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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Applicant provide information disclosure statement.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 5/1/2026.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of abandoned U.S. application no. 17480099 filed on September 20, 2021. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 11
Applicant respectfully submits that the claim limitations of amended claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites "training, via the one or more processors, a machine learning model using labeled yield data and revenue data" and processing each of the respective selected hexagonal grid cells using the trained machine learning model to generate recommendations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner interprets the machine learning model as an additional element, and additional elements are not part of the Step 2A prong 1 analysis. The machine learning model is merely an additional element that is used to carry out the abstract idea step of generating recommendations. In addition, training a model is merely picking the best variables for the model. The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application which include merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Applicant argues on page 12
The hexagonal partitioning improves the technical agricultural analysis performed on the field. Hexagonal tessellations enable "more hexagonal cells [to] be fit than rectangular cells" and the machine learning model analyzes each hexagonal grid cell individually, which means hexagonal partitioning provides the machine learning model with more individually analyzable data points per field than would be possible with conventional rectangular grid cells. See Specification, paras. [0051], [0061], and [0071]. This reflects an improvement for how the machine learning model processes and analyzes the agricultural field.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not provide metadata as claimed by Applicant stating the agriculture field contains 20,000 acres (see page 12 of Applicant arguments). For example, if there was only 1 acre of land, why would the use need the claimed invention be needed. In addition, partitioning into hexagons is a mere data manipulation of analyzing data. For example, user would be able to partition an acre into hexagons for analysis. In addition, the claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. Para 0003 of Applicant’s state the business problem of field profitability. A technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
Applicant argues on page 13
Here, the amended claims recite partitioning the agricultural field into hexagonal grid cells, training a machine learning model using labeled yield data and revenue data, and processing each hexagonal grid cell using the trained machine learning model to generate per-hexagonal-grid-cell recommendations. This ordered combination is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity to those in the field of precision agriculture.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
Examiner did not used the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 8/4/2023 office action. The 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” In addition, the claims recite receiving data. This data is received with respect to a network as seen in fig. 1. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity which include receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/1/2026, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws 35 USC 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-17 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-17 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 7 and 13 recite the limitations of
Partitioning…the agricultural field into hexagonal grid cells; measuring…a set of agricultural inputs for each of the respective hexagonal grid cells, wherein the set of agricultural inputs includes both direct costs and indirect costs; receiving…market data corresponding to a crop planted on the agricultural field; computing…an agricultural yield for each of the respective hexagonal grid cells; computing…a gross revenue for each of the respective hexagonal grid cells by analyzing a respective cost of each of the agricultural inputs, the market data and the respective agricultural yield of each of the respective hexagonal grid cells; computing…a net revenue for each of the respective hexagonal grid cells by subtracting at least the direct costs and the indirect costs from the respective gross revenue; …generating…an analysis report including the gross revenue, the agricultural yield, and the net revenue for each of the respective selected grid cells, wherein the generating includes processing the respective selected grid cells using a…model to generate one or more recommendations, each corresponding to a respective one of the respective hexagonal grid cells; and transmitting the analysis report …wherein the analysis report includes recommendations for adding or subtracting one or more agricultural inputs based on the net revenue and as-applied data of the respective grid cells.
Applicant’s amendments filed 5/1/2026 further include
training, via the one or more processors…model using labeled yield data and revenue data
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of partitioning, measuring, receiving, computing, training, processing, generating, and transmitting data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, the claim language encompasses simply partitioning a field into cells, measuring inputs for the field, receiving market data, computing a field yield/gross revenue/net revenue, generating an analysis report, processing data using a model, generating recommendations, and transmitting that data. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, training a model is merely selecting the best variables for a model. In addition, a user is able to partition a field mentally or with pen and paper. In addition, a user is able to compute a yield for the field as well as a gross and net revenue. A user is also able to determine recommendations for the field. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual process.
The claims also recite yield, net, and gross revenue. The claimed invention clearly teaches managing a field with respect to business variables. Applicant’s specification also recites economic analysis of a field as seen in para 0006. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of processor, graphical user interface, computing device, computing system, memories, machine learning model, and non-transitory computer readable medium.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe additional field variables such as an agricultural implement. In addition, the dependent claims further recite additional steps that happen to the data such as standardizing the data. In addition, the dependent claims further recite what the recommendations are for, such as improving profitability.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further recites processors, machine learning model, receiving a user selection of one or more of the grid cells via a graphical user interface, computing device, display,
Claim 7 recites computing system, processors, memories, machine learning model, computing device
Claim 13 recites non-transitory computer readable medium, computer, machine learning model, computing device
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0023.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0023. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Basso (US20170270616A1) Discloses methods and related systems for precision crop modeling and management using the same.
Xu (US20180046735A1) Discloses computer systems that are useful in agriculture and climatology. The disclosure is also in the technical field of computer systems that are programmed or configured to generate management zones for agricultural fields based on digital historical yield map data, pipelined data processing, and computer-implemented data recommendations for use in agriculture.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights