DETAILED ACTION
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 .
1. This action is responsive to application filed Sep. 26, 2024.
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.
2. Claims 1-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “detecting a plurality of cotton quality characteristics and generating cotton quality characteristic sensor data indicative of the detected plurality of cotton quality characteristics; obtaining the cotton quality characteristic sensor data; determining, for each cotton cluster of a plurality of cotton clusters generated by the cotton harvester, a respective set of cotton quality metrics based on the cotton quality characteristic sensor data, wherein, for each respective set, each cotton quality metric corresponds to a different cotton quality characteristic of the plurality of cotton quality characteristics than the other cotton quality metrics of the respective set”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “cotton harvesting system”, ”one or more cotton quality characteristic sensors”, “one or more processors”; and “memory storing computer executable instructions” in claim 1; “one or more cotton quality characteristic sensors on-board a cotton harvester” in claim 14; “cotton harvester”, ”one or more cotton quality characteristic sensors”, “one or more processors”; and “memory storing computer executable instructions” in claim 19, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “detecting”, “obtaining” and “determining”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally observe a cotton harvest and determine characteristics of cotton harvest.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements: “cotton harvesting system”, ”one or more cotton quality characteristic sensors”, “one or more processors”; and “memory storing computer executable instructions” in claim 1; “one or more cotton quality characteristic sensors on-board a cotton harvester” in claim 14; “cotton harvester”, ”one or more cotton quality characteristic sensors”, “one or more processors”; and “memory storing computer executable instructions” in claim 19 to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of detecting characteristics of cotton and determining quality metrics of the cotton harvest) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 14 and 19 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “generating a control signal based on at least one respective set of cotton quality metrics”. This generating step, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses merely transmitting or generating information (e.g., transmitting/outputting a signal). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 1-20.
4. Claims 12-13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights