DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims dated 07/07/2025 are being examined.
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 statements (IDS) submitted between the dates of 07/07/2025 – 04/07/2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,957,072.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,641,800.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,945.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding U.S. Patent No. 11,957,072:
The claimed first data set having weed values at a plurality of locations is an obvious variation of the patent’s weed plant map identifying weed areas and their spatial locations, as both constitute referenced weed information for a field.
The claimed second data set representing movement characteristic values is an obvious variation of the patent’s movement model representing movement of weed seeds, since both represent characteristics governing movement of weed.
The claimed generating pre-emergent weed characteristic values based on the first and second data sets is an obvious variation of the patent’s generating a weed seed map based on the weed plant map and movement model. Both limitations generate predictive information identifying where weed are to be located prior to emergence.
The claimed controlling a machine action associated with a pre-emergent weed mitigation operation is an obvious variation of the patent’s generating a control signal for a pre-emergence weed mitigation operation, as the instant claim merely encompasses the same functionality from the perspective of machine control rather than signal generation.
Regarding U.S. Patent No. 11,641,800:
The claimed first data set having weed values at a plurality of locations is an obvious variation of the patent’s location of one or more weed plants, as both constitute referenced weed information for a field.
The claimed second data set representing movement characteristic values is an obvious variation of the patent’s weed seed movement model based on one or more external factors affecting movement of weed seeds, since both represent characteristics governing movement of weed.
The claimed generating pre-emergent weed characteristic values based on the first and second data sets is an obvious variation of the patent’s projecting likely locations of the weed seeds using the movement model and weed seed locations. Both limitations generate predictive information identifying where weed are to be located prior to emergence.
The claimed controlling a machine action associated with a pre-emergent weed mitigation operation is an obvious variation of the patent’s generating a control signal associated with a pre-emergence weed seed treatment operation, as the instant claim merely encompasses the same functionality from the perspective of machine control rather than signal generation.
Regarding U.S. Patent No. 12,382,945:
The claimed first data set having weed values at a plurality of locations is an obvious variation of the patent’s identifying the location of one or more weed plants in the field, as both constitute referenced weed information for a field.
The claimed second data set representing movement characteristic values is an obvious variation of the patent’s weed seed movement model representing machine delay compensation, since both represent characteristics governing movement of weed.
The claimed generating pre-emergent weed characteristic values based on the first and second data sets is an obvious variation of the patent’s identifying a weed seed area using the movement model. Both limitations generate predictive information identifying where weed are to be located prior to emergence.
The claimed controlling a machine action associated with a pre-emergent weed mitigation operation is an obvious variation of the patent’s generating a control signal associated with a pre-emergence weed seed treatment operation, as the instant claim merely encompasses the same functionality from the perspective of machine control rather than signal generation.
The instant claim differs from the patent primarily by reciting the movement information in more generic terms (“movement characteristic values”) rather than the patent’s machine delay compensation model. Generalizing a specific movement model to encompass movement characteristics would have been an obvious variation in view of the patent.
In view of the above, the claims are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type 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 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 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a first data set having weed values at a plurality of locations in a field;
obtaining a second data set that represents movement characteristic values;
generating pre-emergent weed characteristic values for one or more locations based on the
first data set and the second data set; and
controlling a machine action associated with a pre-emergent weed mitigation operation based on the pre-emergent weed characteristic values.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Specifically, the limitation: “generating pre-emergent weed characteristic values for one or more locations based on the first data set and the second data set” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s specification, a person can mentally judge for example a predicted weed seed location based on a weed map and external factors that influence weed seed movement. 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 idea(s) 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 exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations of a “computer” act merely as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The additional limitations of “obtaining…”, amounts to mere data gathering. It has been held that limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05.
The additional limitations of “controlling…”, amounts to insignificant post-solution activity. Mere transmission of data over networks and/or mere displaying/alerting/notifying are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. The broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s disclosure of “controlling …” encompasses mere displaying of data via control of displays, alerts, notifications, recommendations etc. (i.e., see claim 8 “controlling the machine action comprises controlling … “a display device to display an indication…”).
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, that 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 § 2106.05). 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 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.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Regarding the computer elements:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of a computer in the claim amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding the data gathering steps:
It has been determined that such limitations are conventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Regarding the insignificant post solution activity steps:
Examples of insignificant post-solution activities can include merely displaying a result (e.g., output) on a display device, merely communicating a message based on the result, merely recording the result in a memory storage device, and the like. Adding a final step of transmitting collected information to a process that recites an abstract idea does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, 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 over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, 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 displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function, and as recited above the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17 and 19 substantially recite the same limitations as the representative independent method claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as disclosed above.
Dependent claims, excluding claim 13-16, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, specifically only reciting/elaborating on the additional activities in the detecting and generating steps that may also be reasonably performed in the human mind, and reciting/elaborating on additional insignificant extra-solution activities, further describing how the data sets are obtained wherein the additional elements are well-known, routine, and conventional (data gathering).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically the generating pre-emergent weed characteristic values for one or more locations based on the first data set and the second data set; and controlling a machine action associated with a pre-emergent weed mitigation operation based on the pre-emergent weed characteristic values.
The prior art of record teaches identifying existing weed locations and controlling agricultural equipment based on those identified weed locations. For example, Chan et al. (US 20160205918 A1), as cited in the IDS filed 07/07/2025 teaches [0052] For example, plant material targets 130 (e.g., weed seedpods) may be identified by performing various image processing techniques, such as image recognition, spectrometry, among others, on information captured by sensor 520), and [0046] In some embodiments, apparatus 300 is used to identify and attack specific parts of weeds 130 (e.g., stem, seeds, leaves, and other parts). Apparatus 300 may be used to kill weeds 130 at specific times within a growth cycle, such as at first sprouting, at a set height, before seed release, and at other times.
The prior art further teaches that it is known that environmental factors such as wind may redistribute weed seeds. For example, Gayle, J. Somerville et al. (“Modelling annual grass weed seed dispersal in winter wheat, when influenced by hedges and directional wind”), as cited in the IDS filed on 07/07/2025 teaches in Section 2.4.1. Seed spread probability function …simulate the stochastic dispersal of 100% of the seed produced by these annual weeds and in Section 2.4.3. The effect of wind: Wind was considered as a force acting on seed dispersal, with stronger forces acting on the weeds which grew further from the hedgerow. The combination of these two references teach that obtaining first data set and the second data set are known.
While obtaining the first data set and second data set separately are known in the art, the prior art does not teach or suggest using both to generate pre-emergent weed characteristic values as the basis for controlling a machine action associated with a pre-emergent weed mitigation operation. Claims 17 and 19 are similarly potentially allowable. Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chan et al. (US 20160205918 A1), as cited in the IDS filed 07/07/2025, in view of Gayle, J. Somerville et al. (“Modelling annual grass weed seed dispersal in winter wheat, when influenced by hedges and directional wind”), as cited in the IDS filed on 07/07/2025 are the closest prior arts made of record but do not teach all the disclosed limitations as claimed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights