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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 03/27/2026.
Claims 1-13 are cancelled. Claims 14-33 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant request to hold the Double Patenting rejection set forth in the prior office dated 11/28/2025 in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Even if the Office were to ultimately find that the claims recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not acquiesce to), the additional elements integrate any such exception into a practical application.” (pg. 7)
The claims encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing relationships or interactions between people and commercial interactions (scheduling services). For example, scheduling agricultural services between a producer, an equipment and an operator involve interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of one or more processors, a server and a measurement sensor. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (Spec ¶0042).
For instance regarding Claims 14 and 26, steps such as of scheduling the agricultural service, updating a global calendar, identifying an event that impacts the agricultural service, dynamically rescheduling and updating the global calendar are data gathering activities (analyzing). The steps of communicating control information to a measurement sensor to control the measurement sensor and receiving the measurement from the measurement sensor are considered data gathering activity (sending/receiving). Examiner notes, the measurement sensor is generically recited as being controlled to collect data which demonstrates data gathering activity. Further, the sensor is performing as it normally would, collecting data. Regarding Claim 33, again the steps of scheduling the agricultural service, updating a global calendar, identifying an event that impacts the agricultural service, dynamically rescheduling and updating the global calendar are data gathering activities (analyzing). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, “ This active sensor control represents a technological improvement over prior scheduling systems that relied solely on user-provided data. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(l) (improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field).” (pg. 8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no indication in the Specification of the claims of and improvement to a technology (a computer) or a technical field. Sending control to instruct a generic measurement sensor to take a measurement does not provide a technical improvement as the sensor is behaving as it normally would.
Applicant argues, “The additional elements, including active sensor control,
dynamic rescheduling based on sensor-triggered events, and global calendar updates across multiple parties, impose meaningful limits that integrate any alleged exception into a practical application.” (pg. 8)
As previously indicated collecting data using a sensor, receiving sensor data, determining an event and dynamically rescheduling is collecting and analyzing data which is data gathering activity.
Applicant argues, “Additionally, the recited agricultural measurement sensors represent using the alleged judicial exception (e.g., scheduling activities) in conjunction with a particular machine that is integral to the claim. See MPEP §2106.05(b).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The measurement sensor is not integral to the claimed invention as it is a generically recited sensor collecting measurement data and behaving as it normally would. The sensor is used as a tool to collect data for further analysis. The type of measurement sensor does not play a significant part performing the claimed invention.
Applicant argues, “Next, under Step 2B, even assuming arguendo that the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B.” (pg. 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a server and a sensor are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant argues based on Berkheimer, “The Examiner has provided none of these and thus has failed to support the rejection under§ 101, Step 2B.” (pg. 10)
Examiner notes that the rejection did not include WURC.
Applicant argues similar to McRO, “ This specific ordered combination enables the automation of a task (dynamic multi-party agricultural scheduling based on real-time field conditions) that previously could not be automated.” (pg. 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the ordered combination so steps could not be previously automated.
In McRO the claims were directed to an improvement in computer related technology by allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. The court in McRo looked to the specification which described the invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules and how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated, utilizing rules in a specific technological way (e.g. a particular way to achieve a desired outcome). The McRO court also noted that the claims described a specific way to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and animation.
The instant application focuses on scheduling an agricultural service, updating a global calendar, identifying an event that impacts the agricultural services, communicating control information to a measurement sensor to take a measurement, receive the measurement, determine an event, dynamically rescheduling and updating the global calendar using generic computer components. This functionality demonstrates abstract concepts (e.g. CMOA) and may provide an improved business process to schedule agricultural services and maintain a global calendar, but does not rise to the level of an improvement in a technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues similar to Bascom, “This ordered combination provides a technical improvement in the field of agricultural scheduling.” (pg. 12)
In Bascom the court found that although the additional elements were generic computer elements when considered individually, when considered in combination an inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. The claims in Bascom did not merely recite the abstract idea of
filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. The inventive concept is in the technical feature of network technology in a filtering system by associating individual accounts with their own filtering scheme and elements while locating the filtering.
Here, instant applications performs using generic computer components scheduling an agricultural service, updating a global calendar, identifying an event that impacts the agricultural services, communicating control information to a measurement sensor to take a measurement, receive the measurement, determine an event, dynamically rescheduling and updating the global calendar. The independent claims do not amount to significantly more nor do they provide an inventive concept.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 11-12, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to Matsuzawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has 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.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 14 recites:
scheduling the agricultural service between the producer, the agricultural equipment, and the agricultural equipment operator according to an agricultural service requirement of the producer and one or more overall pairing scores;
updating a global calendar of scheduled agricultural services between a plurality of producers, a plurality of operators, and a plurality of pieces of equipment with the agricultural service;
identifying an event that impacts the agricultural service, wherein identifying the event includes: [communicating control information to a measurement sensor to control the measurement sensor to take a measurement,]
receiving the measurement from the measurement sensor in response to the control information, and determining the event according to the measurement;
dynamically rescheduling the agricultural service based on the event and according to a second overall pairing score; and
updating the global calendar of scheduled agricultural services according to the rescheduled agricultural service.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing relationships or interactions between people and commercial interactions (scheduling services), but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, scheduling agricultural services between a producer, an equipment and an operator involve interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Additionally, the claims encompass Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data.
Independent Claims 26 and 33 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 14 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract idea. For instance, Claim 15 is directed to one or more overall paring scores are determined (analyzing data using mathematics); Claim 16 is directed to evaluating the one or more overall pairing scores (analyzing data); Claims 17-22 are directed to measurement sensors; Claim 23 is directed to a second overall paring score represents a previously unselected pairing (analyzing data using mathematics); Claim 24 is directed to updating the global calendar; and Claim 25 is directed to identifying an event. Claims 27-32 substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 15-25 and encompass the same abstract idea/ Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of one or more processors and a measurement sensor. Claim 26 recites the additional elements of a sever including at least one processor and a measurement sensor. Claim 33 recites the additional elements of at least one processor. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (Spec ¶0042).
For instance regarding Claims 14 and 26, steps such as of scheduling the agricultural service, updating a global calendar, identifying an event that impacts the agricultural service, dynamically rescheduling and updating the global calendar are data gathering activities. The steps of communicating control information to a measurement sensor to control the measurement sensor and receiving the measurement from the measurement sensor are considered data gathering activity (sending/receiving). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 33 steps such as scheduling the agricultural service between the producer, the agricultural equipment and the agricultural equipment operator; updating a global calendar; identifying an event that impacts the agricultural service, dynamically rescheduling the agricultural service and updating the global calendar are considered data gathering activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a server and a sensor are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 14-33 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Vollmar et al. (US 2016/0147962) discloses monitoring a user device parameter of a user device for a trigger event and initiating sensor measurement recordation in response to occurrence of the trigger event functions to determine when sensor measurements should be recorded, and/or when an agricultural treatment is being performed or will imminently be performed.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights