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 action is in response to the Applicant’s remarks filed October 10th, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, 15 and 18 have been amended. Claims 3 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1–2, 4-13 and 15-20 are pending and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10th, 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is improper and could not be done mentally and are an improvement to the technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes, which are abstract ideas under the law. The claims merely identifying and associating geographic area with coordinates and comparing data to determine probability of a task being completed. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; they merely use generic computer components to perform conventional steps. The claims do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection, and the claims remain ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11-13, 15 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A method and system of tracking farm vehicle performance, comprising:
receiving, by a data processing system, a data file comprising geospatial coordinates for a geographic area;
identifying, by the data processing system, a plurality of rows in the geographic area to associate with the geospatial coordinates;
receiving, by the data processing system, from a sensor of a vehicle located in the geographic area, a first location point;
determining, by the data processing system, based on a comparison of the first location point and the geospatial coordinates associated with the plurality of rows, a plurality of scores corresponding to a likelihood that the first location point is in each of the plurality of rows; and
providing, by the data processing system, an indication that the vehicle performed an activity on at least a portion of a first row of the plurality of rows in the geographic area based on the plurality of scores.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of identifying, by the data processing system, a plurality of rows in the geographic area to associate with the geospatial coordinates; determining, by the data processing system, based on a comparison of the first location point and the geospatial coordinates associated with the plurality of rows, a plurality of scores corresponding to a likelihood that the first location point is in each of the plurality of rows. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a data processing system”. That is, other than reciting “a data processing system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the data processing system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple determination. The mere nominal recitation of from the data processing system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of receiving data and providing an output. The providing an indication that the vehicle performed an activity is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data from the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering and displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “the data processing system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processing system, i.e. a computer. The sensor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely receives data.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the robot may compromise an operating arm having a joint. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “data processing system and sensor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4-11, 13 and 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 4-11, 13 and 15-20 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 8, 11-13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcox et al., Pub. No. US2017/0090479 A1 in view of Plattner et al., WO2021/101891 A1 hereinafter referred to as Wilcox and Plattner, respectively.
As per Claims 1 and 12, Wilcox discloses a method and system comprising:
receiving, by a data processing system, a data file comprising geospatial coordinates for a geographic area (see at least 0001, 0005, 0023, 0041);
identifying, by the data processing system, from the data file, a plurality of rows in the geographic area to associate with the geospatial coordinates (see at least 0024);
receiving, by the data processing system, from a sensor of a vehicle located in the geographic area, a first location point (see at least 0026);
determining, by the data processing system, based on a comparison of the first location point and the geospatial coordinates associated with the plurality of rows, a plurality of scores corresponding to a likelihood that the first location point is in each of the plurality of rows (see at least 0023-0024); and
determining, by the data processing system, based on the plurality of scores, an indication that the vehicle performed an activity on at least a portion of a first row of the plurality of rows in the geographic area (see t least 0025, 0043, 0046).
Wilcox fails to explicitly disclose receiving, by the data processing system, from a local computing device of a vehicle located in the geographic area, a plurality of location points comprising a first location point, the plurality of location points detected by a sensor of the vehicle and transmitted, in a batch mode by the local computing device, responsive to detection, by the local computing device, of completion of traversal of a first row of the plurality of rows, and transmitting, by the data processing system, responsive to the determination that the vehicle performed the activity, to a client device, data to cause the client device to display, via a graphical user interface, an indication that the vehicle performed the activity on the at least the portion of the first row of the plurality of rows in the geographic area.
Plattner teaches the above limitations (see at least 0019, “…The equipment may be fitted with global positioning system (GPS) receivers that continuously generate latitude-longitude data as the apparatus starts, conducts or completes passes. This data may be locally stored in a cab computer, then transmitted via wired or wireless links to removable storage devices, other computers, networked resources or cloud computing centers. [see also 0116, 0119, 0139, See Figs. 9 and 10] “…visually indicate a plurality of equipment passes 1002, 1004, 1006 each having a start point and endpoint indicated by controls 1008, 1009. An equipment pass, in this context, comprises graphical lines, bars, or polygons in the screen display 802 that indicate the actual path that a planter, sprayer or other apparatus previously traversed in the field. In an embodiment, each equipment pass 1002, 1004, 1006 is graphically drawn in the screen display 802 based upon receiving geo-location data and metadata specifying start and stop points of passes that were generated and stored in storage of cab computer 115 as the equipment in which the cab computer is installed actually traversed a field. Thus, the passes shown in FIG.10 are displayed based on data for actual passes conducted by the same equipment and cab computer that generates the display FIG.10.” Therefore, Plattner teaches sending geolocation data upon completing a pass and then further teaching that the data is displayed to a cab computer and a mobile client device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wilcox and include displaying path completion by a machine as taught by Plattner, with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides analysis metrics such as yield, yield differential, hybrid, population, SSURGO zone, soil test properties, or elevation, among others to farmers (see 0062).
As per Claims 2 and 13, Wilcox discloses wherein the data file comprises boundaries for a field comprising the geographic area, and the plurality of rows are in-between crops located on the field (see at least 0018, 0023).
As per Claims 3 and 14, Wilcox discloses the data processing system to receive a plurality of location points in a batch mode from the sensor of the vehicle, wherein the batch mode corresponds to a complete traversal of a row of the plurality of rows (see at least 0036, “periodically provides the location data”).
As per Claims 4 and 15, Wilcox discloses comprising: the local computing device of the vehicle to: detect the completion of traversal of the first row based on triggering a first geofence at a
first end of the first row and triggering a second geofence at a second end of the first row opposite the first end (see at least 0025, 0036, 0041, “first ranked guidance line); and
transmit, to the data processing system, the plurality of location points in the batch mode responsive to detection of the completion of the traversal of the first row (see at least 0025, 0036, 0041).
As per Claims 8 and 19, Wilcox discloses the data processing system to provide, via a network, the indication via a display coupled to a computing device (see at least 0025).
As per Claim 11, Wilcox discloses the data processing system to determine the plurality of scores based on at least one of a distance between adjacent location points, a duration between adjacent location points, or an angle between adjacent location points (see at least 0044).
Claims 5-7, 9-10, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcox in view of Plattner as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Pickett et al., Pub. No. US2021-0064050 A1, hereinafter referred to as Pickett.
As per Claims 5-7 and 16-18, Wilcox discloses receive a second location point subsequent to receipt of the first location point (see at least 0036, 0041).
Wilcox fails to explicitly disclose determine the second location point corresponds to a fourth row of the plurality of rows, the fourth row separated from the first row by a second row of the plurality of rows and a third row of the plurality of rows; and determine, based on the first location point and the second location point, that the vehicle [failed] traversed the second row and the third row.
Wilcox discloses many consecutive lines within a region while periodically sending location data (see at least 0036, Figures 3-5). Further, Pickett teaches determine the second location point corresponds to a fourth row of the plurality of rows, the fourth row separated from the first row by a second row of the plurality of rows and a third row of the plurality of rows; and determine, based on the first location point and the second location point, that the vehicle traversed the second row and the third row (see at least 0064-0065, “For example, the mission generator 210 creates a 3D map including informational sections about the machine and implement (e.g., actions, speed, etc.), guidance lines taken by the machine 102 and the implement 104, and a map of the terrain (e.g., field plot 100) in which the machine 102 and implement 104 traversed. The example mission generator 210 saves the mission plan 408 (block 522) in the example local database 206 for future use by the user. If the example field monitoring controller 218 determines the field has not been completed at block 518, then control returns to block 504.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wilcox to include a machine traversing a field in rows and determining whether all rows were completed as taught by Pickett, with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows the system to determine whether the mission plan of the field has been completed and if not it allows the work machine to return to the unfinished area (see at least Pickett 0065).
As per Claims 9 and 20, Wilcox discloses the data processing system to update a data structure for the vehicle with the indication that the vehicle traversed the first row (see at least 0028). Wilcox fails to disclose the data structure including a task, a date, and a start time. However, Pickett teaches the data structure including a task, a date, and a start time (see at least 0014, 0036, 0040 and 0071, also see Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wilcox to include task and date information as taught by Pickett, with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows the system to determine when the mission plan of the field has been completed in order to avoid over tilling or overlapping the same area.
As per Claim 10, Wilcox fails to disclose the data processing system to use machine learning or image detection to identify the plurality of rows based on the data file for the geographic area. However, Pickett teaches the data processing system to use machine learning or image detection to identify the plurality of rows based on the data file for the geographic (see at least 0079, “processor platform 800 structured to execute the instructions of FIGS. 5-7 to implement the apparatuses of FIGS. 2 and 4. The processor platform 800 can be, for example, a server, a personal computer, a workstation, a self-learning machine (e.g., a neural network), a mobile device (e.g., a cell phone, a smart phone, a tablet such as an iPad™), an Internet appliance, a digital video recorder, a personal video recorder, or any other type of computing device.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wilcox to include a machine learning as taught by Pickett, with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows the efficiency of using a computing device by reducing the error implement actions create when underperforming the implement and machine due to inexperience and geographical displacement of a field plot (see at least Pickett 0088).
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 Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668