DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed May 14th, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 05/14/26, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 03/06/26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 05/14/26, with respect to claims 3 and 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 03/06/26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 05/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 19 rendering the current 101 rejection moot.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, per MPEP 2106.07(b) “In response to a rejection based on failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter, applicant may: (i) amend the claim, e.g., to add additional elements or modify existing elements so that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception, (or integrates the judicial exception into a practical application), (ii) present persuasive arguments based on a good faith belief as to why the rejection is in error and/or (iii) submit evidence traversing a subject matter eligibility rejection according to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 716.01 and 37 CFR 1.132. When evaluating a response, examiners must carefully consider all of applicant's arguments and evidence rebutting the subject matter eligibility rejection. If applicant has amended the claim, examiners should determine the amended claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation and again perform the subject matter eligibility analysis.” The following subject matter eligibility analysis can be found in the 35 USC 101 rejection below. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14, filed 05/14/26, with respect to claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102(a) rejection and 35 USC 103 rejection of 03/06/26 has been withdrawn.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-18
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method) and dependent claims 2-18, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claim recites planning an agricultural operation associated with an agricultural working environment, the method comprising: receiving location data indicative of a relative location of the working environment with respect to a control location; estimating a travel time for one or more support machines between the working environment and the control location; estimating a processing time associated with the control location; estimating a working time for a working machine in the working environment; determining a suggested number of support machines for the agricultural operation in dependence on the travel time, the processing time and the working time wherein the suggested number of support machines is determined utilizing the formula n = R(2-d/s)/(e-f)], where n is the number of support machines, d is a distance between the working environment and the control location, s is a travel speed for the one or more support machines, e is the processing time, and f is the working time; and generating an operational plan for the agricultural operation in dependence the determined suggested number of support machines; and controlling operation of the working machine based at least partially on the generated operational plan (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, Mental Process, and Mathematical Concepts), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation by determining a suggested number of support machines for the agricultural operation, generating an operational plan for the agricultural operation, and controlling operation of the work machine based at least partially on the generated operational plan, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation by: estimating a travel time of support machines between the working environment and the control location; estimating a processing time associated with the control location; estimating a working time for a working machine in the working environment; determining a suggested number of support machines for the agricultural operation; generating an operational plan for the agricultural operation, and controlling operation of the work machine based at least partially on the generated operational plan, which functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts because the claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation by: wherein the suggested number of support machines is determined utilizing the formula n = R(2-d/s)/(e-f)], where n is the number of support machines, d is a distance between the working environment and the control location, s is a travel speed for the one or more support machines, e is the processing time, and f is the working time, which is a mathematical equation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations recite a formula for determining a suggestion number of support machines for planning an agricultural operation, which recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts.
In addition, dependent claims 3-13 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the estimated travel time; processing time; crop processing time; working time; the suggested number of support machines; the operational plan comprising a route plan; controlling operation of one or more operable components associated with one or more of the working machine(s), the support machine(s) and/or the control location in dependence on the operational plan. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2, 14, and 16-18 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “receiving location data indicative of a relative location of the working environment with respect to a control location” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A computer” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 3-13 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2, 14, and 16-18 additionally recite “wherein the location data comprises a travel distance between the working environment and the control location”; “the agricultural operation comprises a harvesting operation; the working machine comprises a harvesting machine; the one or more support machines comprise a grain cart or forage wagon; the working environment comprises a field having crop material growing therein; and the control location comprises a depot where cut and/or harvested crop material from the working environment is transported by the one or more support machines”; “comprising controlling operation of a user interface for providing a graphical representation of the operational plan”; “receiving a user input relating to the operational plan” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “user interface; display terminal; mobile device; user terminal” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A computer” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-18; recite “A computer”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0034 and 0046 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receiving location data indicative of a relative location of the working environment with respect to a control location” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 3-13 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2, 14, and 16-18 additionally recite “wherein the location data comprises a travel distance between the working environment and the control location”; “the agricultural operation comprises a harvesting operation; the working machine comprises a harvesting machine; the one or more support machines comprise a grain cart or forage wagon; the working environment comprises a field having crop material growing therein; and the control location comprises a depot where cut and/or harvested crop material from the working environment is transported by the one or more support machines”; “comprising controlling operation of a user interface for providing a graphical representation of the operational plan”; “receiving a user input relating to the operational plan” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “user interface; display terminal; mobile device; user terminal” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 19
Step 1: Independent claim 19 (system), respectively, falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 19 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite planning an agricultural operation associated with an agricultural working environment, the control system comprising one or more controllers which are collectively configured to: receive location data indicative of a relative location of the working environment with respect to a control location; estimate a travel time for one or more support machines between the working environment and the control location; estimate a processing time associated with the control location; estimate a working time for a working machine in the working environment; determine a suggested number of support machines for the agricultural operation in dependence on the travel time, the processing time and the working time, wherein the suggested number of support machines is determined utilizing the formula n = [(2-d/s)/(e-f)], where n is the number of support machines, d is a distance between the working environment and the control location, s is a travel speed for the one or more support machines, e is the processing time, and f is the working time; generate an operational plan for the agricultural operation in dependence the determined suggested number of support machines; and controlling operation of the working machine based at least partially on the generated operational plan (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, Mental Process, and Mathematical Concept), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation by determining a suggested number of support machines for the agricultural operation; generating an operational plan for the agricultural operation; and controlling operation of the working machine based at least partially on the generated operational plan, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation by: estimating a travel time of support machines between the working environment and the control location; estimating a processing time associated with the control location; estimating a working time for a working machine in the working environment; determining a suggested number of support machines for the agricultural operation; generating an operational plan for the agricultural operation; and controlling operation of the working machine based at least partially on the generated operational plan, which functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts because the claimed limitations are planning an agricultural operation by: wherein the suggested number of support machines is determined utilizing the formula n = R(2-d/s)/(e-f)], where n is the number of support machines, d is a distance between the working environment and the control location, s is a travel speed for the one or more support machines, e is the processing time, and f is the working time, which is a mathematical equation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations recite a formula for determining a suggestion number of support machines for planning an agricultural operation, which recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “receive location data indicative of a relative location of the working environment with respect to a control location” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A control system for planning an agricultural operation associated with an agricultural working environment, the control system comprising one or more controllers which are collectively configured; one or more operational components associated with the agricultural operation” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A control system for planning an agricultural operation associated with an agricultural working environment, the control system comprising one or more controllers which are collectively configured” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, system claim 19 recites “A control system for planning an agricultural operation associated with an agricultural working environment, the control system comprising one or more controllers which are collectively configured”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0034 and 0046 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receive location data indicative of a relative location of the working environment with respect to a control location” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional limitations of the independent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record (i.e., Hunsaker (U.S 2018/0374009 A1)) discloses: planning an agricultural operation associated with an agricultural working environment, the method comprising: receiving location data indicative of a relative location of the working environment with respect to a control location; estimating a travel time for one or more support machines between the working environment and the control location; estimating a processing time associated with the control location; estimating a working time for a working machine in the working environment; determining a suggested number of support machines for the agricultural operation in dependence on the travel time, the processing time and the working time; and generating an operational plan for the agricultural operation in dependence the determined suggested number of support machines; and controlling operation of the working machine based at least partially on the generated operational plan, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: wherein the suggested number of support machines is determined utilizing the formula n = R(2-d/s)/(e-f)], where n is the number of support machines, d is a distance between the working environment and the control location, s is a travel speed for the one or more support machines, e is the processing time, and f is the working time.
However, the present claims are not in condition for allowance because the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth in the current office action. Therefore, the claims are not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ATANASOV, Atanas ZDRAVKOV. "AN APPROACH FOR DESIGN OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN AGRICULTURE."
Correia, Nuno, Leonor Teixeira, and Ana Luísa Ramos. "Implementing an AGV system to transport finished goods to the warehouse." Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems 5.2 (2020): 241-247.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2010/0057428 A1
Jeschin et al.
Method And Computer System For The Computer Simulation Of A Plant Or A Machine
CN 107330615A
Yu et al.
Agricultural Machinery Operation Control Method And Device
CN 114331753A
Zhang et al.
Agricultural Intelligent Method, Device And Control Device
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 KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights