DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Claims 1-13 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. Examiner Note: Please note that Applicant has submitted a preliminary amendment to the claim set filed on 10/25/2024. Applicant hereby amended Claims 1, 3, 5-11 and 13 for Examiner consideration. Additionally, Examiner considered the proposed amendments to Applicant’s abstract and claim set filed on 10/25/2024 and entered each “OK to ENTER” with Examiner’s initial and date into the record.
Foreign Priority
3. The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Foreign Priority from Application #: EP22169846.7 filed on 04/25/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. The earliest effective filing date examined for this case is reflective of 04/25/2022.
IDS Statements
4. The 1 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/25/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Drawing Objections
5. The drawings are objected to because Drawing Fig. 6 under Product ID B the word “agression pheromones” is spelled incorrectly. Please amend the word “[[ pheromones” to reflect “aggression pheromones” with 2 g’s. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 2, 5-6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A). The 1st limitation of Dependent Claim 2 recites the following: “wherein crop data is provided relating to a crop grown or to be grown and an expected crop height and/or an expected crop density at the at least one [[application timing, and/or field data is provided that is indicative of a field topographic condition.” There appears to be a minor claim informality regarding the word or phrase of “the at least one planed application timing” where there is a spelling informality of “planed” and should be corrected as “planned” with 2 n’s. Furthermore, please delete one of the “at’s” and replace it with “of”. Therefore, for the purposes or examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the 1st limitation of Dependent Claim 2 to read as follows: “wherein crop data is provided relating to a crop grown or to be grown and an expected crop height and/or an expected crop density [[ of at least one [[the planned application timing, and/or the field data is provided that is indicative of a field topographic condition.”.
(B). Dependent Claim 5 recites the following limitation: “further comprising: generating a control file comprising control parameters to control the mobile treatment device for a semiochemical treatment for treating the harmful organism in accordance with the application scheme.” There are minor claim informalities regarding changing “a” to “the” since most of these terms are previously recited in Independent Claim 1. To be consistent, from Independent Claim 1, for the purposes or examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 5 to recite the following: “further comprising: generating a control file comprising control parameters to control the mobile treatment device for [[ the semiochemical treatment for treating the harmful organism in accordance with the application scheme.”
(C). Dependent Claim 6 recites the following limitation: “further comprising: providing the generated application scheme via a user interface to guide a user to control the mobile treatment device for a semiochemical treatment for treating the harmful organism.” There are minor claim informalities regarding changing “a” to “the” since most of these terms are previously recited in Independent Claim 1. To be consistent, from Independent Claim 1, for the purposes or examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 6 to recite the following: “further comprising: providing the generated application scheme via a user interface to guide a user to control the mobile treatment device for [[ the semiochemical treatment for treating the harmful organism.”
(D). Dependent Claim 13 recites the following limitation: “A method for controlling a harmful organism on an agricultural field comprising using a mobile treatment device comprising at least one dispenser configured to implement the application scheme generated according to claim 1.”. Since this claim is dependent from Independent Claim 1, there are a plurality of minor claim informalities issues shown here. To be consistent, from Independent Claim 1, for the purposes or examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 13 to recite the following: “[[ The computer-implemented method for controlling [[ the harmful organism on [[ the agricultural field comprising using [[ the mobile treatment device comprising the at least one dispenser configured to implement the application scheme for the semiochemical treatment generated according to claim 1.” Appropriate corrections are required.
35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
These claim limitation(s) are shown below and reflected for Claims 9-10.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 9:
9. “A harmful organism management system, comprising:
an apparatus configured to generate an application scheme for a semiochemical treatment for controlling a harmful organism on an agricultural field according to claim 8; and
a mobile treatment device comprising at least one dispenser configured to implement the application scheme.”
Step (A): The claim limitation in Dependent Claim 9 uses the terms as substitutes for “means” that are generic placeholders (e.g., “apparatus” & “dispenser”) (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function -> YES
Step (B): The generic placeholders (e.g., “apparatus” & “dispenser”) are modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that” -> YES, they are functionally modified by the words “configured to”.
Step (C): The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholders (e.g., “apparatus” & “dispenser”) are modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Terms like "apparatus," "device," "mechanism," and "unit" can be considered generic placeholders (nonce terms) if they do not connote sufficient structure.
However, the term "dispenser" likely has a commonly understood structural meaning in the relevant art (agricultural equipment or chemical application systems). "Apparatus" can be a broader term, but the context within the claim, particularly its relation to claim 8's detailed description, provides structure. The phrase "configured to" is a transitional phrase that links the structural term (apparatus, dispenser) to its function. This functional language, when coupled with terms that have a known structural meaning, typically does not trigger § 112(f). Claim 8 provides explicit structural detail for the "apparatus," specifying that it "compris[es] one or more processing units to generate the application scheme, wherein the one or more processing units receive instructions, which when executed on the one or more processing units, perform the method steps of claim 1". This reference back to claim 8 ensures that the "apparatus" in claim 9 is understood to be a special purpose computer or specifically programmed device, which is considered sufficient structure in the context of software-related inventions. The mention of "processing units" and "instructions" provides the necessary algorithm/structure link in the specification. In conclusion, the claim language points to tangible, structural components ("apparatus," "dispenser") whose function is further clarified in dependent claim 8, making it unlikely that the limitations will be treated as means-plus-function. Therefore, Dependent Claim 9 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) Claim Interpretation.
10. Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 10:
“The harmful organism management system according to claim 9, wherein the mobile treatment device is configured to implement the application scheme when a presence of the harmful organism exceeds the thresholds specifically established for the control of the harmful organism.”
Step (A): The claim limitation in Dependent Claim 10 uses the terms as substitutes for “means” that are generic placeholders (e.g., “mobile treatment device”) (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function -> YES
Step (B): The terms “means” or “step” or the generic placeholders (e.g., “mobile treatment device”) are modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that” -> YES, they are functionally modified by the words “configured to”.
Step (C): The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholders (e.g., “mobile treatment device”) is modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A "mobile treatment device" likely has a commonly understood meaning in the agricultural field, referring to a type of machine (e.g., a tractor with a dispenser, a drone, etc.) used for applying treatments. See for example; Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0066]: “The mobile treatment device 150 of the illustrated example may be e.g. ground robots with one or more dispensers, aerial dispensers, or other dispensers for releasing the semiochemicals to the agricultural area 100. In the example of FIG. 2, the mobile treatment device 150 may be smart farming machinery.” The claim language itself further modifies the term, specifying the device "comprising at least one dispenser configured to implement the application scheme," adding structural detail. This additional structure within the claim language itself helps avoid a § 112(f) interpretation. Because the term "mobile treatment device" appears to be a structural term that is further defined by additional structure ("at least one dispenser") and functional language ("configured to implement the application scheme"), it is unlikely to be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation. Therefore, Dependent Claim 10 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) Claim Interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-13 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.
(A). Part (f) of Independent Claim 1 recites the following limitation: “f) determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of [[the selected semiochemical product]] to be spread by the at least one dispenser into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field.” There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis regarding “the selected semiochemical product” when referring back to the previous limitations of Independent Claim 1 which recite “the semochemical product” without any selection shown before.
For the purposes of examination, please amend Part (f) of Independent Claim 1 to read as follows: “f) determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of [[a selected semiochemical product to be spread by the at least one dispenser into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field.” OR alternatively as
“f) determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of the [[semiochemical product to be spread by the at least one dispenser into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field.”
Clarification is requested here for part (f) for Independent Claim 1. Furthermore, Dependent Claims 2-13 dependent from Independent Claim 1 and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) deficiency of Independent Claim 1 discussed above.
(B). The 1st limitation of Dependent Claim 3 recites the following: “providing real-time tracking data indicative of a real-time change of the cloud of the selected semiochemical product formed in the atmosphere.” Examiner notes there appears to be a lack of antecedent basis regarding “the atmosphere” when referring back to Independent Claim 1 which recites “an atmospheric vapour”, which therefore renders this limitation also vague and indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, please amend the 1st limitation of Dependent Claim 3 to read as follows: “providing real-time tracking data indicative of a real-time change of the cloud of the selected semiochemical product formed in [[ a atmosphere.” OR alternatively as
“providing real-time tracking data indicative of a real-time change of the cloud of the selected semiochemical product formed in the [[ atmospheric vapour.”
Clarification is requested here for Dependent Claim 3.
(C). Dependent Claim 10 recites the following limitation: “The harmful organism management system according to claim 9, wherein the mobile treatment device is configured to implement the application scheme when a presence of the harmful organism exceeds the thresholds specifically established for the control of the harmful organism.” There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis regarding “the thresholds” when referring back to Claims 1 and 8-9 as there is no previous mentioning of “a threshold” before.
For the purposes of examination, please amend Dependent Claim 10 to read as follows: “The harmful organism management system according to claim 9, wherein the mobile treatment device is configured to implement the application scheme when [[ the presence of the harmful organism exceeds [[ thresholds specifically established for the controlling of the harmful organism.”.
(D). Dependent Claim 13 recites the following limitation: “A method for controlling a harmful organism on an agricultural field comprising using a mobile treatment device comprising at least one dispenser configured to implement the application scheme generated according to claim 1”. Examiner notes that it is vague and indefiniteness as to which of the steps of parent Independent Claim 1 is intended to be done by the mobile treatment device.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 and 13 are each focused to a statutory category namely, a “method” or a “process” (Claims 1-7 and 13), an “apparatus” or a “system” (Claims 8-10). Claims 11-12 are directed to “non-statutory” categories and thus fails step 1 of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Examiner Note: Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims directed to an Apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Danly 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 582, 531 (CCPA 1959). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1657 (bd Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
However, Independent Claim 11 does not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system or apparatus, such as computer hardware. It is not clear what structure is included or excluded by the claim language. The structural limitations of these claims are interpreted as computer code or software per-se and is not statutory. Rather, Independent Claim 11 is directed to a "computer program per se" (e.g., as disembodied code or a set of instructions detached from any medium) is considered non-statutory subject matter because it lacks a physical or tangible form, which is not statutory (see MPEP § 2106.01). Here, Applicant has claimed a system defined merely by software or terms synonymous with software or files, lacking storage on a medium, which does not enable any underlying functionality to occur. Examiner recommends amending the claim to clearly include hardware in order to overcome this rejection. Additionally, any amendments must be fully supported by the specification.
Independent Claim 12 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer readable media as described in the preamble. Applicant’s Original Specification ¶ [0110-0112] recites tangible features of the computer storage media such as: “a computer readable medium, such as a CD-ROM, is presented wherein the computer readable medium has a computer program element stored on it which computer program element is described by the preceding section.” “A computer program may be stored and/or distributed on a suitable medium, such as an optical storage medium or a solid-state medium supplied together with or as part of other hardware, but may also be distributed in other forms, such as via the internet or other wired or wireless telecommunication systems.” “The computer program may also be presented over a network like the World Wide Web and can be downloaded into the working memory of a data processor from such a network. A medium for making a computer program element available for downloading is provided, which computer program element is arranged to perform a method according to one of the previously described embodiments of the invention.”
Independent Claim 12 is therefore a “computer-readable medium.” It is within the scope of the disclosure that the “computer-readable medium” is a transitory form of signal transmission. Thus, Independent Claim 12 currently stands directed to merely a signal per se, which is non-statutory (see in re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Signal per se is not patentable under § 101; therefore, the claimed invention does not fall within a statutory class of subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 11-12 fails the 35 U.S.C. § 101 step 1 via the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Alice v. Mayo test analysis. However, we proceed to analyzing the claims with respect to step 2a prong 1 shown below.
