Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on February 25 2026.
2. Claim 5 has been amended. Claims 1-4 have been cancelled. Claims 6-8 are new and have been added.
3. Claims 5-8 are currently pending and have been examined. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 30 March 2026 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy is enclosed with this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-5 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended now Claims 5-8 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 112 (f) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for now Claims 5-8, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant argues that as amended, Applicant states: “Amended claim 5 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter because amended claim 5 as a whole integrates any judicial exception into a practical application; In particular, amended claim 5 recites additional elements that provide improvements in a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for identifying a task content performed by a worker in a series of tasks made up of a plurality of element tasks that are consecutive.” (see Remarks/Arguments pages 6-8). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen below in the maintained rejection, and with further clarity, the claims still recite Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (one or more processors) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2024/0188476) does not teach or suggest in amended Claim 5: basically all of the claim amendments [see Remarks pages 8-10]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in the below maintained rejection with further clarification, Kubota specifically teaches these claim amendments. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea of a framework and the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the described method involves an Abstract Idea. The claim recites mental processes and rules of human logic, categorizing them under the Mathematical Concept / Mental Process grouping and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 5-8 are focused to a statutory category of invention, namely a “non-transitory storage medium” set.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 5-8 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent Claim 5 recites steps for:
“acquiring sensor information that includes information indicating a state of the worker in a case where the worker performs the element tasks;
setting priorities of determination models corresponding to the element tasks;
comparing the sensor information with the determination models in descending order of priority assigned to the determination models; and
in a case where a determination model among the determination models matches the sensor information in response to comparing the sensor information with the determination models, identifying an element task among the element tasks that the worker is performing corresponding to the matched determination model”
These abstract idea limitations identified above under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as: The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter:
Mathematical Concepts:
The use of "determination models" heavily implies algorithms or mathematical formulas to evaluate data.
Mental Processes: The steps of "comparing" sensor information with "determination models," "identifying" element tasks, and "setting priorities" represent operations that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with a pen and paper. The “sensor” aspects are not fully and specifically defined.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 5-8: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 5 recites additional elements directed to “non-transitory storage medium storing a program; sensor” (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 30-38). Therefore, the claim contains computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Despite this failure to pass Step 2A: Prong 2, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 5-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For independent Claim 5, the additional elements of “non-transitory storage medium; sensor” are generically-recited computer-related elements that amounts to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Despite this failure to pass Step 2B, the Examiner concludes the analysis.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 28-38) regarding using an existing computer processor as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 1” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2024/0188476).
With regard to Claim 5, Kubota teaches a non-transitory storage medium for identifying a task content (FIG. 14B is a diagram showing another example of a schedule of agricultural tasks that is generated by the server 100. A schedule of agricultural tasks according to the present example embodiment includes information of agricultural machine IDs for identifying agricultural machines. As described above, the user can use the terminal apparatus 200 to associate agricultural machine IDs with the task schedule. FIG. 14B shows an example of a table that associates, for each agricultural machine 300, an agricultural machine ID, a field to be worked on for the day, and the content of work; management system for managing access of a plurality of agricultural machines to a field, the management system including a processor configured or programmed to, while a first agricultural machine among the plurality of agricultural machines is performing an agricultural task in the field and if a conflict of agricultural tasks for the field exists between the first agricultural machine and a second agricultural machine among the plurality of agricultural machines, allow at least one of the first agricultural machine and the second agricultural machine determined based on priority data to perform the agricultural task for the field) performed by a worker (worker; agricultural machine) in a series of tasks (tasks) made up of a plurality of element tasks that are consecutive, the computer to execute (machine; the agricultural worker is performing an agricultural task in the field; the processor is configured or programmed) (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 148-155) comprising:
acquiring sensor (sensing devices; LiDAR sensor) information that includes information indicating a state of the worker in a case where the worker performs the element tasks (FIG. 16A illustrates a state in which the second agricultural machine 300B has finished its task for a field F2 according to the task schedule shown in FIG. 14B and is standing by for access to the field F1. A target path R1a in the field F1 of the first agricultural machine 300A is shown with broken-line arrows, whereas a target path that has already been traveled is indicated by solid lines. A target path R2a within the field F2 for the second agricultural machine 300B having finished its task is indicated by solid-line arrows. The target path R1a includes a start point ST1 of beginning work, an end point EN1 of ending work, and traveling directions as indicated by arrows in the figure. Similarly, the target path R2a includes a start point ST2 of beginning work, an end point EN2 of ending work, and traveling directions as indicated by arrows in the figure. FIG. 16B illustrates a state in which the first agricultural machine 300A has exited the field F1, and in which the second agricultural machine 300B which has been permitted access to the field F1 has moved to the field F1 to begin work) (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 148-155);
setting priorities of determination models corresponding to the element tasks (management system for managing access to a field between an agricultural machine and an agricultural worker, the management system including a storage to store priority data including information of a priority level of the agricultural machine that is assigned to the agricultural machine and a priority level that is assigned to the agricultural worker and is higher than the priority level of the agricultural machine; and a processor configured or programmed to, if a conflict of agricultural tasks for the field exists between the agricultural machine and the agricultural worker while the agricultural worker is performing the agricultural task in the field, allow the agricultural worker to continue the agricultural task for the field with priority over the agricultural machine, based on the priority data); The machine selecting section 768 is usable to set the agricultural machine to be used for the given agricultural task. In the machine selecting section 768, for example, the IDs (identification information) and types or models of the agricultural machines which have been previously registered by the server 100, types or models of usable implements, etc., may be displayed. The user can select a specific machine from among the indicated machines. In the example of FIG. 12, an implement model “NW4511” is selected. In this case, this implement is set as the machine to be used for the given agricultural task; identification information; for the given agricultural task) (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 140; 148-155);
comparing the sensor information with the determination models (In the example of FIG. 12, an implement model “NW4511” is selected. In this case, this implement is set as the machine to be used for the given agricultural task; identification information; for the given agricultural task) in descending order of priority (The agricultural machine 300 illustrated in FIG. 5 further includes an LiDAR sensor 156. The LiDAR sensor 156 in this example is The LiDAR sensor 156 in this example is located at a lower portion of the front surface of the vehicle body 101. The LiDAR sensor 156 may alternatively be located at other positions. While the agricultural machine 300 is moving, the LiDAR sensor 156 repetitively outputs sensor data representing the distances and directions of measurement points on objects existing in the surrounding environment, or two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinate values of such measurement points. The sensor data which is output from the LiDAR sensor 156 is processed by the controller of the agricultural machine 300. By utilizing SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) or other algorithms, for example, the controller is able to perform processes such as generating an environment map based on the sensor data. The generation of an environment map may be performed by a computer, e.g., the server 100, that is external to the agricultural machine 300. The sensor data that is output from the LiDAR sensor 156 may also be utilized for obstacle detection) assigned to the determination models (for managing access to a field between an agricultural machine and an agricultural worker, the method causing a computer to read from a storage, priority data including information of a priority level of the agricultural machine that is assigned to the agricultural machine and a priority level that is assigned to the agricultural worker and is higher than the priority level of the agricultural machine; and if a conflict of agricultural tasks for the field exists between the agricultural machine and the agricultural worker while the agricultural worker is performing the agricultural task in the field, allow the agricultural worker to continue the agricultural task for the field with priority over the agricultural machine, based on the priority data) (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 84-97; 140; 148-155);
in a case where a determination model among the determination models matches (The working breadth may be set and recorded as the user manipulates the operational terminal 153. Alternatively, the working breadth may be automatically recognized and recorded when the implement 400 is connected to the agricultural machine 300. The interval between the plurality of main paths P1 may be matched to the working breadth. The target path may be generated based on the user's manipulation, before self-driving is begun. The target path may be generated so as to cover the entire work area 72) the sensor information in response to comparing the sensor information with the determination models (the LiDAR sensor 156 repetitively outputs sensor data representing the distances and directions of measurement points on objects existing in the surrounding environment, or two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinate values of such measurement points. The sensor data which is output from the LiDAR sensor 156 is processed by the controller of the agricultural machine 300), identifying an element task among the element tasks that the worker is performing corresponding to the matched determination model (When the first agricultural machine 300A is performing a task in the field F1, a conflict of tasks for the field F1 may occur between the first agricultural machine 300A and the second agricultural machine 300B. By referring to the table mapping the relationship between agricultural tasks and priority levels, the processing unit 20 compares between the priority level of the first agricultural machine 300A and the priority level of the second agricultural machine 300B. If the priority level of the first agricultural machine 300A and the priority level of the second agricultural machine 300B are equal, the processing unit 20 allows the first agricultural machine 300A to continue its task for the field F1, and allows the second agricultural machine 300B to perform its task for the field F1. In the example shown in FIG. 14A, the priority levels of bed soil preparation and furrow coating are equal. Through orchestrated work of the first agricultural machine 300A and the second agricultural machine 300B, tasks for the field F1 can be accelerated) (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 84-97; 118-120, 140; 148-155; 165);
With regard to Claim 6, Kubota teaches: the sensor information includes image information of the worker and image information of the determination models (FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing an example operation of steering control to be performed by the controller 180 during self-driving. During travel of the agricultural machine 300, the controller 180 performs automatic steering by performing the operation from steps S121 to S125 shown in FIG. 9. The speed will be maintained at a previously-set speed, for example. First, during travel of the agricultural machine 300, the controller 180 acquires data representing the position of the agricultural machine 300 that is generated by the positioning device 130 (step S121). Next, the controller 180 calculates a deviation between the position of the agricultural machine 300 and the target path (step S122));
the program causes the computer to further execute calculating similarity between the image information of the worker and the image information of the determination models (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 84-97; 118-120, 140; 148-155; 165).
With regard to Claim 7, Kubota teaches: the element tasks include a first element task and second element tasks that the worker performs next to the first element task (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 84-97; 118-120, 140; 148-155; 165);
in the series of tasks, probability values corresponding to the second element tasks are set in advance (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 64, 84-97; 118-120, 140; 148-155; 165);
the program causes the computer to further execute setting the priorities of the determination models based on the probability values (see at least paragraphs 16-23; 64, 84-97; 118-120, 140; 148-155; 165);
With regard to Claim 8, Kubota teaches: the first element task is a take-out task (The management system of Item 3, wherein, when the priority level of the second agricultural machine is higher than the priority level of the first agricultural machine, the processor is configured or programmed to cause the first agricultural machine to stop the agricultural task for the field, and allow the second agricultural machine to perform the agricultural task for the field) (see at least paragraphs 10-23; 84-97; 111);
the second element tasks include a tightening work, a fitting work, and an inserting work The ECU 182 controls the hydraulic device or electric motor included in the steering device 106 based on a measurement value of the steering wheel sensor 150, thus controlling the steering of the agricultural machine 300. In order to cause the implement 400 to perform a desired operation, the ECU 183 controls the operation of the three-point link, the PTO shaft, etc., that are included in the linkage device 108. Also, the ECU 183 generates a signal to control the operation of the implement 400, and transmits this signal from the communication device 190 to the implement 400. Based on signals which are output from the positioning device 130, the steering wheel sensor 150, the angle-of-turn sensor 151, and the wheel axis sensor 152, the ECU 184 performs computation and control for achieving self-driving. During self-driving, the ECU 184 sends a speed command value to the ECU 181, and sends a steering angle command value to the ECU 182. In response to the speed command value, the ECU 181 controls the prime mover 102, the transmission 103, or the brakes to change the speed of the agricultural machine 300. In response to the steering angle command value, the ECU 182 controls the steering device 106 to change the steering angle. The ECU 185 controls communications of the communicator 190 with other devices. For example, the ECU 185 generates a target path for the agricultural machine 300, and records it to the storage 170) (see at least paragraphs 10-23; 84-97; 111);
the probability values include respective probabilities of 50% for the tightening work, 25% for the fitting work, and 25% for the inserting work among the second element tasks (see at least paragraphs 111, 127).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
St. Pierre et al. (US 2024/0127141)
Dubey et al. (US 2017/0061357)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights