DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication of April 29, 2026, Applicant, on July 29, 2026, amended claims 1 & 10 and canceled claims 5 & 14. Claims 1-4, 6-13, & 15-18 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
Applicant's amendments to claims are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 305 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to a mental process, but instead to a computer-implemented agronomic data-processing technique involving generation and comparison of spatially distributed field data for identifying agronomic fields suitable for trial implementation and differentiated management practices, the claims do not merely determine short length variability for a field, they additionally recite computing short length variability for a plurality of agronomic fields and determining that the particular agronomic field has lower short length variability than the plurality of agronomic fields, the focus of the claims is a comparative field-selection methodology used to distinguish among candidate agricultural fields, the Specification explains that fields having low short length variability may be selected for trials because management-practice effects can be more readily detected in such fields, the claims do not merely recite a mental process, the claims require computer-implemented processing of spatially distributed agronomic data, including generation of a grid overlay, analysis of multiple adjacent grid-cell pairs, computation of short length variability, and comparison of variability values across multiple agronomic fields, and the Office has not established that such operations can be practically performed in the human mind, especially for agronomic fields containing large amounts of spatial agronomic data. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1, and similarly claims 2-4, 6-13, & 15-18) recite “receiving … a map of a particular agronomic field; receiving … agronomic data for the particular agronomic field; generating a grid overlay for the map of the agronomic field; selecting a plurality of sets of adjacent grid cells; for each set of adjacent grid cells of the plurality of sets of adjacent grid cells, computing a difference value comprising a difference in one or more factors between the grid cells in the set of adjacent grid cells; computing, from the difference values for each set of adjacent grid cells, a short length variability for the particular agronomic field; computing a short length variability for a plurality of agronomic fields; determining that the short length variability for the particular agronomic field is lower than the short length variability of the plurality of agronomic fields; based on the short length variability, selecting one or more locations; generating a prescription map comprising first management practices for the particular agronomic field and second management practices that are different than the first management practices for the selected one or more locations.” Claims 1-4, 6-13, & 15-18, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of receiving a map and agronomic data for a field, generating a grid overly for the map, selecting adjacent grid cells, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells, computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference, computing a short length variability for a plurality of fields, determining that the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for the plurality of fields, selecting locations based on the short length variability, and generating a prescription map with management practices for the field and the selected locations.
A claim recites mental processes when the claim recites concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), wherein if the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the claim being practically performed in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is in the mental process category. 84 Fed. Reg. 52 n.14. Here, as a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the receiving a map and agronomic data for a field, generating a grid overly for the map, selecting adjacent grid cells, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells, computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference, computing a short length variability for a plurality of fields, determining that the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for the plurality of fields, selecting locations based on the short length variability, and generating a prescription map with management practices for the field and the selected locations could all be reasonably interpreted as a human observing information regarding a field and a human performing evaluations and using judgment to select adjacent grid cells, generate a grid overly for the map, compute a difference between adjacent cells, compute a short length variability for the particular field and plurality of fields, determine the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for than the plurality of fields, select locations, and generate a prescription map mentally and/or with a pen and paper.
As described in detail above, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the limitations referred to by Applicant, these limitations can be performed by a human mentally by observation, evaluation, and judgment, and simply performing these limitations with a computer or with large amounts does transform these limitations into something that cannot be performed mentally such that they are an improvement to technology or otherwise transform the limitations into a patent-eligible invention. Mere instructions to apply judicial exception using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere automation of a manual process or a business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology nor otherwise transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible invention. MPEP 2106.05(a). Efficiency of performing the steps on large amounts of data with a computer rather than mentally does make the claims a patent-eligible invention because, as the MPEP makes clear, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims, including the limitations referred to by Applicant, recite a mental process.
Further, the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Further, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2); October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 4. Computing a difference between adjacent grid cells and computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference are recitations of mathematical calculation.
. Regardless of whether all the other limitations are not necessarily mathematical concepts, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells and computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference are recitations of mathematical calculation, and as noted above, the claims recite an abstract idea under prong 1 if the claims recite a limitations individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings, and since the claims recite limitations that recite mathematical concepts, the claims do indeed recite a mathematical concept under prong 1 of Step 2A.
Therefore, despite Applicant’s assertions, the claims recite a mathematical concept.
Accordingly, since the claims recite a mental process and mathematical concepts, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Applicant argues that Claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the Claims 1 and 10 do not merely recite the calculation of short length variability in the abstract, instead, the claims apply a specific variability-comparison technique to solve a particular agricultural problem identified in the Specification, after determining short length variability for the particular agronomic field, the claims further require computing short length variability for a plurality of agronomic fields and determining that the particular agronomic field has lower short length variability than the plurality of agronomic fields; this comparison is used to identify a field having variability characteristics that make the field suitable for trial implementation and subsequent differentiated management activities, and therefore, the recited process serves as a field- selection mechanism directed to a real-world agricultural objective; the claims apply the outcome of the variability analysis to subsequent agricultural operations, based on the short length variability determination, the claims select one or more locations and generate a prescription map comprising first management practices for the field and second management practices for the selected locations; therefore, the claims use the computed information to determine where differentiated management practices should be implemented within an agricultural field. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, under prong 2 of Step 2A we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the limitations referred to by Applicant are recitations of an abstract idea and not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, because, for the reasons set forth above, the limitations referred to by Applicant of computing a difference between adjacent grid cells, computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference, computing a short length variability for a plurality of fields, determining that the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for the plurality of fields, selecting locations based on the short length variability, and generating a prescription map with management practices for the field and the selected locations could all be reasonably interpreted as a human observing information regarding a field and a human performing evaluations and using judgment to select adjacent grid cells, generate a grid overly for the map, compute a difference between adjacent cells, compute a short length variability for the particular field and plurality of fields, determine the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for than the plurality of fields, select locations, and generate a prescription map mentally and/or with a pen and paper.
As noted above, mere instructions to apply judicial exception using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, mere automation of a manual process or a business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology nor otherwise transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible invention. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Under the second prong of Step 2A, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] system comprising: one or more processors; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of” and “at an agricultural intelligence computing system” in claim 1, and similarly claim 10; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that Claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception because the recite a particular comparative field-selection methodology in which short length variability is computed for multiple agronomic fields and the particular agronomic field is identified as exhibiting lower short length variability than the plurality of agronomic fields before locations are selected and a prescription map is generated, this ordered combination reflects a specific technique for identifying fields suitable for differentiated management practices and agricultural trials, the recited comparative use of short length variability improves field targeting and trial design by identifying fields and locations having variability characteristics better suited for implementation of agricultural trials, and as a result, the recited field-selection methodology improves the identification of fields and testing locations for agricultural trials and prescription generation, rather than merely performing a mathematical calculation; additionally, independent Claims 1 and 10 are amended herein to incorporate limitations previously indicated as allowable over the cited references, while novelty and nonobviousness are distinct from eligibility, the Office's indication of allowability confirms that the recited comparative field-selection methodology is not taught or suggested by the cited references and is not merely a generic implementation of an abstract concept, and instead, they represent a particular field-targeting technique that the Office has already determined is not taught or suggested by the cited references; when viewed as an ordered combination, the claims recite substantially more than applying an alleged abstract idea, specifically, the recited ordered combination constitutes an improved and non-conventional agricultural field-selection and prescription-generation technique rather than a mere instruction to apply an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, under Step 2B, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. However, the limitations referred to by Applicant are recitations of an abstract idea and not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, because, for the reasons set forth above, the limitations referred to by Applicant of computing a difference between adjacent grid cells, computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference, computing a short length variability for a plurality of fields, determining that the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for the plurality of fields, selecting locations based on the short length variability, and generating a prescription map with management practices for the field and the selected locations could all be reasonably interpreted as a human observing information regarding a field and a human performing evaluations and using judgment to select adjacent grid cells, generate a grid overly for the map, compute a difference between adjacent cells, compute a short length variability for the particular field and plurality of fields, determine the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for than the plurality of fields, select locations, and generate a prescription map mentally and/or with a pen and paper.
As noted above, mere instructions to apply judicial exception using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, mere automation of a manual process or a business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology nor otherwise transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible invention. MPEP 2106.05(a).
With respect to Applicant’s assertion that the Office's indication of allowability confirms that the recited comparative field-selection methodology is not taught or suggested by the cited references and is not merely a generic implementation of an abstract concept, the search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” Id. at 11.
Pursuant to Step 2B, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] system comprising: one or more processors; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of” and “at an agricultural intelligence computing system” in claim 1, and similarly claim 10; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, which is not sufficient to be significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Response to Arguments - Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive; therefore, the prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, & 15-18 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite:
computing, from the difference values for each set of adjacent grid cells, a short length variability for the particular agronomic field;
computing a short length variability for a plurality of agronomic fields;
determining that the short length variability for the particular agronomic field is lower than the short length variability of the plurality of agronomic fields;
based on the short length variability, selecting one or more locations.
Here, in the recitation of “based on the short length variability, selecting one or more locations,” since two different short length variabilities are previously introduced and then again later referred in the claim (i.e., “the short length variability for the particular agronomic field” and “the short length variability of the plurality of agronomic fields”), it is unclear whether the recitation of the short length variability refers to one of these two different previously recited short length variabilities, and if so, to which of these the short length variability refers.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended to recite the underlined portions below:
computing a short length variability for a plurality of agronomic fields;
determining that the short length variability for the particular agronomic field is lower than the short length variability of the plurality of agronomic fields;
based on the short length variability, selecting one or more locations;
generating a prescription map comprising first management practices for the particular agronomic field and second management practices that are different than the first management practices for the selected one or more locations.
Here, the amended limitations “computing a short length variability for a plurality of agronomic fields” and “determining that the short length variability for the particular agronomic field is lower than the short length variability of the plurality of agronomic fields” are divorced from and not logically connected to the remaining elements of the claims. Unlike previously presented claims 5 and 14, the claims do not include “in response, selecting the particular agronomic field to include [] second management practices,” which logically links these amended limitations to the remainder of the claims. Therefore, it is not clear what function or impact, if any, these newly recited limitations have on the remainder of the invention or whether these elements are not integrated into and divorced from the remainder elements of the invention. Accordingly, since it is unclear whether these newly amended elements are divorced from the remainder of the invention, the scope of the applicant regards as the invention is not particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, & 15-18 depend on claims 1 and 10 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
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 1-4, 6-13, & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-4, 6-13, & 15-18) recite “receiving … a map of a particular agronomic field; receiving … agronomic data for the particular agronomic field; generating a grid overlay for the map of the agronomic field; selecting a plurality of sets of adjacent grid cells; for each set of adjacent grid cells of the plurality of sets of adjacent grid cells, computing a difference value comprising a difference in one or more factors between the grid cells in the set of adjacent grid cells; computing, from the difference values for each set of adjacent grid cells, a short length variability for the particular agronomic field; computing a short length variability for a plurality of agronomic fields; determining that the short length variability for the particular agronomic field is lower than the short length variability of the plurality of agronomic fields; based on the short length variability, selecting one or more locations; generating a prescription map comprising first management practices for the particular agronomic field and second management practices that are different than the first management practices for the selected one or more locations.” Claims 1-4, 6-13, & 15-18, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of receiving a map and agronomic data for a field, generating a grid overly for the map, selecting adjacent grid cells, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells, computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference, computing a short length variability for a plurality of fields, determining that the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for the plurality of fields, selecting locations based on the short length variability, and generating a prescription map with management practices for the field and the selected locations.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the receiving a map and agronomic data for a field, generating a grid overly for the map, selecting adjacent grid cells, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells, computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference, computing a short length variability for a plurality of fields, determining that the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for the plurality of fields, selecting locations based on the short length variability, and generating a prescription map with management practices for the field and the selected locations could all be reasonably interpreted as a human observing information regarding a field and a human performing evaluations and using judgment to select adjacent grid cells, generate a grid overly for the map, compute a difference between adjacent cells, compute a short length variability for the particular field and plurality of fields, determine the short length variability for the particular field is lower than for than the plurality of fields, select locations, and generate a prescription map mentally and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental process. Further, computing a difference between adjacent grid cells and computing a short length variability for the particular field based on the difference are recitations of mathematical calculation, and thus, the claims recite a mathematical concept. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, & 15-18 recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper and recite mathematical concepts that include mathematical calculations. Accordingly, since the claims recite a mental process and mathematical concepts, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] system comprising: one or more processors; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of” and “at an agricultural intelligence computing system” in claim 1, “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause performance of generating one or more scripts comprising instructions which, when executed by an application controller of an agricultural implement, cause the application controller to cause the agricultural implement” in claim 9 and similarly in claim 18, and “[a] computer-implemented method comprising” and “at an agricultural intelligence computing system” in claim 10; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Furthermore, these limitations, including the recitations of “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause performance of generating one or more scripts comprising instructions which, when executed by an application controller of an agricultural implement, cause the application controller to cause the agricultural implement” in claim 9 and similarly in claim 18, are recited at high level of generality and merely generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment of generic computer systems, generic agricultural implements, and generic controllers implementing the abstract idea. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, & 15-18 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant Specfication at [0117]-[0118] (describing that the techniques of invention can be implemented by general purpose hardware processors programmed to perform the techniques pursuant to program instructions and computer systems including a general purpose microprocessor). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, & 15-18 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional 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 claims as a whole amount 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 1-4, 6-13, & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
While claims 1-4, 6-13, & 15-18 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112, these claims are potentially allowable if amended to overcome the 101 and 112 rejections since these claims are novel and non-obvious in view of 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bhalla, et al. (US 20180349520 A1) disclosing systems and methods for using soil, weather and terrain data in combination with historical yield data to make field management decisions by developing a yield model based at least on historical yield data and drainage tile location for at least two or more field polygons, wherein the grid size of the field polygons being modeled is based on the topological variation and fields with minimal change in elevation, i.e., flat fields, may use lager grid with a lower number of points than a field with a significant variance in elevation. Abstract, [0040].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights