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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action in response to communications filed on 02/07/2025.
Claims 1, 10, 16, 17 and 20 have been amended. Claim 18 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1 –17 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues, “It is submitted that the obtaining of the data captured by the farm equipment directly from the farm equipment using API is a technical implementation that that cannot be practically performed by the human mind or using pen and paper, and as such, for at least this reasoning amended claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea.” (pgs. 7-8)
Based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Here, generic computer components (e.g. a processor and crm) are performing generic computer functions such as receiving data from data inputs, obtaining second data inputs from farm equipment via api, obtaining third party data inputs and calculating a sustainability metrics of the farm, which reflects abstract concepts related to Mental Processes observation and evaluating of data. Further, the limitations encompass Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations.
Applicant argues, “…that any alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application…” (pg. 8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a user device, an external device comprising farm equipment, communication via an application programming interface, a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (See Spec ¶0079).
For instance, the steps of receiving first data inputs associated with the farm, obtaining second input data from external device comprising farm equipment via API, and obtaining third data inputs from a third party are data gathering activity. Examiner notes, the use of an API is commonly used functionality for communicating between entities. The step of calculating sustainability metrics is analyzing using mathematical operations. The step of outputting the sustainability metrics for display is generic display functionality. The claims recite steps associated with collecting (data input) and analyzing data then producing a result (calculating).
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor and a user device ). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor and a user device). Further, the use of the additional element of an API is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, “ Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that at
least the feature of "obtaining, from an at least one external device comprising a farm equipment via an application programming interface that captures data associated with the farm equipment while the farm equipment is operating on the farm, one or more second data inputs associated with the farm", as recited in amended claim 1, is neither extra-solution activity nor mere instructions to apply any alleged judicial exceptions in a technical environment.” (pgs. 8-9)
Examiner notes that mere data gathering activities are considered extra-solution activity, i.e., iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)(iv). Here, the step of obtaining second data via an API is considered extra-solution activity (data gathering activity) under Step 2A. The data gathering is considered pre-solution activity done before the calculating of the sustainability calculation model. The use of API is commonly used manner of communication between entities and demonstrates a technological environment.
Applicant argues, “… that the feature of obtaining the second data inputs directly from the farm equipment is not well-understood or conventional…” (pgs. 8-10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps of receiving first data inputs associated with the farm, obtaining second data inputs and obtaining third data inputs are considered extra-solution activity under Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor (or computer readable medium) is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant argues, “it provides a specific technical solution to the technical
problem of inaccuracies associated with manually entered and default values, thereby rendering practical application and technical improvement in determining sustainability metrics from data inputs including those directly captured by then subsequently obtained from farm equipment itself.” (pgs. 10-11)
Examiner notes that the claims do not provide for a technical solution to a technical problem. The claims appear to provide an improved business process for collecting respective data and calculating sustainability metrics, which is not a technically driven solution. Further, there is no support in the Specification or claims for an improvement in a technology or technical field.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites, “…wherein at least one sustainability calculation model comprises an external model accessed using a second application programming interface.” The Specification does not disclose an external model accessed using a second API. The cited paragraphs 85 and 124 do not cover the external model. As such, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving, [from a user device], one or more first data inputs associated with the farm;
obtaining, from [at least one external device comprising a farm equipment via an application programming interface] that captures data associated with the farm equipment while the farm equipment is operating on the farm, one or more second data inputs associated with the farm;
obtaining, from a third-party data source, one or more third data inputs associated with the farm;
calculating, using at least one sustainability calculation model, one or more sustainability metrics of the farm based on the one or more first data inputs, the one or more second data inputs, and the one or more third data inputs; and
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and user device). For example, receiving user inputs, obtaining data inputs from external device comprising farm equipment via api, obtaining data from a third party and calculating sustainability metrics involve collecting and analyzing data to produce a result. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
The claims also encompass Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations.
Independent Claims 16 and 20 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and include the abstract idea identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to sustainability models; Claim 3 is directed to calculating a carbon balance; Claim 4 is directed to standardizing the data inputs; Claim 5 is directed to entered or imported data; Claim 6 is directed to type of inputs; Claims 7-9 are directed to determining a suggested improvements; Claim 10 is directed to the external devices; Claims 11-12 are directed to data inputs; Claim 13 is directed to storing sustainability metrics; Claim 14 is directed to generating benchmarking data; Claim 15 is directed to automatically collecting data and Claims 17-19 are directed to storing data.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a user device, an external device comprising farm equipment and communication via an application programming interface. Claims 16 and 30 recite the additional elements of a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a user device and an external device comprising a farm equipment and an application programming interface. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (See Spec ¶0079).
For instance, the steps of receiving first data inputs associated with the farm, obtaining second input data from external device comprising farm equipment via API, and obtaining third data inputs from a third party are data gathering activity. Examiner notes, the use of an API is commonly used functionality for communicating between entities. The step of calculating sustainability metrics is analyzing using mathematical operations. The step of outputting the sustainability metrics for display is generic display functionality. The claims recite steps associated with collecting (data input) and analyzing data then producing a result (calculating).
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor and a user device). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor and a user device). Further, the use of the additional element of an API is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a user device etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the steps of the steps of receiving first data inputs associated with the farm, obtaining second data inputs and obtaining third data inputs are considered extra-solution activity under Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor (or computer readable medium) is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-21 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (US 11369055) in view of Beal (US 2021/0148891).
Claim 1:
Berg discloses:
A method for evaluating a sustainability metric of a farm, comprising: (see at least Abstract, collecting machine data and determining sustainability measure; see also column 11, lines 54-60, generation sustainability measures)
receiving, from a user device, one or more first data inputs associated with the farm; (see at least column 6, lines 27-30, user input)
obtaining, from at least one external device comprising a farm equipment via an application programming interface that captures data associated with the farm equipment while the farm equipment is operating on the farm, one or more second data inputs associated with the farm; (see at least column 5, lines 7-46, data collection from farming machines; see also column 12, lines 21-24, remote computing device may include databases , an input deice and an API; see also column 13, lines 1-5)
calculating, using at least one sustainability calculation model, one or more sustainability metrics of the farm based on the one or more first data inputs, the one or more second data inputs, and the one or more third data inputs; and (see at least column 11, lines 54-56, determining sustainability measures)
outputting the one or more sustainability metrics for display on the user device. (see at least column 6, lines 28-30, output; see also Figure 1 and associated text)
While Berg discloses the above limitations, Berg does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Beal does disclose:
obtaining, from a third party data source, one or more third data inputs associated with the farm; (see at least Figure 3 and associated text; see also ¶0117-¶0121, database server providing an interface for managing data stored in the data stores including various interfaces in communication with user devices, data store, databases and other repositories; see also ¶0056-¶0057, third party sources)
calculating, using at least one sustainability calculation model, one or more sustainability metrics of the farm based on the one or more first data inputs, the one or more second data inputs, and the one or more third data inputs; and (see at least ¶0031, models can be used to determine estimated emissions for one or more animals; see also ¶0061-¶0063, emissions simulator takes model equations to determine emissions emitted; see also ¶0063-¶0064, emissions calculator determines expected emissions based on inputs)
outputting the one or more sustainability metrics for display on the user device. (see at least ¶0064, different outputs may be determined by the emissions calculator including CO2 emissions from soil N2O, CO2 emissions from manure CH4, CO2 sequestration flows, etc.; see also ¶0071)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg with the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal in order to determine sustainability initiatives to reduce emissions (Beal Spec ¶0002).
Claim 2:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 1, Berg does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Beal further discloses:
wherein the at least one sustainability calculation model comprises: a carbon sequestration model, a N20 emission model, a C02 emission model, a CH4 emission model, or a combination thereof; and (see at least ¶0061-¶0062, emission model simulator generates appropriate models to determine emissions; see also ¶0073, models to estimate emissions; see also ¶0080, CH4 model; see also ¶0084, soil carbon sequestration mode)
wherein the one or more sustainability metrics is one or more of a carbon sequestration, a N20 emission, a CO2 emission, and a CH4 emission of the farm. (see at least ¶0073, models to estimate emissions; see also ¶0080, CH4 model; see also ¶0084, soil carbon sequestration mode)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg with the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal in order to determine sustainability initiatives to reduce emissions (Beal Spec ¶0002).
Claim 5:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 1, Berg does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Beal further discloses:
wherein the one or more first data inputs comprise manually entered data and/or imported data. (see at least ¶0120-¶0121, interfaces with databases to import data; see also ¶002)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg with the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal in order to determine sustainability initiatives to reduce emissions (Beal Spec ¶0002).
Claim 6:
Berg and Beal disclose claim 1 disclose claim 1. Berg further discloses:
wherein the one or more first data inputs comprise: agriculture activity data, crop field data, crop data, livestock data, or combinations thereof. (see at least column 5, lines 7-24, field data collection; see also column 3, lines 42-55)
Claim 7:
Berg and Beal disclose claim 1. Beal further discloses:
further comprising determining a suggested improvement that a user can make to the one or more first data inputs and outputting the suggested improvement for display on the user device prior to calculating the one or more sustainability metrics. (see at least ¶0011, ratings and calculated outputs help farm managers make better decisions; see also ¶0062, adjustment module allows for adjustments to the model equations based on performance variables making various adjustments based on differences, performance, etc.)
Claim 10:
Berg and Beal disclose claim 1. Berg further discloses:
wherein the at least one external device further comprises: a vehicle, a satellite, a sensor, an Internet of Things (loT) device, a third party computing device, or combinations thereof. (see at least column 5, lines 7-15, receiving machine data from sensors; column 5, lines 29-35)
Claim 11:
Berg and Beal disclose claim 1. Berg further discloses:
wherein the one or more second data inputs comprises: fuel data, weather data, soil data, or combinations thereof. (see at least column 5, lines 38-40, fuel data; see also column 4, lines 57-60, soil samples)
Claim 12:
Berg and Beal disclose claim 1. Beal further discloses:
wherein the one or more third data inputs comprise: crop product data, seed product data, legal land descriptions, or combinations thereof. (see at least column 15, lines 51-52, crop yield)
Claim 15:
Berg and Beal disclose claim 1. Berg further discloses:
wherein the second data inputs and the third data inputs are obtained automatically. (see at least Figure 1 and associated text; see also column 5, lines 7-67, data collection module; see also column 6, lines 1-10)
Claim 17:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 16, Berg does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Beal does disclose:
further comprising a database storing the one or more first data inputs, the one or more second data inputs, the one or more third data inputs and sustainability metrics calculated for the farm. (see at least Figure 1A and associated text; see also ¶0070, storing data, features, outcomes, models, etc.; see also ¶0117-¶0121, various data stored in databases)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg with the storing data, features, outcomes, etc. of Beal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 19:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 16, Berg does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Beal does disclose:
wherein the database further stores sustainability metrics for a plurality of farms. (see at least Figure 1A and associated text; see also ¶0070, storing data, features, outcomes, models, etc.; see also ¶0117-¶0121, various data stored in databases for a plurality of farms)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg with the storing data, features, outcomes, etc. of Beal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (US 11369055) in view of Beal (US 2021/0148891) further in view of Zimmerman (US 2009/0287520)
Claim 3:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 2, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Zimmerman does disclose:
further comprising: calculating a carbon balance for the farm based on the carbon sequestration, the N20 emission, the CO2 emission, and the CH4 emission. (see at least Figure 9 and associated text; see also ¶0081, aggregate carbon balance; see also ¶0167-¶0168, parameters for computing carbon balance)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg and the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal with the determining of standardized carbon emission credits of Zimmerman in order to determine sustainability initiatives to reduce emissions (Beal Spec ¶0002).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (US 11369055) in view of Beal (US 2021/0148891) further in view of Perry et al. (US 12,243,112).
Claim 4:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 1 and Berg further discloses sustainability measures (see at least column 11, lines 54-60) and Beal further discloses for use in the at least one sustainability calculation model (see at least ¶0031, models can be used to determine estimated emissions for one or more animals; see also ¶0061-¶0063, emissions simulator), neither Berg nor Beal does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Perry does disclose:
further comprising standardizing the one or more first data inputs, the one or more second data inputs, and/or the one or more third data inputs by mapping input data types to a standardized data type [for use in the at least one sustainability calculation model.] (see at least column 13, lines 13-17, standard feature set can be extracted; see also 23-28, standardizing data from data streams to be used in calculations; see also column 17, lines 27-40)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg and the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal with the standardizing of data of Perry to allow for standard parameters to be used in calculations.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (US 11369055) in view of Beal (US 2021/0148891) further in view of Moss et al. (US 2020/0178504)
Claim 8:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 7, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Moss does disclose:
wherein determining the suggested improvement comprises: identifying one or more missing values from the first data inputs; and prompting the user to input the one or more missing values. (see at least ¶0067, if system determines missing values the user is prompted to input missing fields)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg and the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal with the user prompting for missing values with the user prompting for missing fields of Moss since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (US 11369055) further in view of Beal (US 2021/0148891) further in view of Menon et al. (US 2024/0403895).
Claim 9:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 7, neither Berg and Beal explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Menon does disclose:
wherein determining the suggested improvement comprises: comparing the one or more first data inputs to pre-defined threshold values; and (see at least ¶0169, if change in sustainability parameters is greater than a threshold a user input data may include adjustments to the action plan)
prompting the user to revise a value of the one or more first data inputs when the value is determined to be outside the pre-defined threshold values. (see at least ¶0169, if change in sustainability parameters is greater than a threshold a user input data may include adjustments to the action plan; see also ¶0120, target data; see also ¶0153)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg and the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal with threshold or target comparison of Menon to assist in facilitating optimization of parameters.
Claim 13:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 1, Beal further discloses storing the one or more sustainability metrics in a database (see at least Figure 1A and associated text; see also ¶0070, storing data, features, outcomes, models, etc.; see also ¶0117-¶0121, various data stored in databases), neither Berg nor Beal explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Menon does disclose:
further comprising: storing the one or more sustainability metrics in a database; (see at least Figure 2 and associated text; see also ¶0034, storing data; see also ¶0053)
generating trend data of the one or more sustainably metrics for the farm over time; and (see also ¶0118, sustainability model is formulated by trends, correlations or other similarities; see also ¶0145, desired trends; see also ¶0173, trend analysis)
outputting the trend data for display on the user device. (see at least ¶0145, desired trends; see also ¶0173, trend analysis)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg and the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal with the trend analysis of Menon to determine detected changes in data sets that may impact sustainability model.
Claim 14:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 1, Beal further discloses storing the one or more sustainability metrics in a database (see at least Figure 1A and associated text; see also ¶0070, storing data, features, outcomes, models, etc.; see also ¶0117-¶0121, various data stored in databases), neither Berg nor Beal explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Menon does disclose:
further comprising: retrieving stored sustainability metrics of similar farms; (see at least ¶0120-¶0121, sustainability platform system may determine target data based on achievements or goals detected in other enterprises similar to the respective enterprise)
generating benchmarking data by comparing the one or more sustainability metrics of the farm against the sustainability metrics of similar farms; and (see at least ¶0121, determine sustainability target data that identify achievable target goals for enterprises (benchmarks) and compare parameters for each of the enterprises)
outputting the benchmarking data for display on the user device. (see at least ¶0121-¶0123, reports)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg and the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal with the trend analysis of Menon to determine detected changes in data sets that may impact sustainability model.
Claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (US 11369055) further in view of Beal (US 2021/0148891) further in view of Bachman et al. (US 2023/0359970).
Claim 21:
While Berg and Beal disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Bachman does disclose:
where in the at least one sustainability calculation model comprises an external model accessed using a second application programing interface. (see at least ¶0081, external system sends parameters defining an emissions estimation model to cloud infrastructure via an API)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine to combine the determining sustainability measures and providing recommendations of Berg and the emissions simulator to determine estimated emissions and sustainability initiatives of Beal with the external system of Bachman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Hubner et al. (US 12201048) discloses sustainability metric generator receives information indicative of the intercropped varieties and generate a variety of different sustainability metrics such as an estimate of carbon credits, carbon credits by species, nitrogen credits, among other things.
Klavens (US 2013/01850104) discloses evaluate a sustainability measurement for the agricultural products with predefined or preselected stainability parameters.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights