DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 8-14 (12/10/2025) are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Invention I (claims 1-7) and Invention II (claims 8-14) are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because Invention I includes environmental assessments to score growth potential of crops of interest by determining highest probabilities of successfully growing the crops using spatial variability exceeding a threshold to make recommendations, but does not require the particulars of Invention II for training a machine learning model and simulating alternative growth conditions to generate predicted outcomes and attempting to improve the machine learning. The subcombination has separate utility such as the specific on machine learning, which appear to not even be supported by Applicant’s originally filed specification.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-14 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 12/10/2025.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended and claims 8-14 have been added new.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending, claims 8-14 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-7 have been examined.
Priority
This application claims priority of Application 17532595 filed 11/22/2021 and further priority from Provisional Application 63/117,285 filed on 11/23/2020. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
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 Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. See below for reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-7, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are analyzing human demand with agricultural factors to predict success of growing a crop and meeting demand of humans, where all the agriculture planting is done by humans, is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes and is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts that Example 2 is related to webpage usage and links, which is completely unrelated to Applicant’s claims involving agriculture demand and predictions. Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements related to Example 2. The Examiner notes that the computer is merely being used as a tool for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, with reference to Example 40. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts Example 40 is related to network traffic and protocols, which are completely unrelated to Applicant’s claims involving agriculture demand and predictions. Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements or tie the claimed limitations to Example 40. The Examiner notes that the computer is merely being used as a tool for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are tied to computer technology and meaningfully use the technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims do use computer programs and generic machine learning, the claims are merely using the computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. The claims computer hardware is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Diehr recites a specific mathematical relationship for controlling a rubber molding machine. Applicant’s claims do not specifically recite math and are not controlling any sort of machine. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not well-known, routine or conventional. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. While the claims do use computer programs and generic machine learning, the claims are merely using the computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. The claims computer hardware is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts that generically reciting use of a computer and machine learning does not make the claims eligible. Please see MPEP 2106.05 for more information. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 5-7 are directed toward a process and claims 1-4 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a system for identifying optimal environmental conditions and for predicting a probability of successfully growing a crop of interest comprising: an environmental assessment device for measuring said environmental conditions wherein said environmental conditions include soil moisture content, and wherein said environmental assessment outputs structured, unstructured, or machine-generated data suitable for digital geospatial analysis; computer programmed to score growth potential of said crop of interest, wherein said growth potential includes attributes reflective of said environmental conditions, and wherein said computer applies a machine-learning model to said environmental- condition data to generate a probability-based growth score; a reference database containing which food products include as ingredients various of said crops of interest and wherein demand for said food products is monitored on an ongoing basis, said reference database being accessible by said computer for use together with said machine-learning model; and wherein said computer is further programmed to initiate intelligent sampling in response to detection, in said environmental-condition data, of spatial variability exceeding a sampling-threshold associated with said model, and by applying said crop-growth score together with said reference database to identify plots of land having a highest probability of successfully growing said crop; and wherein said system maintains records of prior predictions and environmental-condition metrics to iteratively refine said machine-learning model over time, such that an optimal crop grow selection is made with respect to each of said crops of interest targeted for said plots of land (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing environmental conditions including soil moisture to predict probability of successful growing of crops with scoring/thresholds and analyzing demand to provide an optimal grow selection through spatial variability analysis exceeding thresholds, which is managing how humans interact for the commercial purpose of growing crops.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, the independent claims additionally recite “a system for: an environmental assessment device for; computer programmed to; wherein said computer applies a machine-learning model; a reference database; said reference database being accessible by said computer for use together with said machine-learning model; and wherein said computer is further programmed to initiate; iteratively refine said machine-learning model over time (claim 1)”; “using a computer; said computer applying a machine learning model; a reference database; by said computer, access to a reference database for use with said machine learning model; iteratively refining said machine learning model (claim 5)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2-3 and 6 additionally recite “where machine learning is employed” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) because it is recited at such a high level of generality.
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, Method and System Independent claims 1 and 5 recite “a system for: an environmental assessment device for; computer programmed to; wherein said computer applies a machine-learning model; a reference database; said reference database being accessible by said computer for use together with said machine-learning model; and wherein said computer is further programmed to initiate; iteratively refine said machine-learning model over time (claim 1)”; “using a computer; said computer applying a machine learning model; a reference database; by said computer, access to a reference database for use with said machine learning model; iteratively refining said machine learning model (claim 5)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in claim 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-4 and 6-7 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, dependent claims 2-3 and 6 additionally recite “where machine learning is employed” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-7 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1 and 5 disclose a system and method for analyzing environmental conditions including soil moisture to predict probability of successful growing of crops with scoring/thresholds and analyzing demand to provide an optimal grow selection through spatial variability analysis exceeding thresholds.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Lankford et al. (US 2012/0284264 A1) – which discloses monitoring and analyzing crop management and transportation.
Bull et al. (US 2020/0077574 A1) – which discloses risk adjusted hybrid seed selection based off crop yield predictions.
Guan et al. (US 2022/0061236 A1) – which discloses analyzing agriculture productivity and sustainability.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 5, such as analyzing environmental conditions including soil moisture to predict probability of successful growing of crops with scoring/thresholds and analyzing demand to provide an optimal grow selection through spatial variability analysis exceeding thresholds. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a system for identifying optimal environmental conditions and for predicting a probability of successfully growing a crop of interest comprising: an environmental assessment device for measuring said environmental conditions wherein said environmental conditions include soil moisture content, and wherein said environmental assessment outputs structured, unstructured, or machine-generated data suitable for digital geospatial analysis; computer programmed to score growth potential of said crop of interest, wherein said growth potential includes attributes reflective of said environmental conditions, and wherein said computer applies a machine-learning model to said environmental- condition data to generate a probability-based growth score; a reference database containing which food products include as ingredients various of said crops of interest and wherein demand for said food products is monitored on an ongoing basis, said reference database being accessible by said computer for use together with said machine-learning model; and wherein said computer is further programmed to initiate intelligent sampling in response to detection, in said environmental-condition data, of spatial variability exceeding a sampling-threshold associated with said model, and by applying said crop-growth score together with said reference database to identify plots of land having a highest probability of successfully growing said crop; and wherein said system maintains records of prior predictions and environmental-condition metrics to iteratively refine said machine-learning model over time, such that an optimal crop grow selection is made with respect to each of said crops of interest targeted for said plots of land (as required by independent claims 1 and 5)”, thus rendering claims 1, 5, and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625