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 Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 20 July 2026.
Claims 3-7 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 16-17 have been newly added.
Claims 1-2, 8-12 and 14-17 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered. Therefore, the objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “Claim 1 Is directed to controlling an agricultural utility vehicle across an agricultural field and recites . . . wirelessly transmitting the planning data to the agricultural utility vehicle . . .” however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits the limitation “wirelessly transmitting the planning data to the agricultural utility vehicle for execution by the agricultural utility vehicle in the agricultural field” is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to mere outputting/transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The Examiner notes that no actual control of or actual execution by the agricultural utility vehicle (e.g. “controlling an agricultural utility vehicle across an . . . field”) is claimed. Further, applicant asserts “the claim recite methods of apparatus that are integrated into a practical application . . . claim 1 recites a method that controlling an agricultural utility vehicle across an agricultural field . . .” however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language because the “controlling an agricultural utility vehicle across an agricultural field . . .” is not apparently claimed.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendment most recently submitted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recites “the control unit is to” should read as “the control unit is configured to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-12 and 14-17 are 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “identifying, via the control unit: a first recovered amount of crop based on the first path, and a second recovered amount of crop based on the second path; determining, . . . , which of the first recovered amount of crop or the second recovered amount of crop is closer to the target recovery capacity; selecting, . . ., the first path or the second path that is associated with recovered crop that is closer to the target recovery capacity” that is not supported by the original description, which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure. For example, the paragraphs that appear to somewhat address the concept that is similar to what is described in the claims has been found in paragraph [0024] “An ideal size of the planned swath can be derived from the optimum recovery capacity by equating the optimum recovery capacity with the planned size of the swath or swath thickness. The swath thickness can be defined as the mass of the swath material per unit length (e.g., kg/in)”, [0025] “the optimum recovery capacity corresponds to a recovery capacity of the recovery machine at a maximum recovery speed. The maximum recovery speed corresponds to a maximum material flow speed, i.e., a maximum mass of swath material is recovered per unit of time. This supports economy and efficiency when recovering the swath or swaths.” and paragraph [0069] “Based on this optimization strategy, two possible work strategies strat-Al and strat-A2 are defined in the example embodiment according to Fig. 2. The selected work strategy strat in turn influences the determination of the planning data dplan . . . the work strategy strat-A2 can be selected, as it comes closer to the maximum of the characteristic curve KL with a greater recovery performance than the work strategy strat-A1” and see at least [0071] of the specification. The applicant’s specification paragraph 24 describes deriving an ideal size for a planned swath and paragraph 25 describes the maximum recovery speed of the recovery machine corresponds to a maximum material flow speed (e.g. maximum mass of swath material). Additionally, paragraph 69 describes selecting work strategy strat-A2 because it comes closer to the maximum characteristic curve KL. However, applicant’s specification does not appear to describe identifying the a recovered amount of crop based on the first path and a recovered amount based on a second path. Further, applicant’s specification does not appear to describe determine which of the first or second recovered amount is closer to the target recovery capacity and selecting a path that is associated with recovered crop that is closer to the target recovery capacity. As such, the specification does not describe the limitation as provided in the amended claims. Therefore, the limitations “identifying, via the control unit: a first recovered amount of crop based on the first path, and a second recovered amount of crop based on the second path; determining, . . . , which of the first recovered amount of crop or the second recovered amount of crop is closer to the target recovery capacity; selecting , . . ., the first path or the second path that is associated with recovered crop that is closer to the target recovery capacity” are new matter.
As to claim 12, the claim is rejected for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the clam recites the limitations “recovery speed of the recovery machine based on one or more of: . . . a cutting length of the swath material processed during recovery” and “wirelessly transmitting the planning data . . .". There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, claim 1 recites “selecting, . . . , the first path or the second path that is associated with recovered crop that is closer to the target recovery capacity.” It is unclear to the Examiner if the “recovered crop” is referring to the “first recovered amount of crop” and/or the “second recovered amount of crop” or is it a new variable/amount ?
