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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 22 January 2025.
Claims 1-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 June 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the initial disclosure but prior to any action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 6, 7, 17, 18 and 28-29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 17, 18 and 28-29 the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase, carbon credit markets, are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the claim 1 is directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claims 1, 12 and 23 recite calculating, quantifying and our visualizing one or more outcomes and/or predicted outcomes.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions related to sales activities or business relations). Here, the claim analyzes gathered and processed imagery data to determine outcomes including sustainability metrics and economic metrics. Accordingly, claims 1, 12 and 23 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite Additional elements that are:
Capturing field imagery using a mobile device and processing the imagery to produce processed field imagery.
Accordingly, the additional elements 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 set forth capturing data using a device and processing data to produce processed data. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and illustrate insignificant extra solution activity, mere data gathering and transmission/outputting. The calculating, quantifying and visualizing are also recited at a high level of generality and are merely applied by the processing system and memory units of the device. Each additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer in a generic computer environment. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses 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. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does 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 elements of a device and medium are treated as MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235); and MPEP 2106.05h (field of use). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
For the capturing step and processing steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the device or medium are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-22 and 24-33 merely narrow the abstract idea by describing the outcomes and/or predicted outcomes as including different metrics. The limitations describe using a processed based model, statistical or machine learning model or a model that has been optimized. These limitations as a whole describe how to generally apply calculations, quantification and/or visualizations using a model, algorithm or program. The models are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the calculations, quantifications and visualizations. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea nor does it amount to significantly more. Thus using models does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more. The device used to capture the imagery is described as a handheld camera, camera in a smart device or phone, Internet of things camera, optical sensor, sport camera and/or camera housed within a vehicle. Describing the device that collects images as any of a variety of camera that are typically used to collect image data does not transform the claim into a patent eligible invention. The specification does not provide any indication that the camera or devices are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ashtekar et al. (US 11,775,906).
As per Claim 1 Ashtekar teaches:
A method to calculate, quantify, and/or visualize one or more outcomes and/or predicted outcomes associated with an agricultural field, rangeland, or pastureland (Ashtekar in at least Col. 1:26-34 describes how this invention relates in general to the field of regenerative agricultural practices, specifically for carbon footprint determination), comprising:
capturing field imagery using a mobile device (Ashtekar in at least Col. 7:59-Col. 8:6 describes satellite and aerial image data taken across agriculturally meaningful spectral bands, the “mobile device” is described as including a camera attached toa vehicle, thus taking airborne images or satellite images meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims);
processing the field imagery to produce processed field imagery (Ashtekar in at least Col. 9:29-40 describes the remote sensor processor that may process satellite/aerial images); and
calculating, quantifying, and/or visualizing one or more outcomes and/or predicted outcomes based on the processed field imagery (Ashtekar in at least Fig. 6 and Col. 20:10-19 illustrate and describe a flow diagram of automatically determining a regenerative carbon footprint using best practices for an agricultural parcel).
As per Claim 2 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the outcomes and/or predicted outcomes include sustainability metrics (Ashtekar in at least Col. 2:5-41, Col. 11:66-Col. 12:23, Col. 17:29-61 describe outcomes and/or predicted outcomes relating to sustainability).
As per Claim 3 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the sustainability metrics comprise information related to greenhouse gas emissions, soil carbon sequestration, water use, and/or resource use efficiency (Ashtekar in at least Col. 2:5-41, Col. 7:59-Col. 8:6, Col. 11:66-Col. 12:23, Col. 17:29-61 describe outcomes and/or predicted outcomes relating to sustainability including greenhouse gas emissions, soil, carbon footprints etc.).
As per Claim 4 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the outcomes and/or predicted outcomes include economic metrics (Ashtekar in at least Col. 2:55-Col. 3:23, Col. 13:21-38, Col. 17:5-61 describe agro-economic metrics including profit and economic value from crops and or livestock).
As per Claim 5 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the economic metrics comprise projected revenue from crop(s) and/or livestock (Ashtekar in at least Col. 2:55-Col. 3:23, Col. 13:21-38, Col. 17:5-61 describe agro-economic metrics including profit and economic value from crops and or livestock).
As per Claim 6 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the economic metrics comprise projected revenue or compensation from ecosystem service market(s), such as carbon credit market(s) (Ashtekar in at least Col. 2:55-Col. 4:20, Col. 13:21-38, Col. 17:5-61 describe agro-economic metrics including carbon credits and other service markets).
As per Claim 7 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the economic metrics comprise a market-driven premium, such as gains from sustainable labeling (Ashtekar in at least Col. 26:50-Col. 27:13, Col. 2: 20-34, 55-Col. 4:20, Col. 13:21-38, Col. 17:5-61 describe agro-economic metrics including market values that can be assigned for sustainability and other market conditions).
As per Claim 8 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the calculating, quantifying, and/or visualizing one or more outcomes and/or predicted outcomes comprises using a process-based model (Ashtekar in at least Col. 9:41-Col. 10:5, describes a simulation processor for modeling multiyear crop simulations and regenerative multiyear crop simulations, Col. 10:40-Col. 11:31 describes utilizing different mechanistic crop models and models for different calculations and quantifications, see also Col. 15:51-Col. 16:19).
As per Claim 9 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the calculating, quantifying, and/or visualizing one or more outcomes and/or predicted outcomes comprises using a statistical or machine learning model (Ashtekar in at least Col. 9:41-Col. 10:5, describes a simulation processor for modeling multiyear crop simulations and regenerative multiyear crop simulations, Col. 10:40-Col. 11:31 describes utilizing different mechanistic crop models and models for different calculations and quantifications, see also Col. 15:51-Col. 16:19).
As per Claim 10 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the calculating, quantifying, and/or visualizing one or more outcomes and/or predicted outcomes is based on a model that has been optimized based on field image data (Ashtekar in at least Col. 9:41-Col. 10:5, describes a simulation processor for modeling multiyear crop simulations and regenerative multiyear crop simulations, Col. 10:40-Col. 11:31 describes utilizing different mechanistic crop models and models for different calculations and quantifications, see also Col. 15:4-Col. 16:19 describes different modeling techniques including optimization techniques).
As per Claim 11 Ashtekar further teaches:
wherein the mobile device used to capture the field imagery comprises a handheld camera, a camera included as part of a smart device such as a smartphone camera, an Internet-of-Things (IoT) camera, an optical sensor, a sport camera, and/or a camera housed within and/or attached to a vehicle (Ashtekar in at least Col. 7:59-Col. 8:6 describes satellite and aerial image data taken across agriculturally meaningful spectral bands, the “mobile device” is described as including a camera attached toa vehicle, thus taking airborne images or satellite images meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims).
As per Claims 12-33 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in claims 1-11 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623