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claim 1 recites limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except where strikethrough):
“generating an application scheme for a semiochemical treatment for controlling a harmful organism on an agricultural field the method comprising” (see Independent Claim 1);
“a) providing information about an expected presence of the harmful organism for an upcoming period” (see Independent Claim 1);
“b) providing, based on the expected presence of the harmful organism, a planned application timing of applying the semiochemical treatment for treating the harmful organism on the agricultural field” (see Independent Claim 1);
“c) providing product data relating to a semiochemical product capable of targeting the harmful organism” (see Independent Claim 1);
“d) providing, at least one of field data or environmental data at the planned application timing, wherein the field data is indicative of a field condition at the planned application timing and/or the environmental data is indicative of an environmental condition at the planned application timing” (see Independent Claim 1);
“e) determining, based on the product data and the at least one of field data or the environmental data at the planned application timing, a minimum concentration of the semiochemical product for affecting a behaviour of the harmful organism” (see Independent Claim 1);
“f) determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of the selected semiochemical product to be spread into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field” (see Independent Claim 1);
“g) generating the application scheme based on the determined dose rate” (see Independent Claim 1).
The underlying abstract idea is the calculation or determination of an optimal dose rate for a pest control treatment based on various data inputs (pest presence, product data, environmental conditions). This involves collecting, analyzing, and calculating data, which are considered mental processes that can be performed by a human mentally or with a generic computer, and thus are abstract ideas. The individual steps of providing, determining, and generating are data-processing steps that, in isolation, are considered abstract. The steps involve: Providing information/data (a-d). Determining a minimum concentration based on data (e). Determining a dose rate based on concentration (f). Generating a scheme based on the dose rate (g). These steps, if performed by a human mentally or with generic computer tools (like pen and paper or a basic computer), would be considered a mental process. The claim's character as a whole is focused on this abstract planning and calculation, rather than a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer itself. Therefore, Independent Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea: a method for planning pest control treatment using data analysis.
Thus, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments or opinions) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid, in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
That is, other than reciting the additional elements of (e.g., “at least one dispenser” & “a mobile treatment device”), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Mental Processes” Grouping which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components such as (e.g., “one or more processing units”) does not take the claims out of “Mental Processes” Groupings.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-13 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “at least one dispenser” & “a mobile treatment device”). These additional elements have been considered both individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Dependent Claims 2-13: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “a physical sensor” (see Dependent Claim 4) & “cloud simulation” (see Dependent Claim 4) & “control file” (see Dependent Claim 5) & “user interface” (see Dependent Claim 6) & “a mobile treatment device” (see Dependent Claims 5-6, 8-11 and 13) & “an apparatus” (see Dependent Claims 8-9 and 11) & “a computer readable medium” (Dependent Claim 12) & “one or more processing units” (see Dependent Claims 8 and 11)) as additional elements when considered individually and in combination (as a whole) with these recited claim limitations, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 due to the following: (1) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) or (2) the claims as a whole are limited to a particular field of use or technological environment specific to semiochemicals and pest control, which is a specific field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The claim elements in steps (a) through (g) of Independent Claim 1 are found to lack the necessary integration into a practical application at this stage for the following reasons: Reliance on generic computing: The claim language describes functional steps that can be performed using general-purpose computer components (e.g., a "mobile treatment device comprising at least one dispenser" could be interpreted as a generic technological environment if not described in the specification as a specific technical improvement). "Mere instructions to apply" an exception: The method steps focus on data manipulation and scheme generation, which can be construed as merely applying business logic (the abstract idea) without a specific, non-generic technological improvement. Lack of specific technical improvement in the claim language: The claims themselves do not explicitly recite a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or a non-generic improvement to the agricultural field technology beyond the abstract idea of a better application scheme. While the result is a "dose rate... to be spread by the at least one dispenser", the claim language focuses on the informational output (the "application scheme") rather than the technical implementation of the device's physical function.
Therefore, a strong argument exists that, at Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data, outputting a scheme) (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)) to the abstract ideas without meaningfully limiting the claims to a practical application, making them patent ineligible at this stage of the analysis.
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-13 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “at least one dispenser” & “a mobile treatment device”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (see at least Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0054]: “In general, the apparatus 10 may comprise various physical and/or logical components for communicating and manipulating information, which may be implemented as hardware components (e.g. computing devices, processors, logic devices), executable computer program instructions (e.g. firmware, software) to be executed by various hardware components, or any combination thereof, as desired for a given set of design parameters or performance constraints.”). (See at least Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0056]: “The apparatus 10 may be implemented with or without employing a processor, and also may be implemented as a combination of dedicated hardware to perform some functions and a processor (e.g. one or more programmed microprocessors and associated circuitry) to perform other functions.”).
Computer Implementation: Merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not "significantly more". Independent Claim 1 describes using a "mobile treatment device comprising at least one dispenser", but the computer is used in a way to process data and generate an output. The mere involvement of a computer is not enough to confer eligibility. Field Data/Environmental Data: Using "field data or environmental data" as inputs does not add an inventive concept, as data gathering is a preliminary step to the abstract calculation. Physical Transformation: Independent Claim 1 describe generating an application scheme (an intangible plan/set of instructions), not the physical act of applying the semiochemicals itself. While the ultimate goal is a physical result, these claims themselves are directed to generating a plan using calculation and data processing. The generation of an "atmospheric vapour forming a cloud" is the intended result of the plan, not a limitation within the claimed method steps that grounds the invention in a physical, non-abstract process.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-13 recite the same abstract ideas as Independent Claim 1 along with further steps/details that could (1) are concepts performed in the human mind as “Mental Processes” (which include observations or evaluations or judgements) or (2) using pen to paper as a “physical aid”.
Furthermore, Dependent Claims 2-3 and 7 further narrows the abstract ideas with the same or similar additional elements identified in Independent Claim 1, and are therefore ineligible for the same reasons previously provided in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 4-6 and 8-13: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “a physical sensor” (see Dependent Claim 4) & “cloud simulation” (see Dependent Claim 4) & “control file” (see Dependent Claim 5) & “user interface” (see Dependent Claim 6) & “a mobile treatment device” (see Dependent Claims 5-6, 8-11 and 13) & “an apparatus” (see Dependent Claims 8-9 and 11) & “a computer readable medium” (Dependent Claim 12) & “one or more processing units” (see Dependent Claims 8 and 11)) as additional elements when considered individually and in combination (as a whole) with these recited claim limitations, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) or (2) the claims as a whole are limited to a particular field of use or technological environment specific to semiochemicals and pest control, which is a specific field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “physical sensor” in Dependent Claim 4 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B due to being expressly recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) in the art.
See for example; US PG Pub (US 2017/0231213 A1) hereinafter Gordon, et. al. Gordon teaches at ¶ [0022]: “Positioning sensors 153, may be any type of sensors that are able to determine a position of a device, including computer 101, an aerial drone 200 shown in FIG. 2, etc. Positioning sensors 153 may utilize, without limitation, satellite-based positioning devices (e.g., global positioning system—GPS based devices), accelerometers (to measure change in movement), barometers (to measure changes in altitude), etc”. See also US Pub (US 2022/0211026 A1) hereinafter McCann, et. al. McCann teaches at ¶ [0106]: “The navigation system 608 may comprise one or more navigation and/or positioning sensors 606, such as a GPS system, an altimeter, ultrasonic sensors, radar, lidar, etc”. See also McCann at ¶ [0124]: “The data may include drone location data, drone movement vectors, drone vibration data, weather data, target images, distance/range data, infrared data, GPS/RTK data, and any other sensor data described”. Also, according to Applicant’s Original Specification at ¶ [0061]: “The term “sensor” is understood to be any kind of physical or virtual device, module or machine capable of detecting or receiving real-world information and sending this real-world information to another system, which may include temperature sensor, humidity sensor, moisture sensor, pH sensor, pressure sensor, soil sensor, crop sensor, water sensor, cameras, or any combination thereof”.
The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-13 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
15. Please note that the following issues still remain: #1) 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-13 and #2) Claim Objections for Claims 2, 5-6 and 13, #3) #1) 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-13. Independent Claim 1 is allowed over the prior art only.
16. Regarding Independent Claim 1, there is no disclosure in the existing prior art or any new art that either teaches and/or discloses the sequence operation of features either individually or in combination relating to:
- determining, based on the product data and the at least one field data or the environmental data at the planned application timing, a minimum concentration of the semiochemical product for affecting a behavior of the harmful organism (see Independent Claim 1);
- determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of the selected semiochemical product to be spread by the at least one dispenser into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field (see Independent Claim 1);
- generating the application scheme based on the determined dose rate (see Independent Claim 1).
The closest prior arts are as follows:
#1) US PG Pub (US 2015/0201605 A1) hereinafter Groeneveld.
#2) US PG Pub (US 2022/0211026 A1) hereinafter McCann, et. al;
#3) US PG Pub (US 2017/0231213 A1) hereinafter Gordon, et. al.
#4) US PG Pub (US 2018/0322436 A1) hereinafter Sotiroudas, et. al.
Regarding the Groeneveld reference, Groeneveld teaches the following:
Groeneveld teaches that method next can include a block S206 of identifying the problem and prescribing a chemical application treatment plan to correct the problem. Also Groeneveld notes precisely applying chemicals targeted by digital maps developed from remotely sensed data, including: obtaining EOS data through a growing season of a crop growing in a field; processing the EOS data to reflectance values; removing error-inducing effects of atmospheric alteration from the processed EOS data; calculating from the processed EOS data a crop performance index that indicates one or more poor performing areas of the field; generating one or more maps of the crop performance index to allow a user to determine whether each of the one or more poor performing areas of the field are due to biological pests instead of topographic or soil constraints in discrete locations of the field.
However, neither Groeneveld and the other prior art of record do not reach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to:
- determining, based on the product data and the at least one field data or the environmental data at the planned application timing, a minimum concentration of the semiochemical product for affecting a behavior of the harmful organism;
- determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of the selected semiochemical product to be spread by the at least one dispenser into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field
- generating the application scheme based on the determined dose rate.
Regarding the McCann reference, McCann teaches the following:
McCann teaches that a pesticide, such as an herbicide, a fungicide, or an insecticide, and/or a mixture thereof, may be selected 104 and purchased from a pesticide dealer. An appropriate application time may be determined 106 and when the application time is reached, the pesticide may be broadly applied to the field. The appropriate application time may be a balance between a number of pests, an expense for applying the pesticide, and potential damage to the crop. If the application of the pesticide is too late, the pests may be done significant damage to the crop. If the application of the pesticide is too early, then a second application may be required later in the season resulting in additional costs.
McCann also teaches providing, at least one field data or environmental data at the planned application timing, wherein the field data is indicative of a field condition at the planned application timing and/or the environmental data is indicative of an environmental condition at the planned application timing (see at least McCann: ¶ [0122] & ¶ [0184]. McCann teaches that he system logical architecture 800 may have one or more field condition user interfaces 802, 804 on the mission command center 932 systems for entering and/or importing field condition data into a pest treatment database 810. See at least McCann at ¶ [0165-0166]: For example, the amount of spray to be deposited may be determined by the desired effect on the target, the target characteristics, and the chemical composition of the spray, and current environmental conditions, such as wind or moisture. See at least McCann at ¶ [0003-0004]: The appropriate application time may be a balance between a number of pests, an expense for applying the pesticide, and potential damage to the crop. If the application of the pesticide is too late, the pests may be done significant damage to the crop. See at least McCann at ¶ [0184]: “The data gathered by the drone 202, 1200 regarding the environmental and other local conditions may be used to modify the prioritization rules for the drone 202, 1200 or one or more drones 202, 1200 by relaying the data from to the base station 204 or directly to the one or more drones 202, 1200”. McCann also notes that the real-time tracking data is acquired by a physical sensor or estimated via a cloud simulation (see at least McCann: ¶ [0124] & ¶ [0137] & ¶ [0174]. McCann teaches that the drone 202, 1200 may comprise the targeting system 842 which may receive input data from various data sources, and analyze the data to identify, select, and prioritize targets, track real-time or near-real-time relative target location, calculate and converge on spraying solutions, and activate and control drone spraying. The targeting system 842 may receive data from one or more cameras 630 and/or one or more sensors 606, 616 controlled by the data collection system 848. See also McCann at ¶ [0174]: “If the spray or a sample of sprays is measured to be not successful within a first predetermined success threshold, then the targeting system 842 may be configured to adjust one or more targeting computations in real-time, or near real-time, to increase the probability of success for the upcoming prioritized targets.”).
However, neither McCann and the other prior art of record do not reach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to:
- determining, based on the product data and the at least one field data or the environmental data at the planned application timing, a minimum concentration of the semiochemical product for affecting a behavior of the harmful organism;
- determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of the selected semiochemical product to be spread by the at least one dispenser into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field
- generating the application scheme based on the determined dose rate.
Regarding the Gordon reference, Gordon teaches the following:
- providing information about an expected presence of the harmful organism for an upcoming period (see at least Gordon: ¶ [0084] & ¶ [0087]. Gordon notes that the risk R determination can also include an estimate of the type and numbers of insects, a size of a nest (indicating how many pests are in the area), a time of day (e.g., most insects tend to be more docile at night than in the daytime, and thus, different abatement procedures are implemented at night as compared to the daytime), swarming behavior, etc. See also Gordon at ¶ [0087]: Alternately, the aerial drone may wait until daybreak to track the return of nocturnal animals to attics or eaves (e.g., for bats) or other locations such as trees or burrows. The aerial drone may also be programmed to follow a concentration gradient of insects towards areas of highest concentration (e.g., the nest).
However, neither Gordon and the other prior art of record do not reach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to:
- determining, based on the product data and the at least one field data or the environmental data at the planned application timing, a minimum concentration of the semiochemical product for affecting a behavior of the harmful organism;
- determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of the selected semiochemical product to be spread by the at least one dispenser into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field
- generating the application scheme based on the determined dose rate.
Regarding the Sotiroudas reference, Sotiroudas teaches that the fumigant concentration profiles determined in step 1208 may be used to determine whether, at a particular time point, there may be any live pests remaining in the crop storage area. For example, the simulation may determine a portion of the mesh may be associated with a relatively low concentration of fumigant two hours after commencing a fumigation with a particular dose of fumigant. Even if other portions of the mesh would represent portions of the crop storage area in which the pests have been exposed to a sufficiently high concentration of fumigant for a sufficient period of time, this example would indicate that a higher dose or longer fumigation is necessary to effectively fumigate the storage area. The amount of living invertebrate pests (i.e., undesirable insects, arachnids, nematodes, and gastropods), and their pre-adult stages (e.g. eggs, larvae, pupae) may be determined for the range of time points based on the simulated amounts of fumigant (1210). FIG. 13 shows a flow chart for an exemplary process 1300 concerning determining a fumigant dosage. First, a server (e.g., server 116) or user device 112 receives measurement data generated by a plurality of edge devices 102, where the edge devices may be positioned in various locations within a crop storage area 106 (1302).
However, neither Gordon and the other prior art of record do not reach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to:
- determining, based on the product data and the at least one field data or the environmental data at the planned application timing, a minimum concentration of the semiochemical product for affecting a behavior of the harmful organism;
- determining, based on the minimum concentration of the semiochemical product, a dose rate of the selected semiochemical product to be spread by the at least one dispenser into an atmospheric vapour forming a cloud which envelops crops on the agricultural field
- generating the application scheme based on the determined dose rate.
Therefore, when taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor do the available art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modification would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM 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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights