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 .
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 extension fee 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.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 07/15/2025, Applicant, on 10/30/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending following this response.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2024, 07/17/2025, and on 08/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments – Objection to claim 7
The arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Accordingly, the Examiner withdraws the objection to claim 7.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements in the claims (a processor) do not improve any existing technology. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two nor they will be considered significantly more under Step 2B.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102/103
The arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
None of the cited documents by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in the independent claims as amended, nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. The pending claims 1-20 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
In conclusion, the Examiner withdraws the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 102/103 in the present office action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of predicting a crop type, a planting date, an emergence date, a senescence start date, and a harvest date.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method for predicting agricultural management practices, the method comprising: generating a training dataset that comprises a plurality of years of known management practices associated with a plurality of fields dispersed within geographic region along with a corresponding plurality of years of first remote sense images; training a Bayesian crop model to predict the plurality of years of known management practices associated with the plurality of fields using the corresponding plurality of years of first remote sense images as inputs; the training comprising: cleansing the corresponding plurality of years of remote sense images by : removing images with first missing data below a prescribed threshold; retaining images with second missing data above the potential threshold; time-processing third data from other time-adjacent images that correspond to the second missing data; and using the time-processed third data to replace the second missing data; combining spectral band images for each observation date to generate corresponding first composite image; combining first composite images for each observation date to create composite estimated growth curves for each of the plurality of fields; and employing generative Bayesian inference techniques that match the composite estimated growth curves to corresponding known crop vegetation index double-sigmoid functions to estimate first associated posterior distribution parameters; providing a time series of second remote sense images associated with a corresponding field having unknown management practices as exclusive inputs to the Bayesian crop model; and executing the Bayesian crop model to predict a crop type, a planting date, an emergence date, a senescence start date, and a harvest date for the corresponding field, the executing comprising: training the first estimated first associated posterior distribution parameters as known quantities; and using the known quantities to generate the crop type, the planting date, the emergence date, the senescence start date, and the harvest date from estimated second associated posterior distribution parameters derived from the time series of second remote sense images.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for predicting a crop type, a planting date, an emergence date, a senescence start date, and a harvest date. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for predicting a crop type, a planting date, an emergence date, a senescence start date, and a harvest date. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and claim 15 further recites “A system for predicting agricultural management practices, the system comprising: an incentive program server, the server comprising: a crop model processor, comprising a Bayesian crop model; and a training processor”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and claim 15 further recites “A system for predicting agricultural management practices, the system comprising: an incentive program server, the server comprising: a crop model processor, comprising a Bayesian crop model; and a training processor”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 10/30/2025 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the withdrawal of the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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 of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623