As to claim 11, the claim recites “. . . as a function of one or more of the type of the planned rake and the type of the planned recovery machine”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
As to claim 12, the claim recites the limitations “select, for the planning data, the first path or the second path . . .” and “ . . . recovery speed of the recovery machine based on one or more of: . . . a type of a planned recovery machine for recovering the created swath”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, claim 12 recites “select, . . . , the first path or the second path that is associated with recovered crop that is closer to the target recovery capacity.” It is unclear to the Examiner if the “recovered crop” is referring to the “first recovered amount of crop” and/or the “second recovered amount of crop” or is it a new variable/amount ?
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-2, 8-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “determining, via a control unit, a ratio of recovery capacity of a recovery machine and recovery speed of the recovery machine, the recovery capacity of the recovery machine or the recovery speed of the recovery machine based on one or more of: field data representing at least one characteristic of the agricultural field . . . a cutting length of the swath material processed during recovery”, “identifying, via the control unit, a highest recovery speed of the recovery machine”, “identifying, via the control unit, a target recovery capacity based on the highest recovery speed on the ratio”, “generating, via the control unit: a first path across the agricultural field, the first path including a first number of tracks and a first swath width, and a second path across the agricultural field, the second path including a second number of tracks and a second swath width, “identifying, via the control unit: a first recovered amount of crop based on the first path, and a second recovered amount of crop based on the second path;”, determining, via the control unit, which of the first recovered amount of crop or the second recovered amount of shop is closer to the target recovery capacity” and “selecting, for the planning data, the first path or the second path that is associated with recovered crop that is closer to the target recovery capacity” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (e.g. mental process) and/or mathematical concepts grouping (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and data structure). For example, a human mind could reasonably plan/determine/create a path(s) based on the given data. The mere nominal recitation of “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit” and “a recovery machine” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processing grouping. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea,
adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a
particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “wireless transmitting the planning data to the agricultural utility vehicle for execution by the agricultural utility vehicle in the agricultural field” is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to mere outputting/transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit” and “a recovery machine” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit” and “a recovery machine” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally links the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, even in combination, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “wireless transmitting the planning data to the agricultural utility vehicle for execution by the agricultural utility vehicle in the agricultural field” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit” and “a recovery machine” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit” and “a recovery machine” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally links the use of judicial exception to the technological environment. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward an apparatus which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 12 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “a control unit configured to determine planning data of a swath across an agricultural field”, “determine a ratio of recovery capacity of a recovery machine and recovery speed of the recovery machine, the recovery capacity of the recovery machine or the recovery speed of the recovery machine based on one or more of: field data representing at least one characteristic of the agricultural field . . . a cutting length of the swath material processed during recovery”, “identifying, via the control unit, a highest recovery speed of the recovery machine”, “identifying, via the control unit, a target recovery capacity based on the highest recovery speed on the ratio”, “generating a first path across the agricultural field, the first path including a first number of tracks and a first swath width”, “generate a second path across the agricultural field, the second path including a second number of tracks and a second swath width,”, “identify a first recovered amount of crop based on the first path”, “identify a second recovered amount of crop based on the second path”, determine, which of the first recovered amount of crop or the second recovered amount of shop is closer to the target recovery capacity” and “select, for the planning data, the first path or the second path that is associated with recovered crop that is closer to the target recovery capacity” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (e.g. mental process) and/or mathematical concepts grouping (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and data structure). For example, a human mind could reasonably plan/determine/create a path(s) based on the given data. The mere nominal recitation of “an agricultural utility vehicle, “a control unit”, “a recovery machine” and “a rake” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processing grouping. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 12 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea,
adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a
particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “wireless transmitting the planning data to the agricultural utility vehicle for execution by the agricultural utility vehicle in the agricultural field” is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to mere outputting/transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 12 recites the additional elements of “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit”, “a recovery machine” and “a rake” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit”, “a recovery machine” and “a rake” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally links the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, even in combination, 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 12 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “wireless transmitting the planning data to the agricultural utility vehicle for execution by the agricultural utility vehicle in the agricultural field” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit”, “a recovery machine” and “a rake” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “an agricultural utility vehicle”, “a control unit”, “a recovery machine” and “a rake” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally links the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 8-11, and 14-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2, 8-11 and 14-16 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the limitation of claim 8 further the abstract idea.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached 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 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights