DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 6/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12352586B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both of the claims are directed to planning the path for a farming machine within the field based on the current boundaries. The claims bot included key limitation such as predicting boundaries of a field, generating a suggested route for collecting information representing current boundaries of the field, collect location data associated with the suggested route, receiving the location data, identifying the current boundary of the field, transmitting a request to verify the current boundaries, and responsive to receiving a verification of the current boundaries, planning the path for a farming machine within the field based on the current boundaries.
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, 3-4, 7-11, 13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to A method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-10 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for reminder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
predicting boundaries of a field based on a previously captured image of the field;
generating, using the predicted boundaries, a suggested route for collecting information representing current boundaries of the field, the suggested route comprising a path configured to verify the current boundaries of the field relative to the predicted boundaries of the field;
providing the suggested route to a data collection device configured to:
collect location data associated with the suggested route, and label the location data with information representing a current layout of the field usable to verify the current boundaries;
receiving, from the data collection device, the location data as the data collection device travels through the field based on the suggested route;
identifying the current boundary of the field based on the current layout of the field based on a comparison of the image of the field to the received location data;
transmitting, to a verification device, a request to verify the current boundaries; and
responsive to receiving a verification of the current boundaries, planning the path for a farming machine within the field based on the current boundaries.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a "mental process" and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation by a user or in the human mind. For example, “predicting boundaries of a field based on a previously captured image of the field” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally predicting the boundaries. Similarly, the limitation of "generating, using the predicted boundaries, a suggested route for collecting information representing current boundaries of the field, the suggested route comprising a path configured to verify the current boundaries of the field relative to the predicted boundaries of the field" in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a route for collecting information. Furthermore, the limitation of “label the location data with information representing a current layout of the field usable to verify the current boundaries” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally labeling data with information. The limitation of “identifying the current boundary of the field based on the current layout of the field based on a comparison of the image of the field to the received location data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the current boundary. Lastly, the limitation of “responsive to receiving a verification of the current boundaries, planning the path for a farming machine within the field based on the current boundaries” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally planning a path. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole, integrates the abstract into a partial application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprising:
predicting boundaries of a field based on a previously captured image of the field;
generating, using the predicted boundaries, a suggested route for collecting information representing current boundaries of the field, the suggested route comprising a path configured to verify the current boundaries of the field relative to the predicted boundaries of the field;
providing the suggested route to a data collection device configured to:
collect location data associated with the suggested route, and label the location data with information representing a current layout of the field usable to verify the current boundaries;
receiving, from the data collection device, the location data as the data collection device travels through the field based on the suggested route;
identifying the current boundary of the field based on the current layout of the field based on a comparison of the image of the field to the received location data;
transmitting, to a verification device, a request to verify the current boundaries; and
responsive to receiving a verification of the current boundaries, planning the path for a farming machine within the field based on the current boundaries.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a data collection device configured to” and “from the data collection device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, data collection device recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as sensor performing a generic computer function of gathering data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the additional limitations of “collect location data associated with the suggested route” and “receiving … the location data as the data collection device travels through the field based on the suggested route”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “collect location data” and “receiving … the location data” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.
Regarding the additional limitations of “providing the suggested route to a data collection device” and “transmitting, to a verification device, a request to verify the current boundaries”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “providing the suggested route” and “transmitting, to a verification device, a request to verify the current boundaries” indicate post-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of outputting data for use in a claimed process.
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 no thing that is nor 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 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. Such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2 106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a data collection device configured to” and “from the data collection device” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation of “collect location data associated with the suggested route”, “receiving … the location data as the data collection device travels through the field based on the suggested route”, “providing the suggested route to a data collection device” and “transmitting, to a verification device, a request to verify the current boundaries”, the examiner submits that the limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea as previously discussed.
Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “identifying the predicted boundaries of the field” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites further narrowing limitation on the “the suggested route provided to the data collection device is visually overlaid on the image of the field” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “identifying the current boundaries” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “identifying the current boundaries” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “identifying the current boundaries” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites “applying a machine learning model” which is mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “planning the path” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claim 11, it recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform steps having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 13, it recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform steps having limitations similar to those of claim 3 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 16, it recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform steps having limitations similar to those of claim 7 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 17, it recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform steps having limitations similar to those of claim 8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 18, it recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform steps having limitations similar to those of claim 9 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 19, it recites A system having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and 11 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 20, it recites A system having limitations similar to those of claim 3 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action.
The features “generating, using the predicted boundaries, a suggested route for collecting information representing current boundaries of the field, the suggested route comprising a path configured to verify the current boundaries of the field relative to the predicted boundaries of the field” when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, were not uncovered in the prior art teachings. In particular, generating, using the predicted boundaries, a suggested route for collecting information and a path configured to verify the current boundaries of the field relative to the predicted boundaries of the field not disclosed in the prior arts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DI(CN209983105U) disclosed a harvester, wherein the image capturing device is disposed in a harvester body of the harvester, wherein the image capturing device is disposed in the harvester body, wherein the image capturing device is based on at least one visual image or visual image is captured at a visual field position of the harvester body, so as to identify information around the harvester body according to the captured image information.
Lange(US20120237083A1) disclosed data from ground and satellite based sensors are combined to obtain absolute, calibrated plant metrics, such as NDVI, over wide areas. Further inputs, such as soil, crop characteristics and climate data, are stored in a database. A processor uses the measured plant metrics and database information to create customized field prescription maps that show where, when and how much fertilizer, pesticide or other treatment should be applied to a field to maximize crop yield.
Mays (US20130090850A1) disclosed providing visual guidance to a traveler, motorist, and/or end user, a series of way point photographs can be compiled into a static pictograph such that the physical arrangement of the individual photographs can provide the desired guidance.
CERECKE(US20120158299A1) disclosed a system and method that finds the quickest route between two locations on a graph with multi-edge constraints in a time and space efficient manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/17/26
Prosecution Insights