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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed January 15, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed July 15, 2025. Claims 47-49, 51, and 53, were previously pending and claim 47 has been amended. Claims 47-49, 51, and 53, are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 112 in the previous office action
Claims 47-49, 51, and 53, were 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The amendment has overcome this ground of rejection of the claims.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 103 in the previous office action
Claims 47, 49, 51, and 53, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Paper No. 20250701; Pub. No. US 2021/0337716 A1) in view of Lytle, Jr. (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 9,655,356 B1) and claim 48 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Paper No. 20250701; Pub. No. US 2021/0337716 A1) in view of Lytle, Jr. (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 9,655,356 B1), and further in view of Ersek (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 8,126,819 B1). The amendment has overcome this ground of rejection of these claims.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 47-49, 51, and 53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s argument is essentially that the claims recite “concrete physical actions performed by the fulfillment center system,” and therefore are not abstract. This argument is not persuasive because, as explained in the detailed rationale for the rejection, the claims recite “a fulfillment center comprising at least one electronic processor in communication over a network based data processing system comprising a data storage system configured to” perform all of the actions recited in the claims. The claims recite no particular device or devices performing any of the activities and can only be understood as merely communicating information or instructions to perform steps, whether by humans, machines, or other entity. Whatever would perform the physical actions is not identified. The claims are thoroughly analyzed in the rejection and applicant’s argument does not address the concerns raised in applying the analysis according to the MPEP.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 103 in the previous office action
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed January 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 47, 49, 51, and 53, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Paper No. 20250701; Pub. No. US 2021/0337716 A1) in view of Lytle, Jr. (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 9,655,356 B1) and claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Paper No. 20250701; Pub. No. US 2021/0337716 A1) in view of Lytle, Jr. (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 9,655,356 B1), and further in view of Ersek (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 8,126,819 B1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ethington et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0350478 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informality: the numbered elements following “determine, with the at least one electronic processor, a lawn treatment plan for the lawn based on,” are numbered incorrectly and should be numbered pursuant to the amendment deleting element v). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 47-49, 51, and 53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 47-49, 51, and 53, recite a machine including “automatically generate customized packetized lawn treatments based on the determined lawn treatment plan”. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the manner in which customized packetized lawn treatments based on the determined lawn treatment plan are automatically generated. The specification discusses determining an automatic treatment regime and delivering treatments to a user automatically “via mail or other package handing system”, but does not disclose that the packetized treatments are automatically generated and does not indicate how the generation of the packetized treatments would be automated. Specification ¶0008. Elements that are essentially a "black box" are not sufficient. There must be some explanation of how one would infringe upon the process by generating packetized treatments without human instruction to initiate the generation (the interpretation being given to the claimed feature).
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant's failure to disclose the feature in the filed specification indicates applicant may not have had possession of this feature at the time of filing, and results in a person of ordinary skill in the art being unable to recognize the claimed invention as that described in the specification or as being the subject matter applicant actually possessed at the time of the invention. Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 ("The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’”); See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.' It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function."), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure."); MPEP 2163 (3).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the claim, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 47-49, 51, and 53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 47-49, 51, and 53, are directed to a system comprising “a fulfillment center comprising at least one electronic processor in communication over a network based data processing system comprising a data storage system configured,” to perform a method. This is a machine. All claims are therefore within a statutory class. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“receive a first data including information indicative of a composition of soil of the lawn; receive a second data including information indicative of a size of the lawn; receive a third data including information indicative of climate associated with the lawn and a location of the lawn; receive a forth data including information indicative of a grass type of the lawn; receive a fifth data including information indicating a use of the lawn; receive from the end user, answers to a questionnaire including information indicative of historical fertilization, health of the lawn, age of the lawn, and traffic of the lawn; determine, … a lawn treatment plan for the lawn based on: i) the information indicative of the size of the lawn, ii) the information indicative of the climate associated with the lawn and location of the lawn, iii) the information indicative of the composition of soil associated with the lawn, iv) the information indicative of the grass type of the lawn, vi) the information indicative of the use of the lawn, and vii) the answers to the questionnaire, wherein the lawn treatment plan comprises an amount, an application timing and a composition of one or more packetized lawn treatments; transmitting the lawn treatment plan to the end user; and automatically generate customized packetized lawn treatments based on the determined lawn treatment plan; and ship the customized packetized lawn treatments to the end user according
to the application timing.” Claim 47.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims are therefore analyzed under the second prong of the Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The elements in the present claims that can potentially be considered “additional elements” are at least one electronic processor and one or more packetized lawn treatments. The packetized lawn treatments as claimed have no functional role in the claims and their recitation within its broadest reasonable interpretation includes the mere transmission of information to the end user, i.e., information regarding the composition of the one or more packetized lawn treatments. The recitation “automatically generate customized packetized lawn treatments based on the determined lawn treatment plan” is not introduced or described in the specification, and could be understood as merely indicating a packetized lawn treatment manually produced without further communication or request from a customer. The disclosure does not identify any particular device or devices required in the automation. The at least one electronic processor is all alone broadly and generally recited as performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities consisting entirely of receiving, processing, and sending data. Because no particular device or apparatus is disclosed, the recitation “ship the customized packetized lawn treatments to the end user according to the application timing” cannot be interpreted in any way other than as the processor communicating an instruction to ship, rather than as performing any practical shipment operation.
These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims lack any showing indicating the practical application. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or other element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
The disclosure does not describe any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. This improvement would further need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. The method itself is described only by way of the intended functional results of activities identified as abstract concepts, without reference to any particular functional acts or specific functions performed by any particularly identified machines or other elements, and without reference to their use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception by a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of any surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem. The method claimed is a nontechnical series of steps taken to practice an entrepreneurial activity. This conclusion is supported by applicant's disclosure, which elaborates upon the performance of the presently claimed method at length by describing the certain methods of organizing human activity while only incidentally or tangentially explaining the presence of prior art elements, without identifying any technical problem that arises within said elements and without offering a technical solution to any such problem. It ultimately only describes the abstract idea while indicating the intention to “apply it.” The claimed subject matter merely implements a business plan, rather than solving a problem created by any technology. Merely confining the abstract idea to a particular field is insufficient to render it eligible subject matter. The claimed invention is patent ineligible because the innovative aspect (if there is one) is an entrepreneurial rather than a technological one. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3245; 177 L. Ed. 2d 792, 822; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521, 73; 95 U.S.P.Q.20 (BNA) 1001 (2010) (citing Merges, Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, 14 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 577, 585 (1999)); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (“A rule holding that claims are impermissibly abstract if they are directed to an entrepreneurial objective, such as methods for increasing revenue, minimizing economic risk, or structuring commercial transactions, rather than a technological one, would comport with the guidance provided in both Alice and Bilski.” Mayer, J, concurring).
Finally, dependent claims 48-49, 51, and 53, do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 47-49, 51, and 53, are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
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.
Claims 47, 49, 51, and 53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Paper No. 20250701; Pub. No. US 2021/0337716 A1) in view of Ethington et al. (Paper No. 20230529; Pub. No. US 2021/0350478 A1) and further in view of Lytle, Jr. (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 9,655,356 B1).
Lee teaches a system to treat a lawn of an end user, comprising a fulfillment center comprising at least one electronic processor in communication over a network based data processing system comprising a data storage system, including gathering of information and provision of service and treatment materials in the utilized area. Lee discloses, regarding
Claim 47. A system to treat a lawn of an end user, comprising: ● a fulfillment center comprising at least one electronic processor in communication over a network based data processing system comprising a data storage system (see at least Lee, ¶0052 “controller is preferably in the form of an electronic or computer based processor,” ¶0053 “base station may be arranged to provide several functions to the autonomous vehicle such as electrical charging capabilities, the downloading and collection of data, internet capabilities,” ¶0075 “grass maintenance system 200's controller, control module or control unit 202 is arranged to communicate … so as to receive data from each of these modules. In turn, the control unit 202 may include a computer processor or computation unit to process this data along with user commands or data obtained from an external source (e.g. cloud service)”) configured to: ● receive a first data including information indicative of a composition of soil of the lawn (see at least Lee fig.4, ¶0015 “substrate conditions include soil pH, soil chemistry, soil moisture,” ¶¶0054-0057 “sensors may include, without limitations: [0055] chemical sensor to measure the soil composition; [0056] soil moisture sensor; [0057] soil pH value sensor,” ¶0076 “sensor arranged to detect soil moisture and soil condition (e.g. pH) would return its readings to the control unit,” ¶0097 “Soil condition sensors 402, arranged to detect and measure soil pH, moisture levels of the soil or chemical composition of the soil”);
● receive a second data including information indicative of a size of the lawn (see at least Lee ¶0092 “As described above, the navigation module 300 may also be arranged to be able to generate a virtual model of the lawn terrain with environmental information including the size of the lawn”); ● receive a third data including information indicative of climate associated with the lawn and a location of the lawn (see at least Lee abstract “environmental sensors (208) arranged to detect environmental conditions associated with the grass surface,” fig.4, ¶¶0054-0064 “environmental sensors which are arranged to measure, detect and analyse environmental conditions … may include… [0055] chemical sensor to measure the soil composition; [0056] soil moisture sensor; [0057] soil pH value sensor; [0058] environmental temperature; [0059] environmental humidity; [0060] altitude sensor; [0061] wind direction; [0062] sunlight sensor; [0063] colour sensor; [0064] weather conditions, including altimeter, barometric measurements or rain sensors or Internet accessible weather information for a specific geographical location,” ¶0078 “grass maintenance system … may access grass data and soil data common to the location of the user's home as well as weather data”); ● receive a forth data including information indicative of a grass type of the lawn (see at least Lee ¶0078 “grass maintenance system … may access grass data and …. characteristics of the grass,” ¶0099 “Colour sensors or other optical sensors arranged to detect the colour of the grass”); ● receive a fifth data including information indicating a use of the lawn (see at least Lee ¶0093 “communicate with the controller 202 so as to navigate the unit to perform specific grass manipulation steps at particular locations, including, for example, the cutting of specific words, characters or patterns on the grass…. user may firstly provide … the location on the lawn to which he or she wishes the patterns to be cut into”).
Lee teaches all of the above as noted. Lee discloses a) gathering information, b) provision of service, c) providing treatment materials in the utilized area, and d) determining information and revising information regarding the treated area, and discloses at least one electronic processor in communication over a network based data processing system comprising a data storage system configured to perform steps in a process, but does not explicitly teach wherein the steps further comprise receive from the end user, answers to a questionnaire including information indicative of historical fertilization, health of the lawn, age of the lawn, and traffic of the lawn.
Ethington also teaches a) gathering information, b) provision of service, c) providing treatment materials in the utilized area, and d) determining information and revising information regarding the treated area, and further discloses at least one electronic processor in communication over a network based data processing system comprising a data storage system configured to perform steps in a process, wherein the steps further comprise:
● receive from the end user, answers to a questionnaire including information indicative of historical fertilization, health of the lawn, age of the lawn, and traffic of the lawn (see at least Ethington ¶0057 "user may be prompted ... to answer questions regarding field activities .... For example, a user may be asked what field activities are currently in use," ¶0072 "receive information on farming activities from, for example, the user device .... Accordingly, alerts may also be provided based on logged farm activity such as planting, nitrogen application", ¶0086 "users may be prompted at the user device to provide a fifth set of data points by answering questions,” ¶0100 "questions regarding nitrogen application," is fertilization, ¶0169 "user may be prompted at the user device to answer questions regarding field activities .... For example, a user may be asked what field activities are currently in use. Depending upon the response, agricultural intelligence computer system 150 may adjust its calculations of the workability index because of the user's activities" (i.e., traffic of the lawn), ¶0218 "users may be prompted at the user device to answer questions regarding ... latest growth stage of crop ... as well as current crop data (e.g., planting date, seed(s) type, relative maturity (RM) of planted seed(s ), seed population) .... For certain questions, such as the latest growth stage of crop ... the user has the option to provide a plurality of alternative responses" (i.e., health of the lawn, age of the lawn)).
Lee in view of Ethington further discloses
● determine, with the at least one electronic processor, a lawn treatment plan for the lawn (see at least Lee ¶0020 “control module is arranged to determine an operation plan as based on the environmental conditions detected by the one or more environmental sensors,” ¶0071 “controller may be able to determine additional actions based on one or more collective readings from the environmental sensors, either immediately or over a period of time to determine a grass maintenance procedure that can be performed by the grass maintenance system,” et seq., ¶0078 “system 200 is able to determine an optimal maintenance program to maintain the grass in its peak condition”) based on:
● i) the information indicative of the size of the lawn (see at least Lee ¶0092 “As described above, the navigation module 300 may also be arranged to be able to generate a virtual model of the lawn terrain with environmental information including the size of the lawn”); ● ii) the information indicative of the climate associated with the lawn and location of the lawn (see at least Lee abstract “environmental sensors (208) arranged to detect environmental conditions associated with the grass surface,” fig.4, ¶¶0054-0064 “environmental sensors which are arranged to measure, detect and analyse environmental conditions … may include… [0055] chemical sensor to measure the soil composition; [0056] soil moisture sensor; [0057] soil pH value sensor; [0058] environmental temperature; [0059] environmental humidity; [0060] altitude sensor; [0061] wind direction; [0062] sunlight sensor; [0063] colour sensor; [0064] weather conditions, including altimeter, barometric measurements or rain sensors or Internet accessible weather information for a specific geographical location,” ¶0078 “grass maintenance system … may access grass data and soil data common to the location of the user's home as well as weather data”); ● iii) the information indicative of the composition of soil associated with the lawn (see at least Lee fig.4, ¶0015 “substrate conditions include soil pH, soil chemistry, soil moisture,” ¶¶0054-0057 “sensors may include, without limitations: [0055] chemical sensor to measure the soil composition; [0056] soil moisture sensor; [0057] soil pH value sensor,” ¶0076 “sensor arranged to detect soil moisture and soil condition (e.g. pH) would return its readings to the control unit,” ¶0097 “Soil condition sensors 402, arranged to detect and measure soil pH, moisture levels of the soil or chemical composition of the soil”); ● iv) the information indicative of the grass type of the lawn (see at least Lee ¶0078 “grass maintenance system … may access grass data and …. characteristics of the grass,” ¶0099 “Colour sensors or other optical sensors arranged to detect the colour of the grass”);
● vi) the information indicative of the use of the lawn (see at least Lee ¶0093 “communicate with the controller 202 so as to navigate the unit to perform specific grass manipulation steps at particular locations, including, for example, the cutting of specific words, characters or patterns on the grass…. user may firstly provide … the location on the lawn to which he or she wishes the patterns to be cut into”); and
● vii) the answers to the questionnaire (see at least Ethington ¶¶0057, 0072, 0086, 0100, 0218, as disclosed and described above.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Lee to include receive from the end user, answers to a questionnaire including information indicative of historical fertilization, health of the lawn, age of the lawn, and traffic of the lawn, as taught by Ethington since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Ethington in the method of Lee. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Lee in view of Ethington teaches all of the above and also discloses a) gathering information, b) provision of service, c) providing treatment materials in the utilized area, and d) determining information and revising information regarding the treated area, and further discloses wherein the lawn treatment plan comprises an application timing and a composition of one or more lawn treatments, but does not disclose wherein the lawn treatment plan comprises an amount… of one or more packetized lawn treatments.
Lytle, Jr.’356 also teaches a) gathering information, b) provision of service, c) providing treatment materials in the utilized area, and d) determining information and revising information regarding the treated area, and further discloses wherein the lawn treatment plan comprises an amount, an application timing and a composition of one or more packetized lawn treatments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the system of Lee in view of Ethington to include the features taught by Lytle, Jr.’356 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Lytle, Jr.’356 in the method of Lee in view of Ethington. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Lee in view of Ethington and further in view of Lytle, Jr.’356, teaches
● wherein the lawn treatment plan comprises an amount, an application timing and a composition of one or more packetized lawn treatments (see at least Lee figs. 4-5, ¶0076 “control unit 202 may then direct the vehicle 100 to navigate to this area of the lawn and activate its watering module and fertilizer distribution module so as to supply water and fertilizer to this part of the lawn, whilst recording that this part of the lawn has been watered and fertilized at a particular time so as to allow the control unit 202 to determine the optimal time to revisit this part of the lawn,” ¶0100 “determine an operation plan for the grass maintenance system 200, including the frequency of mowing, fertilizing, watering or seeding to maintain the lawn,” ¶0111 “the controller 202 may operate one or more of these modules on the lawn at a particular time,” in view of Lytle, Jr.’356 c7:45-62 “determines … the associated amount of chemical to be used to treat the particular weed. …. the total volume of chemicals needed to treat a widely spread weed species may surpass the capacity of one reservoir in the smart cartridge 11. In this 60 circumstance a second reservoir is dedicated to that chemical, or even a third or more,” c10:1-60 “information is then used … to determine the … amount of chemicals needed to be placed in the smart cartridge 11 by way of the cartridge facility…. FIG. 8 is a process flow for identifying the type and amount of insecticide and herbicides to be included in the smart cartridge,” c11:50-67 “time span between application intervals is typically much longer, perhaps one month, as compared to weekly in the summer time. Thus, subsequent cycles for broadleaf annuals may require a higher volume than summer annuals”);
● transmitting the lawn treatment plan to the end user (see at least Lee ¶0053 “downloading… of data,” ¶0075 “the control unit 202 may … determine a set of commands to maintain the grass surface. … may then issue these determined commands to each of these modules so as to operate the maintenance system,” ¶0078 “system 200 is able to determine an optimal maintenance program to maintain the grass in its peak condition. Furthermore, it may also prompt the user, … to execute these lawn maintenance programs, including the purchase of seeds or fertilizers”); and
● automatically generate customized packetized lawn treatments based on the determined lawn treatment plan (Lee does not explicitly describe this limitation, however Lytle, Jr.’356 does disclose this limitation. See at least Lytle, Jr.’356 abstract “multicompartmental cartridge that holds different chemicals and selectively applies the chemicals to the area of the lawn requiring treatment,” fig. 8, c2:15-60 “the corresponding chemicals are added to a multi-compartmented cartridge using a filling station at a remote facility,” c4:42-67 “server 19 dispatches a request to a cartridge filling facility 23, which fills a smart cartridge 11 with herbicides that are effective for the detected weeds, and in sufficient volume so as to be able to treat the entire lawn”); and
● ship the customized packetized lawn treatments to the end user according to the application timing (see at least Lytle, Jr.’356 fig. 8, c2:15-60 “On a week to week basis, or another interval … the corresponding chemicals are added to a multi-compartmented cartridge using a filling station at a remote facility and shipped to the homeowner for the next lawn mowing cycle through a shipping center. The shipping center then packages and ships the cartridge to a predetermined address, such as the address of where the lawn is located,” c5:16-29 “Once the smart cartridge 11 is filled with the custom amounts of herbicides and pesticides for the particular lawn, the smart cartridge 11 is shipped to the address of the user,” c10:23-60 “Once filled, the cartridge facility 23 sends (through courier, mail, etc.) the filled smart cartridge 11 to the address of the user of the lawn mower 1 in step S1107. Of course the smart cartridge 11 may actually be sent to the maintenance service provider for the particular lawn”).
Claim 49. The system of claim 47, wherein the fulfillment center if further configured to: ● receive a fifth data including information indicative of a revised soil composition (see at least Lee figs. 4-5, ¶¶0065 “sensors may be implemented on any part of the grass maintenance system, …. arranged to communicate with the controller so as to detect the environmental conditions …. Once these sensors are able to obtain a reading for analysis, the information is then transmitted back to the controller for processing, and in turn, an appropriate action may then be determined and performed by the grass maintenance system …. As an example, the following actions may be taken …. [0066] water the grass at one or more locations if moisture levels are below a predetermined threshold; [0067] add fertilizer to the soil at one or more locations if soil analysis indicates fertilization is necessary,” ¶0071 “controller may be able to determine additional actions based on one or more collective readings from the environmental sensors, either immediately or over a period of time to determine a grass maintenance procedure that can be performed by the grass maintenance system”); and ● generate, with the at least one electronic processor, a revised lawn treatment plan based on the information indicative of the revised soil composition (see at least Lee ¶¶0065-0067, 0071 in view of Lytle, Jr. ‘359 c2:15-55 (regarding adjustment of the plan as the lawn changes over time following treatment).Claim 51. The system of claim 47, wherein the fulfillment center is further configured to: ● determine, with the at least one electronic processor, an amount of a required nutrient for a period of time for the lawn (see at least Lee ¶¶0067, 0071, in view of Lytle, Jr.’359 c2:4-14, c5:16-29, c10:23-60 (amount of product provided to user in a cartridge for application)); and
● determine, with the at least one electronic processor, what packets of a plurality of possible packets to deliver to meet the amount of the required nutrient, wherein the plurality of possible packets are created in preset configurations of sizes and nutrient contents (see at least Lytle, Jr.’359 c2:4-14, c5: 16-29, c10:23-60).
Claim 53. The system of claim 47, wherein the fulfillment center is further configured to:
● receive a six data including information indicative of an updated weather forecasts (see at least Lee fig.4, ¶¶0064, 0098, 0100 “Examples of these sensors may be integrated into the autonomous vehicle 100 so as to determine various environmental information when the vehicle 100 is operating. Rain sensors or moisture sensors, as well as weather conditions or air quality sensors may be placed on the vehicle 100 itself and thus the vehicle 100 is able to obtain various environmental information as it navigates about the operating area. This information may then be transmitted to an external computing device, such as a server or to a user's smart phone for processing and storage. In turn, this information may be used by the controller”); and ● generate, with the at least one electronic processor, a revised lawn treatment plan based on information indicative of the updated weather forecasts (see at least Lee ¶0100 “this information may be used by the controller 202 to determine an operation plan for the grass maintenance system,” Lytle, Jr.’356 c2:15-55).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Paper No. 20250701; Pub. No. US 2021/0337716 A1) in view of Ethington et al. (Paper No. 20230529; Pub. No. US 2021/0350478 A1) and further in view of Lytle, Jr. (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 9,655,356 B1) as applied to claim 47, and further in view of Ersek (Paper No. 20220916; Patent No. US 8,126,819 B1).
Lee in view of Ethington and further in view of Lytle, Jr.’356 teaches all of the above as noted. Lee in view of Ethington and further in view of Lytle, Jr.’356 discloses a) gathering information, b) provision of service, c) providing treatment materials in the utilized area, and d) determining information and revising information regarding the treated area, but does not explicitly disclose calculating a revised lawn size based on satellite image analysis.
Ersek also teaches a) gathering information, b) provision of service, c) providing treatment materials in the utilized area, and d) determining information and revising information regarding the treated area, and Ersek further discloses calculating a revised lawn size based on satellite image analysis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Lee in view of Ethington and further in view of Lytle, Jr.’356 to include calculating a revised lawn size based on satellite image analysis, as taught by Ersek since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Ersek in the method of Lee in view of Ethington and further in view of Lytle, Jr.’356. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Lee in view of Ethington, further in view of Lytle, Jr.’356, and further in view of Ersek teaches, pertaining to
Claim 48. The system of claim 47, wherein the fulfillment center is further configured to: ● receive an order indication after providing the lawn treatment plan to the end user (see at least Lee ¶0078 " it may also prompt the user, or directly access by itself, an online store of consumables which may be needed to execute these lawn maintenance
programs, including the purchase of seeds or fertilizers”);
● calculate a revised lawn size based on satellite image analysis (see at least Lee ¶0092 “As described above, the navigation module 300 may also be arranged to be able to generate a virtual model of the lawn terrain with environmental information including the size of the lawn,” in view of Ersek abstract, c2:8-24 "GPS satellite imaging photographs are periodically updated to ensure that the most current lot size information is provided"); and
● generate a revised lawn treatment plan based on the revised lawn size (see at least Ersek c5:1-11 "information from step 144 is added to the database (not shown) to update for future lawn care treatment services").
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights