DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230418293
Pars. 28-33
Autonomous vehicle navigation by generating field boundaries using spectral image data, geolocation data, machine learning and computer vision.
US 20140002489
Pars. 3-6, 28, 31, 52-54
Creating soil map boundary files for yield optimization, different soil types
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 include “assign a first weight to first data and a second weight to second data, the first weight and the second weight determined based on an origin of the first data and the second data”. Pages 13-14 of the remarks state, with emphasis, “In particular, the Instant Application recites that ‘the data and model acquisition circuitry 320 assigns weights to data sets based on a method of collection of the data.’ (Instant Application, para. [0043]).”
The disclosed method of collection of data is not the same as the claimed an origin of the data. The remarks continue to list examples of what the data can include (such as boundaries of the land, soil zones, soil survey data), but what the data can include and collection methods thereof are not the same as what the data’s origin is. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 6, 13, 19 include that the weight assigning is done based on a method of measurement of the data. However, the independent claims already established that the weight is assigned based on data origin. It is not clear how or why the weight assigning is being changed.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the assign, compressing, extracting, combining cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The medium, processor, circuitry, memory, apparatus, agricultural operation performance by an agricultural vehicle limitations of claim 1 and 8 are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. Claims 1 and 8 as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed 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. Claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. No additional elements are recited in claim 15 and so this claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 5, 7, 12, 18 the analyzing, include exclusion zone cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The machine learning, vehicle performance are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, the compression technique, extraction, combined feature vector, assign, coordinate/condition cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over G. Georgiou, Pub. No.: US 20200402303 A1, hereinafter Georgiou in view of M. Young, Pub. No.: US 20210103728 A1, hereinafter Young.
As per claim 1, Georgiou discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed, cause processor circuitry to:
assign a first weight to first data and a second weight to second data, the first weight and the second weight determined based on an origin of the first data and the second data (pars. 8, 35, 40-43 disclose a scaling factor that functions as an assigned weight in that it is a numerical value assigned to data that directly governs how compression is applied to the data; different data sets having different tile sizes would have different scaling factors (i.e. different weights) resulting in scaling factor/weight-based compression);
cause compression of the first data and the second data responsive to a query to compress data for a plot of land using a compression technique, the compression of the first data and the second data to generate a first compressed data set and a second compressed data set, (par. 31 discloses multiple point cloud data records are representative of a particular region; pars. 33-35, 39-41 disclose offset, vector and tile-based compression of data in subsets of point cloud data - all of this being done in response to the need to facilitate effectuating appropriate motion of an autonomous vehicle by performing mathematical operations on compressed versions of sensor-obtained point cloud data records as described in at least pars. 20, 25, 31, 46-47 (i.e. cause compression of first data and second data responsive to a query to compress data for a plot of land)) wherein the compression of the first data and the second data is based on the first weight and the second weight (see rejection of assign limitation above);
extract features from the first compressed data set and the second compressed data set; combine the features from the first compressed data set and the second compressed data set to generate a set of geospatial features, the set of geospatial features to correspond to the plot of land (see pars cited above including at least pars. 33-35 disclose generating multiple cubic lattice 3D tiles as well as coordinate system-based point cloud data corresponding to respective 3D tiles in the lattice representation; additionally, and/or alternatively, pars. 48, 58 disclose scene registration, alignment between the data/features of two or more compressed point cloud records, PCA, SVD, ICP all of which are examples of geospatial features generated by combining extracted features of multiple compressed datasets, the compressed point cloud data records being used without decompression thereof);
cause performance of an […] operation by an […] vehicle within a boundary of the plot of land, wherein the performance of the […] operation within the boundary is based on the set of geospatial features (fig. 1, pars. 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 46, 47, 55, 58).
Georgiou does not explicitly disclose that the operation and vehicle are agricultural which is a mere field of use. However, Young in the related field of endeavor of autonomous vehicles discloses this in pars. 37-38 and 44.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Young would have allowed Georgiou to be used for agricultural purposes. Georgiou, par. 28 suggests that the invention can be used in any application: “The structures can include inanimate objects and other types of objects that can move relative to the autonomous vehicle 100, within or across the region. Inanimate objects can include, for example, buildings, signage, utility equipment (such as telephone poles, electric grid poles, base station towers, or the like), and so forth. Objects that can move relative to the autonomous vehicle 100 can include, for example, pedestrians, animals (wildlife and domesticated), bikes, cars (autonomous or otherwise), trucks, buses, and the like.” Young par. 33 discloses “autonomous vehicles with global positioning systems (GPS) are used for field inspection to reduce fuel and labor costs and improve reliability with increased consistency in field crop inspection.”
As per claim 2, Georgiou as modified discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the compression technique for the first data and the second data is based on a type of the data responsive to the query (pars. 33-35, 39-41, 48, 58 disclose compressing multiple (i.e. first data and second data) records, the compression specifically programmed to compress data of a specific type).
As per claim 3, Georgiou as modified discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the extraction of the features from the first compressed data set and the second compressed data set is performed by at least one of 2D convolution, max-min pooling, function parameters, extreme values, and graph embeddings (at least pars. 33-35, 39-41, 48, 58 disclose compressing multiple (i.e. first data and second data) records, the compression implemented as a compression process (i.e. function with parameters), embodiments further disclose parameters as data for compression/ PCA, SVD, ICP functions).
As per claim 4, Georgiou as modified discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the set of geospatial features is a combined feature vector representative of the first compressed data set and the second compressed data set (see at least pars. 33-42, 45-50 which disclose multiple types of combined vectors that represent geospatial features).
As per claim 5, Georgiou as modified discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the processor circuitry to analyze the set of geospatial features through machine learning (see rejection of claim 1 including at least par. 58).
As per claim 6, Georgiou as modified discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein to assign the first weight to the first data and the second weight to the second data the processor circuity is to assign the first weight and the second weight based on a method of measurement of the first data and the second data (pars. 8, 35, 40-43 disclose a scaling factor that functions as an assigned weight in that it is a numerical value assigned to data that directly governs how compression is applied to the data; different data sets having different tile sizes would have different scaling factors (i.e. different weights) resulting in scaling factor/weight-based compression).
As per claim 7, Georgiou as modified discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the agricultural operation is a first agricultural operation, and wherein the boundary includes an exclusion zone where the agricultural vehicle performs the first agricultural operation and does not perform a second agricultural operation (Young pars. 6, 37-38, 44, 56-59 disclose multiple agricultural functions that are, or are not performed based on multiple factors in an area).
As per claim 14, Georgiou as modified discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first data and the second data include georeferenced coordinates and agronomic conditions of the plot of land based on at least one of yield, soil moisture, soil type, elevation, pounds of nitrogen, forestry conditions, and construction conditions (see Georgiou as cited in the rejection of claim 1 and Young, pars. 44, 45, 56-59, 73-75, 79, 82, 146).
As per claims 8-13, 15-20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are improperly characterized at a high level of generality. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection individually addressed each limitation and identified specific cognitive operations that are performable mentally or manually (the claimed assign weights, compressing data, extracting features, combining features). This a limitation-by-limitation evaluation consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Applicant further argues that no mental processes are recited in a conclusory manner. This is not persuasive. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the assign, compress, extract and combine steps encompass mental observation, evaluation and judgement applied to data values. Claiming that processor circuitry is caused to execute the steps does not transform the underlying cognitive concepts in to non-abstract steps.
Applicant also argues that the claims are analogous to Enfish and improve computer functionality. However, "[a]n improved result, without more stated in the claim, is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. To be patent-eligible, the claims must recite a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process." Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150 (citing Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305). The claims do not recite a specific/improved type of data structure (as in Enfish) or detailed steps of a specific/improved compression algorithm. Applicant argues that the specification provides the technical improvement; however, improvements must be reflected in the claim language itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Regarding the agricultural vehicle performance limitation, it merely identifies the field of use in which the abstract idea is applied. It does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea and is insignificant extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to arguments on pages 13-14 of the remarks, and as indicated in the 35 USC 112 rejection above, the disclosed method of collection of data is not the same as the claimed an origin of the data; what the data can include and collection methods thereof are not the same as what the data’s origin is. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Additionally, Georgiou pars. 8, 35, 40-43 disclose a scaling factor that functions as an assigned weight in that it is a numerical value assigned to data that directly governs how compression is applied to the data; different data sets having different tile sizes would have different scaling factors (i.e. different weights) resulting in scaling factor/weight-based compression.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154