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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 7, Applicant states that “the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept or mental process” because the claims require processing of wind speed values and requires receiving data from at least one monitoring physical tower having one or more anemometers at pre-determined heights. This is not persuasive because the at least one monitoring physical tower is not a positively recited part of the claimed system. Representative claim 1 only requires receiving data, processing that data, and comparing the processed data to a threshold. The data being windspeed data from a tower does not meaningfully limit the processing and analysis steps of the claimed system/method beyond defining the variables/data.
Beginning on page 10, Applicant discussed dependent claims. Stating that:
Claims 3 and 4 recite a specific anemometer configuration.
Claims 5-8 recite location based provision of outputs.
Claims 9-12 and 17-19 recite forecasting features using historical local vertical turbulence data, historical baselines, deviations, and estimated probability distributions.
Claim 20 further recites that the crop-spraying output is generated independent of temperature inversion conditions.
Regarding the dependent claims:
Claims 3 and 4 recite a specific anemometer configuration, but as stated above for the independent claims, the physical tower and its anemometer do not meaningfully limit the positively recited limitations of the claimed system/method.
Claims 5-8 recite location based provision of outputs, use interpolation (math) to determine (mental) the closest source of data.
Claims 9-12 and 17-19 recite forecasting features using historical local vertical turbulence data, historical baselines, deviations, and estimated probability distributions. Analyzing more data sets and using probability distributions (math) is considered integration into a practical application.
Claim 20 further recites that the crop-spraying output is generated independent of temperature inversion conditions, however, claiming a lack of data does not change the scope of the limitations of the claim, especially since this is the first instance of specifically temperature related data.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 05/28/2026, with respect to double patenting have been fully considered, along with the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer, and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-12 and 17-20 under nonstatutory double patenting have been withdrawn.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A system configured to provide output indicative of crop spraying conditions in an agricultural region, the system including:
an input configured to receive data from at least one monitoring physical tower, wherein the physical tower extends from ground level in the agricultural region, wherein the tower includes one or more anemometers configured to measure respective wind speeds at one or more predetermined heights above the ground level (Note the monitoring physical tower and its sensors are not a positively recited elements of the claimed system and therefore does not carry patentable weight. This applies for claims 13 and 17 as well);
a processor which is configured to process periodic values of respective wind speeds at the one or more predetermined heights above the ground level, thereby to derive a real-time measure representative of a local vertical turbulence characteristic for the location of the monitoring tower, wherein the real-time measure representative of a local vertical turbulence characteristic for the location of the monitoring tower is based on a standard deviation of vertical wind speed; and
an output device which is configured to provide the output indicative of crop spraying conditions based on a comparison between: (i) the real-time measure representative of the local vertical turbulence characteristic; and (ii) one or more predetermined threshold values.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the step of “process periodic values of respective wind speeds at the one or more predetermined heights above the ground level, thereby to derive a real-time measure representative of a local vertical turbulence characteristic for the location of the monitoring tower, wherein the real-time measure representative of a local vertical turbulence characteristic for the location of the monitoring tower is based on a standard deviation of vertical wind speed (deriving standard deviation of data)” is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the step of “provide the output indicative of crop spraying conditions based on a comparison between: (i) the real-time measure representative of the local vertical turbulence characteristic; and (ii) one or more predetermined threshold values (comparing values and sharing findings)” is treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 13 and 17.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A system configured to provide output indicative of crop spraying conditions in an agricultural region, the system including: an input configured to receive data from at least one monitoring physical tower, wherein the physical tower extends from ground level in the agricultural region, wherein the tower includes one or more anemometers configured to measure respective wind speeds at one or more predetermined heights above the ground level; a processor; and an output;
Claim 13: A method of determining local atmospheric stability conditions, the method comprising: receiving local meteorological observation data from one or more sensors at a location, wherein the receiving local meteorological observation data includes from at least one monitoring physical tower, wherein the physical tower extends from ground level in the agricultural region, wherein the tower includes one or more anemometers configured to measure respective wind speeds at one or more predetermined heights above the ground level;
Claim 17: A computer implemented method of forecasting local atmospheric conditions at a location of interest.
The additional element in the preamble of “A system configured to provide output indicative of crop spraying conditions in an agricultural region/A method of determining local atmospheric stability conditions/A computer implemented method of forecasting local atmospheric conditions at a location of interest” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. To receive data from at least one monitoring physical tower, wherein the physical tower extends from ground level in the agricultural region, wherein the tower includes one or more anemometers configured to measure respective wind speeds at one or more predetermined heights above the ground level represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A computer or processor, input, and output (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, as discussed in the previous office action, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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 CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights