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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Office Action Response dated February 25, 2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant asserts that the step of “transmitting the application plan to an agricultural machine to configured the agricultural machine…” comprises a practical application. In response, the Office notes that while the application plan is transmitted to the agricultural machine, there is no positive recitation, within the claim, that agricultural plan is actual utilized by the agricultural machine, but instead, only that the agricultural machine could be configured with the application plan. Next, Applicant asserts that the “identifying” and “determining” steps comprises an inventive concept. However, as noted by the prior art, creating an offset from a feature for the purpose of applying agricultural material, is well known in the art. Furthermore, these features merely comprise Abstract ideas that could be performed within the mind, or by hand.
Next, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “identifying an offset from the feature based on a type of the feature and agricultural material to be applied to the zone.” The Office maintains that primary reference discloses identifying an offset (e.g. see Fig. 26, headland 14’), which is based upon an obstacle 12 to be avoided (e.g. see para 0015), and based upon applying fertilization to the field (e.g. see para 0379).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections under 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, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
With respect to claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 8 and 15, the claims recites:
Claim 1: A method for generating an application plan for applying agricultural material to a zone of a geographic area, the method comprising:
A) identifying a feature in the zone;
B) identifying an offset from the feature based on a type of the feature and agricultural material to be applied to the zone;
C) determining an area adjacent to the feature based on the offset; determining application restrictions for the area adjacent to the feature; and
D) transmitting the application plan to an agricultural machine to configure the agricultural machine to operate based on the application plan, wherein the application plan comprises: 1) a plurality of geographic coordinates identifying the zone and the area adjacent to the feature, and 2) an application rate of agricultural material to be applied to the zone and the area adjacent to the feature.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performing identifying items and making a determination.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 1: A method for generating an application plan for applying agricultural material to a zone of a geographic area, the method comprising:
A) identifying a feature in the zone;
B) identifying an offset from the feature based on a type of the feature and agricultural material to be applied to the zone;
C) determining an area adjacent to the feature based on the offset; determining application restrictions for the area adjacent to the feature; and
D) transmitting the application plan to an agricultural machine to configure the agricultural machine to operate based on the application plan, wherein the application plan comprises: 1) a plurality of geographic coordinates identifying the zone and the area adjacent to the feature, and 2) an application rate of agricultural material to be applied to the zone and the area adjacent to the feature.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmitting” information, the examiner submits that transmission of information comprises an extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 8 and 15 and the additional limitations of “an apparatus…comprising a processor; and memory” and “a computer readable medium,” the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “transmitting” information and implementing the method on or using a “computer,” the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 7 and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward judicial exceptions, additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0239416, to Green et al. (hereinafter Green), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0167605, to Janssen et al. (hereinafter Janssen).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 8 and 15, Green discloses a method for generating an application plan for applying agricultural material to a zone of a geographic area (e.g. see Abstract and para 0379, wherein a support system is provided for generating a trajectory to be followed by an agricultural work vehicle being configured for fertilizing (i.e. applying agricultural material)), the method comprising: identifying a feature in the zone (e.g. see Fig. 25, and paras 0015 and 0293-0297, wherein the system includes a mapping unit configured for receiving boundaries of one or more obstacles within a field, the obstacle being defined by an obstacle polygon 12); identifying an offset from the feature based on a type of the feature (e.g. see Fig. 26 and paras 0293-0297, wherein the system utilizes a method of forming a headland 14’ (i.e. offset) from the obstacle, the offset being based upon a requirement that the obstacle must be avoided (i.e. see para 0005)) and agricultural material to be applied to the zone (e.g. see para 0379, wherein the headland is generated during fertilizing (i.e. based upon agricultural material to be applied)); determining an area adjacent to the feature based on the offset (e.g. see Fig. 26 and para 0296, wherein the headline 14’ adjacent the obstacle is define by an area between an outer periphery 18’ and an inner periphery 20’); … and transmitting the application plan to an agricultural machine to configure the agricultural machine to operate based on the application plan (e.g. see Fig. 29, and para 0311, wherein a path 28 is generated for an agricultural work vehicle to travel within the field), wherein the application plan comprises: 1) a plurality of geographic coordinates identifying the zone and the area adjacent to the feature (e.g. see Figs. 28-29, and para 0015, wherein the mapping unit receives coordinates relating to boundaries of obstacles), and 2) an application rate of agricultural material to be applied to the zone (e.g. see Abstract and para 0379, wherein a support system is provided for generating a trajectory to be followed by an agricultural work vehicle being configured for fertilizing (i.e. applying agricultural material); the Office further notes that a rate of fertilizer must be determined to avoid under-fertilization and over-fertilization)…
Green fails to disclose determining application restrictions for the area adjacent to the feature and wherein the application plane comprises…an application rate of agricultural material to be applied to … the area adjacent to the feature. However, Janssen teaches a vehicle device and method for treatment of a field, wherein the method takes into consideration restriction data to prevent leaching of material into ground water, the method forming buffer zones around the restricted area (i.e. application restriction about a feature and the application rate being reduced or eliminated about the feature) (e.g. see at least Abstract and para 0045). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the fertilization system of Green to including avoiding fertilization about a protected feature to prevent contamination thereof.
As per claim 2, and similarly with respect to claims 9 and 16, Green, as modified by Janssen, teaches the features of claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and -----Green further discloses further comprising: operating the agricultural machine based on the application plan (e.g. see Abstract and para 0379, wherein a support system is provided for generating a trajectory to be followed by an agricultural work vehicle being configured for fertilizing (i.e. applying agricultural material)).
As per claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Green, as modified by Janssen, teaches the features of claims 1 and 8, respectively, and Janssen further teaches wherein application rates vary in different areas of the zone based on the agricultural material, the zone, and the feature (e.g. Janssen teaches a vehicle device and method for treatment of a field, wherein the method takes into consideration restriction data to prevent leaching of material into ground water, the method forming buffer zones around the restricted area (i.e. application restriction about a feature and the application rate being reduced or eliminated about the feature) (e.g. see at least Abstract and para 0045). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the fertilization system of Green to including avoiding fertilization about a protected feature to prevent contamination thereof.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0239416, to Green et al. (hereinafter Green), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0167605, to Janssen et al. (hereinafter Janssen), and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0272907, to Geltner.
As per claim 3, and similarly with respect to claims 10 and 17, Green, as modified by Janssen, teaches the features of claims 2, 9 and 16, respectively, but fails to teach further comprising: receiving application data from the agricultural machine; and storing the application data in an application history database. However, Geltner teaches systems and methods of managing plant growth zones including recording various tasks including pesticide treatments (e.g. see Abstract and para 0016). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the fertilization system of Green to including recording treatment of a field for the purpose of over treating the same.
As per claim 4, and similarly with respect to claims 11 and 18, Green, as modified by Janssen and Geltner, teaches the features of claims 3, 10 and 17, respectively, and Geltner further teaches wherein the application data is generated based on the operating (e.g. see Abstract and para 0016, wherein Geltner teaches systems and methods of managing plant growth zones including recording various tasks including pesticide treatments (i.e. during operation)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the fertilization system of Green to include recording treatment of a field for the purpose of over treating the same.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0239416, to Green et al. (hereinafter Green), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0167605, to Janssen et al. (hereinafter Janssen), in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0272907, to Geltner, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0211026, to McCann et al. (hereinafter McCann).
As per claim 5, and similarly with respect to claims 12 and 19, Green, as modified by Janssen and Geltner, teaches the features of claims 3, 10 and 17, respectively, but fails to teach wherein the application data deviates from the application plan. However, McCann teaches treatment of a field with pesticides, by an autonomous drone, wherein based upon detection of an obstacle, the drone avoids the objects causing the application data to deviate from an initial plan or route (e.g. see at least Abstract and paras 0099-0100). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the fertilization system of Green to include modifying a route of an spray application device when an obstacle is detected for the purpose of avoiding collision or treatment of an area which could be harmful.
As per claim 6, and similarly with respect to claims 13 and 20, Green, as modified by Janssen, Geltner and McCann, teaches the features of claims 5, 12 and 19, respectively, and McCann further teaches wherein the application data deviates from the application plan due to obstacles in the geographic area (e.g. see at least Abstract and paras 0099-0100, wherein McCann teaches treatment of a field with pesticides, by an autonomous drone, wherein based upon detection of an obstacle, the drone avoids the objects causing the application data to deviate from an initial plan or route (e.g. see at least Abstract and paras 0099-0100). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the fertilization system of Green to include modifying a route of an spray application device when an obstacle is detected for the purpose of avoiding collision or treatment of an area which could be harmful.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights