processor; storing the yield prediction model in a memory coupled with the processor; A system for yield prediction during harvesting of a field, the system comprising: a processor, and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to; dynamically (at most implies use of a general purpose computer), transmitting…. computing device. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends at Step 2B, that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and recite an inventive concepts and further asserts that if an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional (WURC) it requires clear support.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element of transmitting is addressed in the updated 101 as the only element that is WURC and evidence is provided by pointing to the MPEP.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
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, and 13-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 1, 4-10, and 13-27 is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 23 recite a series of steps for performing the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10; (additional elements bolded)
A computer implemented method for yield prediction during harvesting of a field, the method comprising:/A system for yield prediction during harvesting of a field, the system comprising: a processor, and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
obtaining, by a processor, a set of spatial yield data representing yield throughout the field
receiving, by the processor, at least a first measurement of actual yield obtained from at least a first field region during harvesting of the field, the at least the first field region being less than entirety of the field;
dynamically generating, by the processor after commencement of harvesting of the field based on the set of spatial yield data and the at least the first measurement, a yield prediction model for predicting actual yield in a second field region during harvesting of the field, the second field region being different from the first field region;
wherein generating the yield prediction model includes determining, based on an actual yield measurement associated with the first field region and spatial yield data corresponding to the first field region, a one or more a scaling factor for calibrating the spatial yield data representing yield throughout the field;
storing the yield prediction model, including the one or more scaling factors, in a memory coupled to the processor;
determining, by the processor during the harvesting of the field and based on the yield prediction model, including the one or more scaling factors, stored in the memory, and ii) spatial yield data corresponding to the at least the second field region, a calibrated predicted yield for the at least the second field region, including determining one or both of a predicted time and a predicted location corresponding to a predetermined fill level of a container of a harvester used for harvesting the at least the second field region; and
transmitting, with the processor, the time and the location corresponding to the predetermined fill level of the container of the harvester to a computing device located in a machine other than the harvester to cause the one or both of the time and the location to be displayed to an operator of the machine other than the harvester and to dispatch the machine other than the harvester to arrive at the predicted time and to the predicted location for unloading the container of the harvester.
Regarding Claim(s) 19,
A computer implemented method for yield prediction for a field, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, a set of spatial yield data representing yield throughout the field;
receiving, by the processor, multiple measurements of actual yield obtained from different field regions during harvesting of the field, each field region being less than entirety of the field;
dynamically generating, by the processor based on the set of yield data and the multiple measurements of actual yield, a yield prediction model for predicting actual yield throughout the field,
wherein generating the yield prediction model includes determining, based on the multiple measurements of actual yield and the spatial yield data representing yield throughout the field, scaling factors for calibrating the spatial yield data representing yield throughout the field, and
storing the yield prediction model, including the one or more scaling factors, in a memory coupled to the processor;;
determining, by the processor during harvesting of the field and based on i)the yield prediction model, including the one or more scaling factors, stored in the memory and ii) the spatial yield data representing yield throughout the field, yield at specific locations within the field, including determining one or both of a predicted time and a predicted location corresponding to a predetermined fill level of a container of a harvester used for harvesting a particular field region; and
transmitting, by the processor, the one or both of the predicted time and the predicted location corresponding to the predetermined fill level of the container of the harvester to be transmitted to a computing device located in a machine other than the harvester to cause the one or both of the predicted time and the predicted location to be displayed to an operator of the machine other than the harvester and to dispatch the machine other than the harvester to arrive at the predicted time and to the predicted location for unloading the container of the harvester.
Regarding Claim(s) 23,
A non-transitory medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to
obtain a set of spatial yield data representing yield throughout the field;
receive at least a first measurement of actual yield obtained from at least a first field region during harvesting of the field, the at least the first field region being less than entirety of the field;
dynamically generate after commencement of harvesting of the field, based on the set of spatial yield data and the at least the first measurement, a yield prediction model for predicting actual yield in a second field region during harvesting of the field, the second field region being different from the first field region,
wherein generating the yield prediction model includes determining a scaling factor for calibrating the spatial yield data determining, based on an actual yield measurement associated with the first field region and spatial yield data corresponding to the first field region, one or more scaling factors for calibrating the spatial yield data representing yield throughout the field;
determine, during harvesting of the field and based on i)the yield prediction model including the one or more scaling factors and ii) spatial yield data corresponding to the at least the second field region, a calibrated predicted yield for the at least the second field region including determining one or both of a predicted time and a predicted location corresponding to a predetermined fill level of a container of a harvester used for harvesting the at least the second field region; and
transmit the predicted time and the location corresponding to the predetermined fill level of the container of the harvester to a computing device located in a machine other than the harvester to cause the one or both of the predicted time and the predicted location to be displayed to an operator of the machine other than the harvester and to dispatch the machine other than the harvester to arrive at the predicted time and to the predicted location for unloading the container of the harvester.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards obtaining spatial data, receiving actual yield, generating yield prediction model, and determining information related to yield all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards predicting yield during harvesting of a field.
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the ELEMENTS are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Further the element of transmitting… is an activity that has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d). i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362)
Regarding Claim(s) 4-8, 13-17, 20-22, and 24-27, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 9 and 18, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of normalizing a plurality of pixels within a particular image region by a same factor. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-27 , though directed to non-statutory subject matter, are deemed to define over the currently known prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103. Examiner interprets based upon the claim limitations that there is no currently known prior art that discloses the features relating to: “what limitations”
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
The closest prior arts of record are of as follows:
Known Prior Art (patent)
US 20170161627 A1
FORECASTING FIELD LEVEL CROP YIELD DURING A GROWING SEASON
US 20220122197 A1
HARVEST LOGISTICS
US 20180189564 A1
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CROP TYPE IDENTIFICATION USING SATELLITE OBSERVATION AND WEATHER DATA
US 20090065579 A1
Attributing Harvest Information with Unique Identifiers
US 20150377690 A1
CALIBRATION OF GRAIN MASS MEASUREMENT
US 20220386527 A1
ROW SENSE OPERATIONS WITH CONTEXT SENSING
US 20240013124 A1
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM CONTROL BASED ON PROGRESSIVE TIME HORIZON MODEL OUTPUT
US 20230234440 A1
EQUIPMENT SETTINGS CONTROL BASED ON AGGREGATED DATA
US 20230107444 A1
HISTORICAL CROP STATE MODEL, PREDICTIVE CROP STATE MAP GENERATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM
Known Prior Art (NPL)
Kubar MS, Zhang Q, Feng M, Wang C, Yang W, Kubar KA, Riaz S, Gul H, Samoon HA, Sun H, Xie Y, Asghar MA. Growth, Yield and Photosynthetic Performance of Winter Wheat as Affected by Co-Application of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Organic Manures. Life (Basel). 2022 Jul 6
Known Prior Art (foreign)
DE 112015002191 T5
Acquisition application for optical data flow in agricultural vehicles
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights