DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 11/17/25 wherein:
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-19, and 21 are currently pending; and
Claims 4, 15, and 20 are cancelled.
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 .
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 1-3, 5-14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 12 and 21 recite a system and a computer readable medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity
training a second management policy based on an imitation learning method and a second set of state information to provide a trained second management policy, wherein the imitation learning method is based on a trained first management policy, wherein the trained first management policy was trained using a reinforcement learning method and a first set of state information, wherein the second set of state information comprises a subset of the first set of state information;
receiving, at runtime, from at least one sensor, information indicative of at least one environmental condition;
determining the amount of N input using the trained second management policy and the at least one environmental condition, wherein the amount of N input optimizes crop yield action and reduces environmental impact; and
transmitting, to an automated system, the amount of N input, wherein transmitting the amount of N input causes the automated system to apply the amount of N input
These limitations constitute determining an amount of nitrogen needed to optimize crop yield and reduce environmental impact and applying the nitrogen, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of at least one sensor, the trained second management policy (claim 1), and one or more sensors, a controller having at least one processor and a memory configured to store program instructions, the trained second management policy (claim 12), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the trained second management policy (claim 21), which are computer components. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the receiving and transmitting limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations reciting training a second management policy based on an imitation learning method and a second set of state information to provide a trained second management policy, wherein the imitation learning method is based on a trained first management policy, wherein the trained first management policy was trained using a reinforcement learning method and a first set of state information, wherein the second set of state information comprises a subset of the first set of state information provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished) and only a general application of the judicial exception is provided (training a second management policy based on an imitation learning method and a second set of state information to provide a trained second management policy, wherein the imitation learning method is based on a trained first management policy, wherein the trained first management policy was trained using a reinforcement learning method and a first set of state information, wherein the second set of state information comprises a subset of the first set of state information). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do 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 additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the receiving and transmitting limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13, 14, and 16-19 merely recite further embellishments to the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 12 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 12; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-19, and 21.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Guo et al. (US 20200126232). Guo discloses diagnosis of crop yield predictions and/or crop yields at the field level (abstract). Guo further discloses recommending operational changes, including to apply more or less nitrogen (Guo [0011]).
Yuan (US 12260179) is also closely related prior art. Yuan discloses using one or more phenotypic machine learning models, phenotypic prediction(s) may be generated about the agricultural plot based on the one or more semantic embeddings and additional structured data about the agricultural plot (abstract).
As to claim 1: The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a method of using imitation learning to determine an amount of nitrogen (N) input, comprising: training a second management policy based on an imitation learning method and a second set of state information to provide a trained second management policy, wherein the imitation learning method is based on a trained first management policy, wherein the trained first management policy was trained using a reinforcement learning method and a first set of state information, wherein the second set of state information comprises a subset of the first set of state information; receiving, at runtime, from at least one sensor, information indicative of at least one environmental condition; determining the amount of N input using the trained second management policy and the at least one environmental condition, wherein the amount of N input optimizes crop yield action and reduces environmental impact; and transmitting, to an automated system, the amount of N input, wherein transmitting the amount of N input causes the automated system to apply the amount of N input.
Claims 12 and 21 are similar to claim 1.
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
1. Summary of the Office Action
Examiner has no comment on the summary.
2. Status of the Claims.
Examiner thanks Applicant for providing support for the claim amendments.
3. Applicant-Initiated Examiner Interview
Examiner refers to the Interview Summary of 11/17/25.
4. Response to the 101 Rejections
A. Amended Claim 1 Does Not Provide a Technical Solution to a Technical Problem
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides a technical solution to the technical problem of finding the optimal crop management policy for nitrogen fertilization by transmitting the amount of nitrogen input to cause the automated system to apply the nitrogen. Remarks 10-11. Examiner respectfully disagrees that this is a technical problem and solution. The problem of determining an appropriate amount of nitrogen to optimize a crop yield is a business problem, not a technical problem.
B. The features of amended claim 1 do not align with those of Example 26 and Example 47
Applicant first argues that claim 1 aligns with Example 26 (Internal Combustion Engine) and compares several features of claim 1 with claim 1 of Example 26. Remarks 11-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are similar. Example 26 is directed to an internal combustion engine and claim 1 includes several parts specific to the engine. This is unlike Applicant’s claim 1, which is directed to a method which determines an amount of nitrogen to add to soil in order to optimize crop yield.
Applicant then argues the amended features of claim 1 alight with those of Example 47 (anomaly detection). Applicant does not indicate which claim of Example 47 is being compared with the instant claim; however, it appears from context that Applicant is referring to claim 3. Examiner respectfully disagrees that instant claim 1 is similar to claim 3 of Example 47. Claim 3 of Example 37 provides an improvement to technology, in the form of enhanced network security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions. Instant claim 1 does not provide such an improvement in technology, and is not directed to enhancing network security. Instant claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of determining an amount of nitrogen to add to soil in order to optimize crop yield.
5. Response to the 102/103 Rejections
Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s explanations regarding the Petition filed and notes that the Petition has been Granted. Examiner also notes the affidavit filed. The rejections have 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 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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626