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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 4/25/25, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 1-20 overcome the prior art of record.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. (US 12,310,286). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 1-20 of the copending and claims 1-20 of the US Patent (US 12,310,286) show for example: a crop constituent value distribution system configured to: obtain a crop constituent value, the crop constituent value corresponding to a sensor measurement by a crop constituent sensor; and assign the crop constituent value, as a distributed crop constituent value, to a set of subregions from which the crop constituent value was measured during the sensor measurement; and a weighted constituent value generator configured to generate a weighted crop constituent value for each subregion in the set of subregions, the weighted crop constituent value for each subregion in the set of subregions being based on an agricultural characteristic-estimated constituent value for the corresponding subregion that is estimated based on an agricultural characteristic value for the corresponding subregion.
Although claims 1-20 of US Patent No. (US 12,310,286) have additional features. However, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 of the US Patent No. US 12,310,286 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the copending because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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, 6-10, 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 11 recite the steps of “generate a weighted crop constituent value for each subregion in the set of subregions, the weighted crop constituent value for each subregion in the set of subregions being based on an agricultural characteristic-estimated constituent value for the corresponding subregion that is estimated based on an agricultural characteristic value for the corresponding subregion” are directed to the “Mathematical concepts” in group of abstract ideas as support in. Applicant’s specification publication at least pars. 0118-0123, 0128-0133 and 0156 which disclose generate the weighted crop constituent value for each of the subregions using the equation. The grouping of “mathematical concept” as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a) is not limited to formulas or equation, and specifically includes “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculation”. Further, claim 1 recite the step of “assign the crop constituent value, as a distributed crop constituent value, to a set of subregions from which the crop constituent value was measured during the sensor measurement” is considered as mental step that can perform in the mind (e.g. including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). For example, a person can mentally take the detected crop constituent value (the amount of nutrient or protein of the crop for plurality of region) and put the value on the map of the land/region. For example, the person can write or assign the amount of nutrient of crop for region A on the map, and assign the amount of nutrient of crop for region B on the map. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea with respect to step 2A, prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to step 2A, prong 2. In particular, the claim using (a crop constituent value distribution system, a weighted constituent value generator (which include a processor as shown on figure 4 of Applicant’s specification) to perform all the claimed step of “assigning ….; generating….”. The process in all of these steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Further, obtaining a detected crop constituent value is not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely data gathering and output the data. Claims 1 and 11 recites “a crop constituent sensor” that is understood to be a source of where the value is obtained from and thus is considered as insignificant extra solution. Claim 11 recites the additional element “a crop constituent sensor and agriculture machine” which are considered as general link to the technical environment and thus is not a meaningful limitation. Therefore, these 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.
With respect to step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform all of the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Also, “a crop constituent sensor and agriculture machine” additional elements are considered as general link to the technical environment and thus is not a meaningful limitation. Obtaining a detected crop constituent value is not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely data gathering and output the data which are considered as well understood routine conventional as it has been held by the court. Particularly in 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); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the independents 1, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Dependent claims 1, 6-10, 14-16 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Borgstandt (US 2019/0327889): The machine has a forward-looking crop sensor for detecting characteristic of a crop in a sensed region;
Zhang et al (US 2021/0289692): A multi-scale habitat information-based method and device for detecting and controlling water and fertilizer for crops in seedling stage;
Mewes et al (US 10,255,390): A modeling framework for evaluating the impact of weather conditions on farming and harvest operations applies real-time, field-level weather data and forecasts of meteorological and climatological conditions together with user-provided and/or observed feedback of a present state of a harvest-related condition to agronomic models and to generate a plurality of harvest advisory outputs for precision agriculture;
Lindores (US 2012/0109614): A system for estimating a crop characteristic comprises a database, a plant growth model correlator, and a crop characteristic estimator;
Zyskowski et al (US 2010/0306012): System and method for managing and predicting crop performance;
Berg et al (US 11,610,157): Machine learning methods and systems for characterizing corn growth efficiency;
Wu et al (US 2019/0150357): An example machinery includes an automated crop management motorized vehicle having an intelligent, modularized image sensor (e.g. camera or video) system that is portable to other crop management vehicles such as a combine, planter or a tillage machine;
Sibley et al (US 11,076,589): Autonomous agriculture treatments system using map based targeting of agricultural objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights