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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 7/8/2025. Currently claims 1-6 are pending and claim 1 is independent. This application is a divisional application of 17/110,076 which claims priority to provisional application 62/943,196 files 12/3/2019
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 appears to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-6, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-6) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, or more particularly, “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system for managing field operations for maintenance contractors. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a manager for a landscaping company might perform. The abstract elements of claim 1 recites in part “Maintain customer data…Send customer information…Receive indication…Update information…”. Dependent claims 4-6 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Receive information…Determine location…Send information…Determine a quantity…Receive information…Display on map…Receive tags…Store information…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2, 3 do not include any limitations that are directed toward the abstract idea and will be addresses in either the Step 2A (Prong 2) or Step 2B analysis below.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1 does not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Processors…Server…computer readable medium…data storage…Computing system…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 2, 3, add the additional element which recites in part “Second computing system…Mobile computing system…” which again limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is again insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is again merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 4-6 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1 includes additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Processors…Server…computer readable medium…data storage…Computing system …”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (managing field operations for maintenance contractors) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0118] – “The processing unit 1002 may include a general-purpose processor.”
Dependent claims 2, 3, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination and in view of their respective independent claims, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, dependent claims 2, 3, include the additional element which recites in part “Second computing system…Mobile computing system……” These are the same additional elements that are addressed above in claim 1 and are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (managing field operations for maintenance contractors) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 4-6 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabby et al. (US 20200053957 A1) in view of Davis (US 20140108078 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rabby discloses a computer server managing tasks performed or to be performed by service providers using generated maps (Rabby ABS - Treatment of a farm field can include accepting, by a user on a networked computing device, a treatment ticket), comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured (Rabby Fig. 2) such that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer server to be configured to: send information related to at least one of the one or more customers to a second computing system, the sent information including a corresponding physical address and the corresponding one or more tasks (Rabby ¶43 - A farm employee can log into an applicator node 106. A user interface 111 can populate a list of tasks for the farm employee. The list can be extracted from the ticket list 122, filtering only on the tasks that are assigned to the particular user that is logged in at the moment. Additionally or alternatively, the user can receive an automatically generated notification (e.g. a text message, a push notification on an application, an email, etc.) when a ticket is generated and assigned to them); receive an indication, from the second computing system, that at least one of the corresponding one or more tasks is completed (Rabby ¶60 - In one embodiment, once the user marks the task complete 186), the indication including a map of the corresponding physical address and a position tag that is associated with the task (Rabby ¶46 - in one embodiment, a mapping service server 120 can provide data to build geocoding maps… In one embodiment, farmer field definitions can be uploaded, including shape files and other GIS locators for use in “tagging” activities during the completion of the crop cycle and aggregate activities across the production cycle to these geographic field identifiers. By geotagging activities (e.g. treating a field with a pesticide), the activities performed on a field can be directly linked to the physical location of the activity, and such data can be kept and later used to check provenance and/or analytics); and in response to receiving the indication, update the customer's information based on the received indication (Rabby ¶60 - In one embodiment, once the user marks the task complete 186, a notification can be generated and sent to the task manager 140 and/or to the administrator 130. The task manager or a farm supervisor that is named on the treatment ticket, verify completion 190 of the task. This can be enough to mark the ticket as ‘closed’. In another embodiment, however, the supervisor's verification can be sent to an administrator. The administrator can accept completion 191, and close the ticket 192).
Rabby lacks maintain a data storage that contains information related to one or more customers, each of which is associated with at least one physical address, and each physical address being associated with one or more tasks.
Davis, from the same field of endeavor, teaches maintain a data storage that contains information related to one or more customers, each of which is associated with at least one physical address, and each physical address being associated with one or more tasks (Davis ¶119 - A data store 1328 may include task details 1330 and service provider schedules 1334. Task details 1330 may include any information associated with a task, such as the task's temporal location (i.e. time and date on the schedule), task type, task location, estimated time to perform the task, etc).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the mobile management methodology/system of Rabby by including the task scheduling techniques of Davis because Davis discloses “A technology is described for efficiently scheduling tasks via a networked computing system (Davis ¶24)”. Additionally, Rabby further details “providing a management tool for farm administrators and supervisors to manage and generate tasks for farm employees to carry out (Rabby ¶8)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional task scheduling techniques that Davis discloses because it would improve the efficiency of the task scheduling the system of Rabby.
Regarding claim 2, Rabby in view of Davis discloses a computer server managing tasks performed or to be performed by service providers using generated maps (Rabby ABS - Treatment of a farm field can include accepting, by a user on a networked computing device, a treatment ticket).
Davis further teaches the second computing system is configured to be accessible by the customer corresponding to the physical address (Davis ¶25 - This technology may allow a user to select a service or task (e.g., lawn mowing) to be purchased electronically. A user interface on a client device may present choices to the customers that include task parameters and other details about the service. For example, the customer may specify a time range and parameters (e.g., Monday to Friday) to have a service provider perform the purchased task. A purchased task can be defined here as a new task that a customer purchases for performance by a service provider).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the mobile management methodology/system of Rabby by including the task scheduling techniques of Davis because Davis discloses “A technology is described for efficiently scheduling tasks via a networked computing system (Davis ¶24)”. Additionally, Rabby further details “providing a management tool for farm administrators and supervisors to manage and generate tasks for farm employees to carry out (Rabby ¶8)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional task scheduling techniques that Davis discloses because it would improve the efficiency of the task scheduling the system of Rabby.
Regarding claim 3, Rabby in view of Davis discloses the second computing system is a mobile computing system that is being carried by a worker (Rabby ¶30 - Each node can include a computing device having one or more processors, memory, an operating system, communications modules that allow for communication between nodes on the network, and other known computer hardware and software capabilities. The nodes can be laptop computers, desktop computers, tablet computers, and/or mobile phones) when the worker is performing the at least one of the one or more tasks (Rabby ¶43 - A farm employee can log into an applicator node 106. A user interface 111 can populate a list of tasks for the farm employee. The list can be extracted from the ticket list 122, filtering only on the tasks that are assigned to the particular user that is logged in at the moment. Additionally or alternatively, the user can receive an automatically generated notification (e.g. a text message, a push notification on an application, an email, etc.) when a ticket is generated and assigned to them).
Regarding claim 4, Rabby in view of Davis discloses receive, from the mobile computing system carried by the worker, information related to a location of the mobile computing system; determine that the location of the mobile computing system matches a physical address that corresponds to one of the one or more tasks; and wherein the sending the information related to at least one of the one or more customers comprising: in response to the determination that the location of the mobile computing system matches one of the customer's physical address, sending the information corresponding to one of the customer's physical address to the mobile computing system (Rabby ¶25 - At block 58, the process can include verifying an application of the one or more treatment products at the field, including determining, recording, and/or storing a geolocation of the authenticated user. The device can have a GPS module (e.g. a GPS receiver and supporting hardware and software) that can be used to determine the geolocation of the authenticated user. Additionally or alternatively, a device can communicate with cell towers and use a cell tower position and distance to calculate the geo location. The geolocation of the user can be cross-referenced with a known location of the field. For example, the treatment ticket can include a field ID of the farm. If the two locations are consistent (e.g. the geolocation of the user matches the geolocation of the identified field), then the device can determine that the application of the one or more treatment products is being performed in the correct location. A geolocation can include a longitude and latitude coordinate).
Regarding claim 5, Rabby in view of Davis discloses determine a quantity of a particular chemical that is to be applied to a particular area of a physical address corresponding to a customer (Rabby ¶17 - A treatment ticket 52 can be generated that assigns a task to be performed in relation to treatment of a farm field with one or more treatment products. For example, the treatment ticket can include a) one or more treatment products to be applied to a field in a farm, b) a quantity (e.g. a total quantity) or spray rate of the treatment product to be applied, and c) a field identifier of the field on which the one or more treatment products are to be applied).
Regarding claim 6, Rabby in view of Davis discloses in response to receiving the physical address, cause a visualization containing a map of the physical address to be displayed at the computing system; receive one or more position tags, each of which is associated with one or more tasks, annotated on the map of the visualization; storing the information related to the new customer, including the annotated map, in the data storage (Rabby ¶46 - in one embodiment, a mapping service server 120 can provide data to build geocoding maps… In one embodiment, farmer field definitions can be uploaded, including shape files and other GIS locators for use in “tagging” activities during the completion of the crop cycle and aggregate activities across the production cycle to these geographic field identifiers. By geotagging activities (e.g. treating a field with a pesticide), the activities performed on a field can be directly linked to the physical location of the activity, and such data can be kept and later used to check provenance and/or analytics).
Davis further teaches receive, from a computing system, information related to a new customer, the information associated with a physical address (Davis ¶25 -A purchased task can be defined here as a new task that a customer purchases for performance by a service provider. The purchased task associated with the time period from the customer may be scheduled in a scheduling calendar. In particular, the purchased task may be scheduled to minimize a travel time of the service provider in performing the purchased task. Therefore, the purchased task may be scheduled to be performed by a service provider that is located in proximity or that has other customers located in proximity to the new customer and within the time period specified by the new customer).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the mobile management methodology/system of Rabby by including the task scheduling techniques of Davis because Davis discloses “A technology is described for efficiently scheduling tasks via a networked computing system (Davis ¶24)”. Additionally, Rabby further details “providing a management tool for farm administrators and supervisors to manage and generate tasks for farm employees to carry out (Rabby ¶8)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional task scheduling techniques that Davis discloses because it would improve the efficiency of the task scheduling the system of Rabby.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li (US 20220035344 A1)
Lichti (US 20150066557 A1)
Andriolo et al. (WO 2019185930 A1)
and
J. G. Gil, et al. “Dynamic generation of fertilizer maps using GPS technology," 2005 IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, Catania, Italy, 2005, pp. 6 pp.-672 [online], [retrieved on 2026-07-25]. Retrieved from the Internet <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1612739?source=IQplus>
These pieces of prior art are cited because they disclose variations on managing field operations and application of chemicals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights