DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 10/24/25, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. provisional patent application Serial Number 63/711356 filed on 10/24/24 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged, as well as the benefit to the cited parent applications under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. However, not all of the claimed subject matter in the
instant application can be given the same priority date. More specifically, the subject matter regarding "wherein the interface provides growers the monitoring and reporting capability to meet external party requirements” (see claim 10) is only supported by the instant application and thus can only be granted a priority date of 10/24/25. The remaining subject matter appears to have support back to the provisional filed on 10/24/24; however, Examiner reserves the right to modify the priority date acknowledgements pending future findings.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 11 and 20 recite a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category. Claim 1 is used as the exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity
at least one first processor;
a communication interface communicatively coupled with the at least one first processor and configured to enable communication between the at least one first processor and one or more agricultural implements; and
a first memory communicatively coupled to the at least one first processor, the first memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the at least one first processor to:
receive a ruleset corresponding to the agricultural program;
receive first activity and/or location data from at least one of the one or more agricultural implements;
compare the first activity and/or location data against the ruleset to determine whether the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements is in compliance with the agricultural program; and
transmit a command to the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements to generate an alert when the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements is determined to be out of compliance.
These limitations constitute monitoring activities of agricultural implements and personnel to ensure compliance under agricultural programs (Specification ¶2), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity including commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations reciting
at least one first processor;
a communication interface communicatively coupled with the at least one first processor and configured to enable communication between the at least one first processor and one or more agricultural implements; and
a first memory communicatively coupled to the at least one first processor, the first memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one first processor; and
transmit a command to the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements (from claim 1; claims 11 and 20 include a subset of the above limitations, and claim 20 also specifies a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium)
provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the transmitting limitation may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the transmitting limitation) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8, 9, 13-15, 18, and 19 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 11, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 11; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 2 and 12 further recite the additional element of an external server/a communication device, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 6 and 16 further recite the additional elements of at least one second processor and a second memory, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 7 and 17 further recite the additional element of a network connection is established, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein the other one of the one or more agricultural implements." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously refers to “another one of the one or more agricultural implements”; it is unclear if the claim means to refer to the same agricultural implement or if there is a third agricultural implement being brough into the claim. For the purposes of further examination, Examiner assumes, based on the structure of the claim language (the wherein clause seems to be defining the structure of the “another one of the agricultural implements”), that these are intended to be the same agricultural implements. Claim 16 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 6.
Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chait (US 20140222521).
Referring to claim 1:
Chait discloses a system for monitoring compliance of an agricultural program comprising: at least one first processor {Chait [0554][0555] Fig. 16; an exemplary system for implementing the invention includes a general purpose computing device in the form of a computer 1610. Components of computer 1610 may include, but are not limited to, a processing unit 1620 [0554]};
a communication interface communicatively coupled with the at least one first processor and configured to enable communication between the at least one first processor and one or more agricultural implements {Chait [0048][0051][0105][0560]; then the system may issue an alert to the hospital staff and/or may control machinery responsible for administering the drug [0051] and the system may implement other types of corrective actions, such as automatically implementing one or more of the recommendations/instructions, or implementing other changes to operations of the distributed work environment, using machine-to-machine interactions [0105] and the computer 1610 typically includes a modem 1672 or other means for establishing communications over the WAN 1673, such as the Internet [0560]}; and
a first memory communicatively coupled to the at least one first processor, the first memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one first processor {Chait [0553][0554]; The computing environment may execute computer-executable instructions, such as program modules [0553] and an exemplary system for implementing the invention includes a general purpose computing device in the form of a computer 1610. Components of computer 1610 may include, but are not limited to, a processing unit 1620, a system memory 1630 [0554]}, cause the at least one first processor to:
receive a ruleset corresponding to the agricultural program {Chait [0005] [0056]; The system comprises at least one input configured to receive data, wherein the data represents or is related to one or more of: . . . one or more standards and degree of compliance therewith [0005] and system 100 may comprise a server 102 that implements a rules engine 104 and stores collected data and/or standards and instructions in a data store 106 [0056] where the standards are the ruleset};
receive first activity and/or location data from at least one of the one or more agricultural implements {Chait [0048][0050][0060]; The data may include: behavioral data, representing the actions and/or behavior of workers performing certain tasks; operational data, representing specific steps to be taken in operating machinery or generally performing certain tasks; biological and environmental data, representing a condition of animals and/or the surrounding environment, such as in a farm; machine data, representing any suitable data collected from machinery or equipment [0048] and sensors may be configured to detect temperature inside of a holding tank of the truck 228, mileage and/or time of transport for the truck 228, location of the truck 228, or other suitable data [0084]};
compare the first activity and/or location data against the ruleset to determine whether the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements is in compliance with the agricultural program {Chait [0047] [0048][0068]; analyze the collected data according to the specified instructions and/or standards to detect non-compliance [0047] and Although embodiments are not limited in the number and nature of data collected by sensors and the standards to which the data is compared, the inventors have recognized and appreciated that using at least eight different types of data and standards may improve distributed work management. The data may include: behavioral data, representing the actions and/or behavior of workers performing certain tasks; operational data, representing specific steps to be taken in operating machinery or generally performing certain tasks; biological and environmental data, representing a condition of animals and/or the surrounding environment, such as in a farm; machine data, representing any suitable data collected from machinery or equipment; and logistical data, representing information related to a distribution and supply chain, such as the handling and transfer of goods from one entity to another [0048]}; and
transmit a command to the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements to generate an alert when the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements is determined to be out of compliance {Chait [0045] [0053][0104][0105]; the servers may generate alerts or remediation instructions to one or more devices based on the analysis of the collected data [0045] and if it is determined that the analyzed data indicates non-compliance or potential future non-compliance, then, in block 408, the system may generate one or more alerts to an appropriate entity [0104]}.
Referring to claim 2:
Chait discloses wherein the ruleset is received from: an external server in communication with the communication interface; or a communication device in communication with the communication interface and operated by a user {Chait [0071][0131]; In some embodiments, the reporting devices 114a-114c may enable a user to input new or updated standards and/or instructions to be applied by the rules engine 104 [0071]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Chait discloses wherein the alert is a visual alert, an auditory alert, and/or a haptic alert {Chait [0182]; the System may support different types of alerts handlers; some examples include, but are not limited to: a push notification for the mobile device application, SMS, E-Mail, and Provision for Custom Notification Handlers [0182]}.
Referring to claim 10:
Chait discloses wherein the interface provides growers the monitoring and reporting capability to meet external party requirements {Chait [0031] [0036][0040][0380][0525]; the system may analyze data collected from the work environment to generate various types of information regarding compliance of the distributed work environment, which may be viewed by third-party entities, such as customers, suppliers, regulatory agencies, or any other suitable entity [0031]}.
Referring to claims 11, 12, 18, and 20:
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 20 are similar to claims 1, 2, and 8 and are rejected on a similar basis.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3, 5, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chait (US 20140222521).
Referring to claim 3:
Chait discloses wherein the at least one first processor is configured to determine whether the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements traverses a field between an end of harvest and a beginning of planting {Chait [0068][0084][0134][0150][0155][0160]-[0165]; it is the compliance of the Touchpoints where Items are produced or through which the Items pass that may be managed by the CMS [0150] and `Rules` are logical, conditional checks carried out against observations taken with respect to a given Touchpoint. In some embodiments, by checking these observations against a set of criteria, the rule evaluates the adherence of the Touchpoint to a specific Policy [0155] and "Compliance" is a declaration that based on Observations a particular Touchpoint conforms to a particular policy at a specific point in time [0160] where Chait does not explicitly disclose the implement traverses a field, but it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the field may be a Touchpoint, given Chait’s specific application to farming (Chait [0048]) and generally broad applicability; as to the time “between an end of harvest and a beginning of planting,” compliance is determined at a specific point in time and the time period specified could be any time, depending on whether the end of harvest is designated as the start point or end point}.
Referring to claim 5:
Chait discloses wherein the at least one first processor is configured to determine whether the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements traverses a restricted field {Chait [0068][0084][0104][0134] [0150][0155][0160]-[0165]; if it is determined that the analyzed data indicates non-compliance or potential future non-compliance, then, in block 408, the system may generate one or more alerts to an appropriate entity [0104] and it is the compliance of the Touchpoints where Items are produced or through which the Items pass that may be managed by the CMS [0150] and `Rules` are logical, conditional checks carried out against observations taken with respect to a given Touchpoint. In some embodiments, by checking these observations against a set of criteria, the rule evaluates the adherence of the Touchpoint to a specific Policy [0155] and "Compliance" is a declaration that based on Observations a particular Touchpoint conforms to a particular policy at a specific point in time [0160] where Chait does not explicitly disclose the implement traverses a field, but it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the field may be a Touchpoint, given Chait’s specific application to farming (Chait [0048]) and generally broad applicability and where non-compliance with the prescribed location indicates that the machine is in a restricted location}.
Referring to claims 13 and 15:
Claims 13 and 15 are similar to claims 1 and 3 and are rejected on a similar basis.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chait (US 20140222521), in view of Rupp et al. (US 20160071410).
Referring to claim 4:
Chait discloses a system for intelligently monitoring and verifying compliance in a distributed work environment that may include machines (abstract). Chait does not disclose wherein the at least one first processor is configured to determine whether the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements traverses a field to perform an operation already undertaken by another one of the one or more agricultural implements.
However, Rupp discloses a similar system for updating execution of tasks of an agricultural prescription for a farming geographic area to a fleet of farming equipment (abstract). Rupp discloses wherein the at least one first processor is configured to determine whether the at least one of the one or more agricultural implements traverses a field to perform an operation already undertaken by another one of the one or more agricultural implements {Rupp [0184]; when the actual performance level is unfavorable, the application unit 16 determines whether to update the agricultural prescription, the plurality of tasks, or the allocation of at least one task of the plurality of tasks . . . the application unit 16 selects a second piece of farm equipment to execute a task originally assigned to a first piece of farm equipment when the first piece of farm equipment is unavailable or has fallen behind schedule of execution of previously assigned tasks [0184]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Chait to incorporate determining whether an implement traverses a field to perform an operation already undertaken by another implement as taught by Rupp because this would provide a manner for executing a task that was originally assigned to a first piece of equipment that has been unable to complete the task (Rupp [0184]), thus aiding the user by ensuring completion of the task.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is similar to claim 4 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chait (US 20140222521), in view of Wilbur et al. (US 20160308954).
Referring to claim 6:
Chait discloses compare second activity and/or location data of the other one of the one or more agricultural implements against the ruleset to determine whether the other one of the one or more agricultural implements is in compliance with the agricultural program {Chait [0047] [0048][0068]; analyze the collected data according to the specified instructions and/or standards to detect non-compliance [0047] and Although embodiments are not limited in the number and nature of data collected by sensors and the standards to which the data is compared, the inventors have recognized and appreciated that using at least eight different types of data and standards may improve distributed work management. The data may include: behavioral data, representing the actions and/or behavior of workers performing certain tasks; operational data, representing specific steps to be taken in operating machinery or generally performing certain tasks; biological and environmental data, representing a condition of animals and/or the surrounding environment, such as in a farm; machine data, representing any suitable data collected from machinery or equipment; and logistical data, representing information related to a distribution and supply chain, such as the handling and transfer of goods from one entity to another [0048]}; and
generate an alert when the other one of the one or more agricultural implements is determined to be out of compliance {Chait [0045][0053] [0104][0105]; the servers may generate alerts or remediation instructions to one or more devices based on the analysis of the collected data [0045] and if it is determined that the analyzed data indicates non-compliance or potential future non-compliance, then, in block 408, the system may generate one or more alerts to an appropriate entity [0104]}.
Chait discloses a system for intelligently monitoring and verifying compliance in a distributed work environment that may include machines (abstract). Chait does not disclose wherein the first memory stores further executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the at least one first processor to transmit the ruleset to another one of the one or more agricultural implements; wherein the other one of the one or more agricultural implements comprises at least one second processor and a second memory communicatively coupled to the at least one second processor, the second memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the at least one second processor to: perform activities.
However, Wilbur discloses a similar system for cloud-based agricultural data processing and management (abstract). Wilbur discloses wherein the first memory stores further executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the at least one first processor to transmit the ruleset to another one of the one or more agricultural implements {Wilbur [0079] and Fig. 12; the grower 105 can register their equipment 107 with the equipment cloud 123 so that the AGVERDICT® system can obtain a real-time status and location of the equipment 107, and can receive information from the equipment 107 about its activities/performance, and can transmit instructions to the equipment 107 directing performance of particular activities as a function of schedule and/or geolocation [0079] where the instructions are the ruleset}; and
wherein the other one of the one or more agricultural implements comprises at least one second processor and a second memory communicatively coupled to the at least one second processor, the second memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the at least one second processor to: perform activities {Wilbur [0094][0206][0214]; machine controllers operating on various types of agricultural equipment [0094] and allows the user to upload controller data, i.e., data from a controller of a specified piece of agricultural equipment, from either a locally stored file or from a controller data service [0214]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Chait to incorporate transmitting the ruleset to another one of the one or more agricultural implements as taught by Wilbur because this would provide a manner for directing performance of a particular task (Wilbur [0079]), thus aiding the user by ensuring performance of the task.
Referring to claim 9:
Chait discloses wherein the ruleset defines an activity region where an agricultural activity is to take place, and a control region where the agricultural activity is prohibited {Chait [0068][0084][0134][0150][0155] [0160]-[0165]; it is the compliance of the Touchpoints where Items are produced or through which the Items pass that may be managed by the CMS [0150] and `Rules` are logical, conditional checks carried out against observations taken with respect to a given Touchpoint. In some embodiments, by checking these observations against a set of criteria, the rule evaluates the adherence of the Touchpoint to a specific Policy [0155] and "Compliance" is a declaration that based on Observations a particular Touchpoint conforms to a particular policy at a specific point in time [0160] where the Touchpoints may be locations where an activity is to take place and if not, the activity will not be in compliance, therefore making other locations prohibited}.
Chait discloses a system for intelligently monitoring and verifying compliance in a distributed work environment that may include machines (abstract). Chait does not disclose wherein the first memory stores boundary information of the activity region and the control region.
However, Wilbur discloses a similar system for cloud-based agricultural data processing and management (abstract). Wilbur discloses wherein the first memory stores boundary information of the activity region and the control region {Wilbur [0015][0086]; the geometry module 203B2 provides a utility for drawing polygons to define geographic field boundaries and for plotting points corresponding to geographic locations on aerial/satellite images and/or maps [0086]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Chait to incorporate storing boundary information as taught by Wilbur because this would provide a manner for defining field boundaries (Wilbur [0086]), thus aiding the user by providing defined areas.
Referring to claim 16:
Claim 16 is similar to claim 6 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is similar to claim 9 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chait (US 20140222521), in view of Wilbur et al. (US 20160308954), and further in view of Cooner (US 20200027096).
Referring to claim 7:
Chait discloses a system for intelligently monitoring and verifying compliance in a distributed work environment that may include machines (abstract). Chait does not disclose wherein the first memory stores further executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the at least one first processor to transmit the ruleset to at least two of the one or more agricultural implements.
However, Wilbur discloses a similar system for cloud-based agricultural data processing and management (abstract). Wilbur discloses wherein the first memory stores further executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the at least one first processor to transmit the ruleset to at least two of the one or more agricultural implements {Wilbur [0079] and Fig. 12; The equipment cloud 123 is a cloud-based computing system that receives data from and transmits data to various types of agricultural equipment . . . the grower 105 can register their equipment 107 with the equipment cloud 123 so that the AGVERDICT® system can obtain a real-time status and location of the equipment 107, and can receive information from the equipment 107 about its activities/performance, and can transmit instructions to the equipment 107 directing performance of particular activities as a function of schedule and/or geolocation [0079] where the instructions are the ruleset}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Chait to incorporate transmitting the ruleset to at least two agricultural implements as taught by Wilbur because this would provide a manner for directing performance of a particular task (Wilbur [0079]), thus aiding the user by ensuring performance of the task.
Chait, as modified by Wilbur, discloses a system for intelligently monitoring and verifying compliance in a distributed work environment that may include machines (abstract). Chait, as modified by Wilbur, does not disclose wherein a network connection is established between the at least two of the one or more agricultural implements and the at least one first processor to enable data sharing, such that activities of the at least two of the one or more agricultural implements are monitored by the at least one first processor and/or on-board processors of the at least two of the one or more agricultural implements in real-time.
However, Cooner discloses a similar system for an internet of things system to automate farming techniques (abstract and [0030][0031]). Cooner discloses wherein a network connection is established between the at least two of the one or more agricultural implements and the at least one first processor to enable data sharing, such that activities of the at least two of the one or more agricultural implements are monitored by the at least one first processor and/or on-board processors of the at least two of the one or more agricultural implements in real-time {Cooner [0031][0340]; IoT sensors are basically a monitoring or measuring device embedded into machine, system or device with an API enabling it to connect and share data with other systems . . . The transmission frequency can be real-time streaming [0340]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Chait and Wilbur to incorporate data sharing in real-time as taught by Cooner because this would provide a manner for monitoring a device and sharing its data with other systems (Cooner [0340]), thus aiding the user by ensuring performance of the task.
Referring to claim 17:
Claim 17 is similar to claim 7 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights