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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 5/12/2025.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
4. Receipt of DE paper filed on 5/27/2024 is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
5. Applicant filed an IDS on 6/04/2025; it is considered.
Claim interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “...a memory is configured to store...” or “...the processor is configured to...”.
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
7. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
9. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “...the at least one processor configured to...” (see pending ”A planning system comprising” claim 1 line 6). “...the planning system is configured to ...” (see pending claims 2-3, and 7-18 line(s) 1).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
11. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
12. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
13. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (i.e., at most, applicant claims about using a generic computer to practice a mental process of planning a task without a practical application).
101 Analysis - Step 1: Claims 1-18 are directed to “a system” (i.e., a structure); therefore, they are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative claim 1 includes limitation(s) that recites an abstract idea (key concepts are in bold type, not essential claimed concepts are underlined):
Claim 1: A planning system comprising:
a user interface;
a communication unit;
at least one memory; and
at least one processor in communication with the user interface, the communication unit, and the
at least one memory, the at least one processor to:
generate a plan for executing an agricultural work process by:
accessing data saved in the at least one memory, wherein the data comprises working-machine-specific parameters ...; and
generating, using the data, the plan for operation of at least one autonomous agricultural work machine
output, via the user interface, the plan; and
transmit, via the communication unit, to the autonomous agricultural work machine in order to perform one or more of controlling, regulating or parameterizing of the autonomous agricultural work machine
As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("“[M]ental processes .. and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, a method that claims about above steps is an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of using a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., there is no “specific” practical structure, in those pending claims, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, those claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II
According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into an 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 generic computer/processor to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a specific practical application.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., merely generate a “general” agricultural plan). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception (e.g., by using a generic computer component). Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving/obtaining data, comparing, and outputting estimated data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that these claimed activities are all conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data for a ship is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner from the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int'l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere pre/post-solution activity is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
14. Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are also directed to non-statutory subject matter by incorporating their independent claim’ deficiencies; those claims are also ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they do not indicate a specific practical application (e.g., including a significant further) for the claimed features.
15. In summary, claims 1-18 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
16. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being taught by KUBOTA’500 (US Pub. 20240337500 A1).
A. Per independent claim 1: Kubota’500 teaches a planning system comprising:
a user interface (see Kubota’500 FIG. 3 ref. 400);
a communication unit (see Kubota’500 FIG. 3 ref. 190);
at least one memory(see Kubota’500 FIG. 6 ref. 650); and
at least one processor in communication with the user interface, the communication unit, and the
at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to:
generate a plan for executing an agricultural work process (see Kubota’500 para.[0067]); included in the agricultural work process by:
accessing data saved in the at least one memory (Kubota’500 FIG. 3, and para. [0112]), wherein the data comprises working-machine-specific parameters, ; and
generating, using the data, the plan for operation of at least one autonomous agricultural work machine (see Kubota’500 para. [0051], [0083]).
output, via the user interface, the plan (e.g., output data to a WORK VEHICE, see Kubota’500 FIG. 3); and
transmit, via the communication unit, to the autonomous agricultural work machine in order to perform one or more of controlling, regulating or parameterizing of the autonomous agricultural work machine (see Kubota’500 FIG. 3).
B. Per dependent claim 2: Kubota’500 also teaches that in generating the plan, process data of an agricultural harvesting campaign to be processed (e.g., optimizing path(s), and period for the agricultural work, see Kubota’500 para. [0187], [0244]).; and wherein the process data comprises the agricultural work process, at least one further deviating work process, and a resource plan associated with the agricultural work process, with cach being input to the planning system in order for the planning system to optimize the plan (e.g., an implementation, see Kubota’500 FIG. 3 ref. 300, and para. [0124]-[0125]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
17. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota’500.
A. Per dependent claims 3- 6: Kubota’500 also apply AI in generating a plan taking into account: previous plans, past work progresses, a route plan generated in the previous work process. (Kubota’500 discloses “ an algorithm using artificial intelligence (AI) such as, for example, a deep neutral network or the like may be used.” see KUBOTA’500, para. [0237]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kubota’500 with AI capability or repeating a known appropriate route plan having similar conditions for a quicker result – which task has been a successful expectation in similar AI applications.
18. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota’500 in view of KR20210067930A by KUBOTA’930 (6/08/2021)
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
In the same field of endeavor; Kubota’903 suggest about generating an output/proposal for the plan based on data from a same agricultural work process at a same location recorded in a past comparative period (e.g., “a performance value at the time of harvesting in the past in the same field, an estimated value from the performance value in a similar field, etc. may be acquired and used as an expected total quantity, yield rate, and the area of unworked land. In addition, acquisition of the expected total quantity, yield rate, and area may be performed by downloading from a data server or another combine via the communication part 23, and may be performed by operation input from the management terminal 21. FIG.”, see KUBOTA’930, pg. 39, first para.); and automatically output, via the user interface, the proposal for selection by an operator (“ by selecting an appropriate operation according to the storage amount of the grain storage, it is possible to efficiently proceed with the harvesting operation” see KUBOTA’930, pg. 12, lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kubota’500 with Kubota’930 to apply similar results to a different location having similar conditions – which task has been a successful expectation in similar applications.
19. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota’500 in view of KR20210067930A by KUBOTA’930 (6/08/2021), and in view of Young (US Pub. 20210103728 A1)/
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 8 are incorporated.
A. Per dependent claim 9: Kubota’500 in view of Kubota’930 do not disclose about: determine/evaluate the comparative dataof a location with maximum yield/(means value) on which the execution of the same agricultural work process is based; and use the comparative data of the location with the maximum yield to generate the plan; however, in the same field of endeavor, Young suggests about determining and using comparing data for obtaining a maximum yield at different conditions/locations (see Young, [0035], [0099], and [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kubota’500 in view of Kubota’930 with Young to use the comparative data of on different locations for a maximum yield to generate the plan – which task has been a successful expectation in similar applications.
20. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota’500 in view of Cella’847 (US 20220187847 A1).
The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Kubota’500 does not disclose about using dialog- uided manual interaction with an operator via the user interface; however, Cella’847 suggest that claimed feature (e.g., a manual human input, see Cella’847 para. [0420]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kubota’500 with Cella’847 to interfacing between a user and a system via a user interface for flexibilities among input text, or voice command – which task has been a successful expectation in IoT applications.
21. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota’500, in view of KUBOTA’158 (WO 2023106158 A1), and in view of Rublee’050 (US Pub. 20250295050 A1).
A. Per dependent claim 12: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
In addition to Kubota’500 teachings, Rublee’050 suggests about:
access “related” map data to use the application (see ‘KUBOTA’158)
generate an image indicative of a simulation of the plan (see Rublee‘050 para.[0030], [0060]).
Kubota’500 also teaches about inputting/modifying related data (e.g., using an IMPLEMENT, see Kubota’500 FIG. 3 ref. 300)
output the image in order to solicit input from an operator (see Kubota’158 “ the agricultural machine that automatically operates may operate in a manual operation mode in which the agricultural machine is moved by manual operation by the driver”) ; and
responsive to the input from the operator, generate the plan (see Kubota’500, para. [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kubota’500, and Kubota’158 with Rublee’050 to generate an image indicative of a simulation of the plan for simulating a quick, and realistic modification – which task has been a successful expectation in IoT applications.
B. Per dependent claim 13: Kubota’158 and Rublee’050 also suggest about:
- generate the plan based on the simulation and based on a framework conditions (see Rublee’050 para.[0030]);
wherein the input from the operator comprises manual changes to the framework conditions (see Kubota’158); and
performing the simulation (see Rublee’050 para. [0030]) again based on a manual changes to the conditions (see Kubota’158); .
C. Per dependent claim 14: Kubota’500 teaches that the planning system can be observe/ review/visualize, via the user interface, and display 400; it is generated via the simulation using different variables (see Kubota’500 FIG. 3).
D. Per dependent claims 15- 18: A combination of Kubota’500 FIG.3, Kubota’158 and Rublee’050 already suggest these claims’ limitation; therefore, similar rationales as rejected claims 13-14 are also applied.
Conclusion
22. Pending claims 1-18 are rejected.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights