DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 14, 2025. Claims 1 – 15 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite a computer-implemented method, and the body of the claim 1 positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a process.
Does claim 11 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite an apparatus. The body of claim 11 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed device/apparatus. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an apparatus
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13 and 15 recite a judicial exception? Yes. The claims recite the limitations of
providing agricultural operation data for an agricultural device, wherein the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and/or monitoring operation data;
wherein, in case the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and monitoring operation data, control data for controlling a treatment unit of the agricultural device are provided based on monitoring data provided by a monitoring unit of the agricultural device; and
wherein, in case the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and no monitoring operation data, control data for controlling the treatment unit of the agricultural device are provided and monitoring data provided by the monitoring unit of the agricultural device are provided; and
wherein in case the agricultural operation data comprise monitoring operation data and no treatment operation data, monitoring data provided by the monitoring unit of the agricultural device are provided (see Claim 1);
if the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and monitoring operation data, monitoring data provided by the monitoring unit of the agricultural device are provided (see Claim 2);
mode selection based on the agricultural operation data (see Claim 3);
providing monitoring data to at least one further agricultural device (see Claim 4);
providing monitoring data to a collection unit (see Claim 5);
providing further agricultural operation data based on the provided monitoring data (see Claim 6);
providing prediction data based on the monitoring data and providing further agricultural operation data based on the prediction data (see Claim 7);
providing control data based on the to further agricultural device or based on the collection unit (see Claim 9); and
determining whether the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and determining whether the agricultural operation data comprise monitoring operation data (see Claim 10);
The providing/provided, monitoring, selecting and determining limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than specifically or implicitly reciting “one or more computing nodes and one or more computer-readable media” nothing in the claim precludes the providing/provided, monitoring, selecting and determining steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for specifically or implicitly reciting “one or more computing nodes and one or more computer-readable media”, the claims encompass the user to manually perform the aforementioned steps.
The core of the claims focus on "providing data" and making logical "if/then" determinations (e.g., if treatment and/or monitoring data exists, then provide control data). This mirrors mental processes or mathematical concepts. Courts often view such data manipulation and conditional logic as tasks that can be performed in the human mind. The claims do not recite specific agricultural sensors or mechanical improvements; it uses generic functional terms like "monitoring unit" and "treatment unit". As such, claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13 and 15 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The claim merely automates a logical decision-making process. It lacks a technical solution to a technical problem, such as a specific improvement in how the "treatment unit" operates mechanically. In other words, the claims do not improve the functioning of the device or provide a specific technical solution to a technical problem (other than just automating data routing). As such, claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13 and 15 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13 and 15 are ineligible.
As to claim 8, the limitation in this claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For instance, claim 8 recites transmitting . . . further agricultural operation data to the further agricultural device. This transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of agricultural operation data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, claims 1 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by cited WO 2020161689 A1 to Decaro (herein after “Decaro publication”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 11 – 13 and 15,
the Decaro publication discloses an apparatus for operating an agricultural device, the apparatus comprising:
one or more computing nodes and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more computing nodes, cause the apparatus to perform the following steps (see FIGS. 1 and ¶30 for “a platform for monitoring and controlling sprayers, such as sprayers used by farmers in crop fields to apply fungicides”; see also FIG. 15 and ¶68 for “one or more cloud computing nodes 1502 with which local computing devices used by cloud consumers, such as, computer 1512 connected to sprayer 1510, mobile device 1508, and sprayer 1506 may communicate”):
providing agricultural operation data for an agricultural device, wherein the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and/or monitoring operation data (see ¶30 for “a platform for monitoring and controlling sprayers . . . used by farmers in crop fields to apply fungicides”; see also ¶36 – ¶39, where the platform for monitoring and controlling the sprayers use “configuration information about the sprayer 102” and “product information 116 which can include recommended sprayer settings and recommended sprayers for particular products (e.g., pesticides and fertilizers)”);
wherein, in case the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and monitoring operation data, control data for controlling a treatment unit of the agricultural device are provided based on monitoring data provided by a monitoring unit of the agricultural device (see ¶36 – ¶39, where the Decaro publication inherently discloses different configuration information and/or setting information for specific product treatment and monitoring); and
wherein, in case the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and no monitoring operation data, control data for controlling the treatment unit of the agricultural device are provided and monitoring data provided by the monitoring unit of the agricultural device are provided (see ¶36 – ¶39, where the Decaro publication inherently discloses different configuration information and/or setting information for specific product treatment and monitoring); and
wherein, in case the agricultural operation data comprise monitoring operation data and no treatment operation data, monitoring data provided by the monitoring unit of the agricultural device are provided (see ¶36 – ¶39, where the Decaro publication inherently discloses different configuration information and/or setting information for specific product treatment and monitoring).
As to claim 2,
the Decaro publication discloses providing monitoring data from the monitoring unit . . . if the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and monitoring operation data. (See ¶36 – ¶39 for the different configuration information and/or setting information for specific product treatment and monitoring.)
As to claim 3,
the Decaro publication discloses mode selection based on the agricultural operation data. (See ¶43 and ¶85.)
As to claim 4,
the Decaro publication discloses providing monitoring data to at least one further agricultural device. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 5,
the Decaro publication discloses providing monitoring data to a collection unit. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 6,
the Decaro publication discloses providing further agricultural operation data based on the provided monitoring data. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 7,
the Decaro publication discloses providing prediction data based on the monitoring data and providing further agricultural operation data based on the prediction data. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 8,
the Decaro publication discloses transmitting the further agricultural operation data to the further agricultural device. (See ¶36 – ¶39; see also FIG. 15 for “an illustrative cloud computing environment 1500” demonstrating how agricultural operation data may be transmitted to further agricultural device.)
As to claim 9,
the Decaro publication discloses providing control data based on the to further agricultural device or based on the collection unit. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 10,
the Decaro publication discloses determining whether the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and determining whether the agricultural operation data comprise monitoring operation data. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666