DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 08 August 2024, claiming benefit back to 8 August 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 8 – 10 and 16 – 18 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 claims 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It has been held that to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116). Further, it has been held that a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. (Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP 2163 I.
Claim 8 recites the limitations of select, responsive to the query, a function to generate the metric and apply the function to the normalized data set to generate the metric; claim 9 recites the limitations of identify, for the query data structure, a function comprising inputs corresponding to at least two of the plurality of data feeds, select, for input into the function and based on the query data structure, one or more portions of the normalized data set, and execute the function with the selected one or more portions of the normalized data set to generate a response to the query; and claim 10 recites the limitations of select a function configured to determine a disease risk for a crop of the farm, determine one or more geospatial and temporal inputs for the function, access, from the normalized data set, data corresponding to the one or more geospatial and temporal inputs for the function, input the data into the function to generate a metric corresponding to the disease risk for the crop of the farm; however Examiner is unable to find support in Applicant’s disclosure that provides for evidence that the claimed function limitations are 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 had possession of the claimed invention
The following paragraphs recite the only recitations of function or functions that can generate a response or a metric in respect to a query:
[0026] … The data repository 118 can include functions 130. Functions 130 can include scripts, programs, relations, logic, or rules that can be used to generate a response to a query or perform a convergence based action using the normalized data set 128.
[0076] Responsive to the query to generate a metric, the action generator 116 can select a function 130 to generate the metric. The action generator 116 can perform a lookup in the functions 130 data structure to select a function 130 configured to generate the metric. For example, the metric can correspond to disease risk for a particular crop grown or to be grown on the farm. The action generator 116 can select the function 130 that can output the disease risk metric. In another example, the query can include input fields and a request output metric. The action generator 116 can select the function 130 that is configured for the input fields provided in the query, and the generate the corresponding output metric.
[0077] In some cases, the action generator 116 can identify the function comprising inputs corresponding to data obtained from multiple data feeds 142. The multiple data feeds 142 can be provided by one or more data sources 140.
[0081] For example, the data processing system 102 can receive a query to determine a disease risk for a particular type of crop or all crops on a particular farm for a particular growing season. The data processing system 102 can select a function configured to determine the disease risk for the crop of the farm. The data processing system 102 can determine one or more geospatial and temporal inputs for the function. For example, the geospatial input can correspond to latitude and longitude coordinates of the farm, an address, a zip code, or another geographic region or geopolitical boundary. The data processing system 102 can access, from the normalized data set 128, data corresponding to the one or more geospatial and temporal inputs for the function. In some cases, the data processing system 102 can translate the portion of the raw data 122 corresponding to the inputs for the function to generate the corresponding portion of the normalized data set 128. The data processing system 102 can input the portion of the normalized data set 128 data into the function to generate a metric corresponding to the disease risk for the crop of the farm. The data processing system 102 can provide, for display via a device, the metric.
[0096] At ACT 604, the data processing system can select a function. The data processing system can select a function to execute the query or generate a response to the query. The data processing system can select the function based on the type of query, the inputs of the query, or the outputs of the query. For example, if the query is to generate a disease risk for a crop, the data processing system can select a function that takes, as its input, data feeds that can generate a disease risk metric for the crop.
[0097] At ACT 606, the data processing system can apply the function to the normalized data set. The data processing system can translate the raw data responsive to the query and selecting the function. The data processing system can determine the data or data feeds used to generate the metric, and access the corresponding portions of the data in the data repository. The data processing system can translate the portions of the data feeds that are used by the function to generate the metric. By not translating the entire data set or data feeds, the data processing system can, in some cases, reduce computing resource utilization and memory consumption.
[0098] At ACT 608, the data processing system can generate a response based on the query and the output of the function. The response can include a metric, notification, alert, or other message. The response can include graphical user interface, dashboard, interactive dashboard, or interactive and dynamic report. At ACT 610, the data processing system can provide the response for display (e.g., via GUI 300 or GUI 400).
The MPEP 2160.01 I states: “The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. "[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective." LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733”. (Emphasis added).
“Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV”. (Emphasis added). See also MPEP 2163 II. A. 3.1.
Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose any examples of a function that can, for example, generate a metric regarding a disease risk for the crop on the farm, or any examples of any function that can generate a metric by being applied to the normalized data set to generate the metric. Merely stating the intended result, i.e., that the function exists, that the system can choose the function, and the system can use the function to generate a metric, does not show possession. See MPEP 2163 II. A. 3. (i): “Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function. In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing “a result that one might achieve if one made that invention”); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does “little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate”).
Therefore, Applicant’s claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 – 18 recite the same limitations as found in claims 8 – 10, and are rejected using the same rationale.
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. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 11 recites the limitations of:
receiving, by a data processing system comprising one or more processors coupled with memory, for storage in a buffer, raw data from a plurality of data feeds that are indicative of performance of agriculture on a farm;
tagging, by the data processing system prior to execution of a data translation process, the raw data with a plurality of identifiers;
executing, by the data processing system with the raw data maintained in the buffer, the data translation process to map the raw data from a first one or more shapes into a second shape to generate a normalized data set;
detecting, by the data processing system, an error in a portion of the normalized data set;
determining, by the data processing system responsive to detection of the error, an identifier of the plurality of identifiers tagged to a portion of the raw data in the buffer that corresponds to the portion of the normalized data set with the error; and
updating, by the data processing system via a second data translation process on the portion of the raw data in the buffer that corresponds to the portion of the normalized data set with the error, the normalized data set to remove the error.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III, for the performance of fundamental economic practices or activities, which encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), II. The claim recites the collection of information relating to farm operations, and then performing analysis (e.g., tagging the raw data, detecting an error and determining an identifier of the raw data) and mathematical algorithms (e.g., a translation process and updating using a second translation process), on said data, all of which can be done using the human mind or a human using a computer. See, additionally Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A.2.
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Exemplary independent claim 11 recites the additional elements of receiving, by a data processing system comprising one or more processors coupled with memory, for storage in a buffer, raw data from a plurality of data feeds that are indicative of performance of agriculture on a farm, however the claim does not put any limits on how the data feed is received, but the background supports the plain meaning of “receiving” as encompassing receiving the data remotely over a network, and as such this amounts to mere data gathering using a generic computer system, and as such amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g); and a data processing system comprising one or more processors coupled with memory, however this is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to using a computer as a tool and mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and the buffer, however again this is recited at a high level of generality, and merely amounts to using a computer as a tool and mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 12 – 18:
Claims 12 and 14 merely describe the source of the received data and labels attached to the data;
Claim 13 merely describes the form of the received data;
Claim 15 merely further describes the mental process of tagging or labeling data;
Claims 16 – 18 merely recite the generic computer function of receiving and transmitting / displaying data, the selection of a function to analyze data, and the analysis of said data with said function.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry3 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0025], [0099]-[0109], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation4.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
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 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 of this title, 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 – 3, 6, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gindin et al. (U.S. 9,529,863, hereinafter Gindin) in view of Tatge et al. (U.S. 2018/0129987, hereinafter Tatge).
In respect to claim 1, Gindin discloses a system of convergence based agricultural actions via a data pipeline, comprising:
a data processing system comprising one or more processors, coupled with memory, to (FIG. 2 and FIG. 3):
receive, for storage in a buffer, raw data from a plurality of data feeds (FIG. 8, col 25, lines 9 – 14: FIG. 8 illustrates a flowchart for process 800 for normalizing ingested data sets based on fuzzy comparisons modeling in accordance with at least one of the various embodiments. After a start block, at block 802, in at least one of the various embodiments, a raw data record may be provided to the ingestion engine; col 4, lines 24 – 34: Briefly stated, various embodiments are directed towards normalizing ingested data sets based on fuzzy comparisons to known data sets. In at least one of the various embodiments, one or more raw data sets that each include one or more raw records may be provided to an ingestion engine. In at least one of the various embodiments, providing the one or more raw data sets to an ingestion engine may include caching at least a portion of the one or more raw data sets when network communication is disabled; and providing the cached at least portion of the one or more raw data sets when network communication is enabled).
Gindin may not explicitly disclose data feeds that are indicative of performance of agriculture on a farm. It is initially noted that the meaning of the data or the type of data received would not have an effect on the system or the step of receiving data, as data would be received in the same way regardless of the labels or meanings attributed to said data. This being said, Analogous art Tatge discloses data feeds that are indicative of performance of agriculture on a farm ([0008] Embodiments of the current invention address the above-described problems by providing a relay device, a farming data exchange system and computer-implemented methods for tracking, collecting, storing and sharing farming operation data for farming businesses… [0089] FIG. 9 contains a high-level flow diagram illustrating the primary steps of an exemplary algorithm for processing message data transmitted on a message bus in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, and how the operating parameters are derived from the contents of the message data. First, at step 905, message data carried on an ISO 11783 compliant message bus is buffered into a memory storage area on the relay device or the farming data exchange system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the data normalization system of Gindin the particular type of data as taught by Tatge since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would produce a predictable result of normalizing any type of received data, as the source or label attached to the data or the meaning behind the data would not affect the system that normalizes received data.
Further, while Gindin discloses at block 1012, in at least one of the various embodiments, the source and type of errors that triggered the interactive corrective session may be tracked and/or stored. In at least one of the various embodiments, tracking may include the origin of the raw data sets that cause errors. This may enable a user to focus corrective efforts on data sets from a particular source. Likewise, the tracking of errors may help identify how errors may be getting into the raw data sets. For example, a database containing information used in the raw data sets may be configured incorrectly, or it may contain bad data. In at least one of the various embodiments, reports may be generated from the stored errors information and/or error correction information that may be employed for identifying and/or isolating one or more error sources. Next, control may be returned to a calling process (col 28, lines 35 – 49:), and as such at least strongly suggests tag, prior to execution of a data translation process, the raw data with a plurality of identifiers, since, to be able to determine the source and origin of the raw data, the raw data would have to have some sort of identifier attached, Gindin may not be explicit in the disclosure of the limitation.
Analogous art Tatge, as combined with Gindin, discloses tag, prior to execution of a data translation process, the raw data with a plurality of identifiers ([0071] The passive job generator 520 monitors positioning data, machine data, implement data, business data, personal data, relay device data and tokens received on the farming data exchange system 500 and stored in the agriculture data repository 510, detects a common identifier in all these types of data, such as a farming operation identifier and a farming business identifier, and uses the farming operation identifier and farming business identifier to create new electronic farming records for the farming business. [0072] For example, the passive job generator 520 may be configured to identify all of data in the agriculture data repository 510 tagged with a same farming operation ID. The farming operation ID gets generated by the relay device 560, which was described in more detail above with reference to FIG. 1).
Gindin, as combined with Tatge, further discloses execute, with the raw data maintained in the buffer, the data translation process to map the raw data from a first one or more shapes into a second shape5 to generate a normalized data set (col 20, lines 30 – 38: In at least one of the various embodiments, ingestion rules may include one or more sets of instructions/conditions for transforming raw data records into model data records. In at least one of the various embodiments, the ingestion rules may be arranged to normalize values includes in raw data 35 records to the values that comprise the model data records. Normalizing in this context can mean to map/transform various input values to common values, and the like, rather than being limited to arithmetical normalization; col 21, lines 41 – 45: In this example, rows 616-624 may be different raw data records that each represent a different server computer. In this example, table 602 includes examples of raw data discrepancies that may need to be normalized and/or transforms by the ingestion engine; col 22, lines 41 – 47: Similarly, in this example table 604 shows other examples of normalization and/or transformation of data from the raw data record to the model records. In general, values for CPUs in table 602 are converted to values in the Compute column of table 604. Also, values for Disks (column 614) in table 602 are converted to numerical storage values in column 634 of table 604; see further col 27, lines 29 – 37: FIG. 10 illustrates a flowchart for process 1000 for generating a normalized model record in accordance with at least one of the various embodiments. After a start block, at block 1002, in at least one of the various embodiments, as described above, one or more raw data sets may be provided to an ingestion engine, such as, ingestion engine 324. At block 1004, in at least one of the various embodiments, the ingestion engine may process the raw data sets using one or more ingestion rules (as described above);
detect an error in a portion of the normalized data set (col 27, lines 38 – 47: At block 1006, in at least one of the various embodiments, the results from processing the raw data sets may be evaluated for correctness. Correctness may include taking into account confidence scores associated with one or more results. In some case, there may be a set of specific ingestion rules that may be used for determining correctness. For example, after the ingestion process is complete a final set of rules may be executed to perform correctness checks. In some embodiments, rules may be executed that confirm that fields of candidate model records are present if required) ;
determine, responsive to detection of the error, an identifier of the plurality of identifiers tagged to a portion of the raw data in the buffer that corresponds to the portion of the normalized data set with the error; and update, via a second data translation process on the portion of the raw data in the buffer that corresponds to the portion of the normalized data set with the error, the normalized data set to remove the error (FIG. 10 and col 28, lines 1 – 8: At block 1010, in at least one of the various embodiments, perform interactive error correction, since the raw data sets have not yet been processed completely/successfully, the ingestion engine may enter into an interactive session with one or more users to correct the data ingestion errors. See, FIG. 9. The interactive session may result in new ingestion rules, modification of ingestion rules, correction of raw data records, discarding of raw data records, or the like; col 28, lines 35 – 49: At block 1012, in at least one of the various embodiments, the source and type of errors [i.e., determine, responsive to detection of the error, an identifier of the plurality of identifiers tagged to a portion of the raw data in the buffer that corresponds to the portion of the normalized data set with the error] that triggered the interactive corrective session may be tracked and/or stored. In at least one of the various embodiments, tracking may include the origin of the raw data sets that cause errors. This may enable a user to focus corrective efforts on data sets from a particular source. Likewise, the tracking of errors may help identify how errors may be getting into the raw data sets. For example, a database containing information used in the raw data sets may be configured incorrectly, or it may contain bad data. In at least one of the various embodiments, reports may be generated from the stored errors information and/or error correction information that may be employed for identifying and/or isolating one or more error sources. Next, control may be returned to a calling process)
In respect to claim 2, the combined invention of Gindin and Tatge disclose the system of claim 1, Gindin further disclosing comprising: the data processing system to receive the plurality of data feeds generated by a plurality of sensors comprising at least one of a precipitation sensor, a temperature sensor, a light sensor, a humidity sensor, a wind sensor, or a soil moisture probe (In at least one of the various embodiments, client computer 200 may also include sensors 262 for determining 20 geolocation information (e.g., GPS), monitoring electrical power conditions ( e.g., voltage sensors, current sensors, frequency sensors, and so on), monitoring weather (e.g., thermostats, barometers, anemometers, humidity detectors, precipitation scales, or the like), light monitoring, audio 25 monitoring, motion sensors, or the like. Sensors 262 may be one or more hardware sensors that collect and/or measure data that is external to client computer 200).
In respect to claim 3, the combined invention of Gindin and Tatge disclose the system of claim 1, Tatge further disclosing the data processing system to receive at least one of the plurality of data feeds from a satellite ([0051] Preferably, the relay device 300 includes connectors that permit the relay device 300 to connect to a variety of different external data sources using a variety of different communication protocols. As shown in FIG. 3, for example, the relay device 300 may comprise a serial data port 355, a universal serial bus (USB) data port 360 and a Deutsch 9-pin connector 365 consistent with the ISO-11783 input/output connection standard for controller area networks on farming vehicles and farming implements. The relay device 300 may also include an SAE J1939 or an SAE J1708/J1587 data port (not shown), as well as an SMA and Micro SMA connector 370 designed specifically for connectivity with a OPS antenna 385 tuned to the frequencies of global positioning satellites in space orbit).
Claims 11 and 19 recite a method and non-transitory computer readable medium performing the same steps as found in claim 1, and are rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 12 and 20 recite a method and non-transitory computer readable medium performing the same steps as found in claim 2, and are rejected using the same rationale.
In respect to claim 6, the combined invention of Gindin and Tatge disclose the system of claim 1, and while Gindin and Tatge disclose receiving data feeds, they may not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of data feeds comprise at least one of weather forecast data, farm management data, livestock management data, biosphere data, biodiversity data, property data, river height data, or dam height data.
However these differences are found only in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The receiving of data would be performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, (see in re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to receiving any type of data or any labels attached to the data because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method or system claimed and because subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites a method performing the same steps as found in claim 6, and is rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gindin et al. (U.S. 9,529,863, hereinafter Gindin) in view of Tatge et al. (U.S. 2018/0129987, hereinafter Tatge), in further view of Wilson (U.S. 11,372,881).
In respect to claim 4, the combined invention of Gindin and Tatge disclose the system of claim 1, however they may not explicitly disclose the data processing system to receive a first data feed of the plurality of data feeds as a time series.
Wilson discloses the data processing system to receive a first data feed of the plurality of data feeds as a time series (col 2, lines 3 – 21: Still another aspect of the present disclosure relates to a computing system including a database server including massively parallel processing (MPP) architecture. In this aspect, the database server is configured to receive data that includes radio-frequency identification (RFID) sensor data that indicates locations of tagged items over time, the data including a plurality of elements each including a sensor identifier and time element, each time element including a timestamp or time period. The database server is configured to create a time series of the data indexed by the sensor identifiers into buckets spaced at even time intervals, and receive a query including at least one of the sensor identifiers and at least one query time element. The database server is configured to locate target data in the buckets by the at least one of the sensor identifiers and the at least one query time element. The computing system includes a computing device configured to receive the target data from the database server, and determine assembly status of the tagged items based on the target data).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is the time series data of Wilson with the received data of Gindin and Tatge.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been able to combine the elements of the above references, and would have found that the simple combination of one known element with another produces a predictable result of receiving any type of data, since the labels of the data, e.g., time stamps on the data, does not affect the receiving or normalizing of the data, which renders the claim obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 – 10, 13, 15 – 18 would be allowable if the independent claims were rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and if the applicable claims were rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Asenjo; Juan L. et al. US 20140337429 A1 Industrial Data Analytics In A Cloud Platform
Tomecek, Christopher US 20020138381 A1 Individually managed accounts with multiple style allocation options
Maus; Stefan et al. US 20200378248 A1 Automated Filtering and Normalization of Logging Data for Improved Drilling Performance
Jalalibarsari; Vahid US 20200285989 A1 Systems And Methods For A Machine Learning Framework
Kloepper; Benjamin et al. US 20230019404 A1 Data Processing for Industrial Machine Learning
Sos-Munoz; Vicent et al. US 20180011884 A1 Data Exchange Common Interface Configuration
Sghiouer; Kaoutar US 20210200749 A1 Data Processing Method And System For The Preparation Of A Dataset
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 MPEP 2163 II. A. 3. (a) Original Claims - possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description "inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis"); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 ("The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.")
2 Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. 1 August 2016), holding that Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
3 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
4 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
5 Noting shape is merely the form, size, type, etc. of data.