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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards “a computer program product” or “software per se” because claim does not recite any structure. (See MPEP 2106.03 I)
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an analysis in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Process found in MPEP 2106(III).
The claim recites:
13. (Currently amended) A computer system comprising:
a control and calculation unit;
a transceiver unit; and
a data memory,
wherein the control and calculation unit is configured to:
create a digital action map for a region of the Earth's surface, wherein at least one target sub-region is indicated in the digital action map, wherein the target sub-region is characterized by a position on the Earth's surface as well as by a size and/or shape and/or extent in one or more directions, wherein at least one action for the target sub-region is recorded in the digital action map, which action is to be carried out in the target sub-region by at least one processing machine on the basis of at least one value of at least one device parameter;
cause the transceiver unit to transmit the digital action map to the at least one processing machine;
cause the transceiver unit to receive a result, wherein the result comprises at least one actual sub-region, wherein the at least one actual sub-region indicates in which sub- region/sub-regions of the Earth's surface the at least one action was carried out by the at least one processing machine, wherein the at least one actual sub-region is characterized by a position on the Earth's surface and by a size and/or shape and/or extent in one or more directions, wherein the result was determined by means of one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors detect one or more effects of the processing machine as a result of executing the at least one action on the at least one actual sub-region of the Earth's surface;
determine a deviation between the actual sub-region and the target modify the at least one value of the at least one device parameter with regard to reducing the deviation and/or to modify the digital action map with regard to reducing the deviation; and
include the at least one modified value of the at least one device parameter in the modified action map and/or to store the at least one modified value of the at least one device parameter and/or the modified digital action map in the data memory and/or to transmit the at least one modified value of the at least one device parameter and/or the modified digital action map to the at least one processing machine.
Step 1: The claim recites a system comprising devices. The devices are apparatuses. Thus, the claim is to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitation (e) in claim 13 recites: “create a digital action map for a region of the Earth's surface, wherein at least one target sub-region is indicated in the digital action map, wherein the target sub-region is characterized by a position on the Earth's surface as well as by a size and/or shape and/or extent in one or more directions, wherein at least one action for the target sub-region is recorded in the digital action map, which action is to be carried out in the target sub-region by at least one processing machine on the basis of at least one value of at least one device parameter;”. Limitation (f) in claim 13 recites: “cause the transceiver unit to transmit the digital action map to the at least one processing machine;”. Limitation (g) in claim 13 recites, “cause the transceiver unit to receive a result, wherein the result comprises at least one actual sub-region, wherein the at least one actual sub-region indicates in which sub- region/sub-regions of the Earth's surface the at least one action was carried out by the at least one processing machine, wherein the at least one actual sub-region is characterized by a position on the Earth's surface and by a size and/or shape and/or extent in one or more directions, wherein the result was determined by means of one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors detect one or more effects of the processing machine as a result of executing the at least one action on the at least one actual sub-region of the Earth's surface;” Limitation (h) in claim 13 recites, “determine a deviation between the actual sub-region and the target modify the at least one value of the at least one device parameter with regard to reducing the deviation and/or to modify the digital action map with regard to reducing the deviation;” Limitation (i) in claim 13 recites, “include the at least one modified value of the at least one device parameter in the modified action map and/or to store the at least one modified value of the at least one device parameter and/or the modified digital action map in the data memory and/or to transmit the at least one modified value of the at least one device parameter and/or the modified digital action map to the at least one processing machine.” The claimed limitations (f)-(i) fall within the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas because the recited steps relate to collecting/transmitting data and observations and/or judgements based on the collected data. The claims recite the use of a computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because besides the recited abstract idea, claim limitations (a)-(c) recite generic processor, memory, and transceiver components, which are recited at a high level of generality. Because they are recited at a high level of generality, they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the non-abstract limitations are the equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding method claims 1-13 and product claims 15-17, these claims merely recite variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 would be allowable upon resolution of the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
SUGUMARAN et al. US 2017/0031365 A11 discloses a mobile crop care machine which senses attributes at a worksite location, and uses the sensed data for action signals. The references discloses a “difference map” which could be used for “corrective action systems”, however, it does not suggest or teach calibration.
VANDIKE et al. US 2021/0243936 A12 discloses an agricultural work machine with sensors to produce a predictive map which can be used in automated machine control. The reference suggests the use of a predictive control zone map for “controlling or calibrating agricultural harvester 100 or both.”
BISCHOFF US 2014/0215984 A1 teaches adjustments to a combine harvester with aid of an electronic map and using the sensed differences between theoretical values and measured values to adjust work parameters, such as calibration data for the sensors themselves or fine adjustments to work parameters.
Blank et al. US 2018/0122020 A1 discloses a sensing system to correct bias in an agricultural machine. The system collects data from multiple machines and determines calibration correction factors and generates a field map view.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the method for calibrating an agricultural machine by: creating a digital action map for a region of the Earth's surface, wherein at least one target sub-region is indicated in the digital action map, wherein the target sub-region is characterized by a position on the Earth's surface as well as by a size and/or shape and/or extent in one or more directions, wherein at least one action for the target sub-region is recorded in the digital action map, which wherein the at least one action is to be carried out performed in the target sub-region by at least one processing machine on the basis of at least one value of at least one device parameter, transmitting the digital action map to the at least one processing machine and/or performing the at least one action according to the digital action map by means of the at least one processing machine, receiving and/or determining a result, wherein the result comprises at least one actual sub-region, wherein the at least one actual sub-region indicates in which sub-region/sub-regions of the Earth's surface the at least one action was carried out by the at least one processing machine, wherein the at least one actual sub-region is characterized by a position on the Earth's surface and by a size and/or shape and/or extent in one or more directions, wherein the result is determined by means of one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors detect one or more effects of the processing machine as a result of executing the at least one action on the at least one actual sub-region of the Earth's surface, determining a deviation between the at least one actual sub-region and the at least one target sub-region; and modifying the at least one value of the at least one device parameter with regard to reducing the deviation and/or modifying the digital action map with regard to reducing the deviation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Cited in 2/21/2025 IDS
2 Cited in 2/21/2025 IDS
Prosecution Insights