DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits. Claims 1-26 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 and 25-26 are provisionally elected without traverse. Claims 11-18 and 19-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 25-26 (Group I) in the reply filed on 5/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-18 are drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II) and claims 19-24 are drawn to a nonelected invention (Group III).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-10 and 25-26 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.
Claims 1-10 recite “a method of cultivating plants for efficient order fulfillment as described in claim 1……………………” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations because they have failed to introduce the elements before they refer back to them.
Claim 26 recites “an automated, computer implemented efficient plant order fulfillment system as described in claim 25.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations because they have failed to introduce the elements before they refer back to them.
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 1-10 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-10 and 25-26 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes “utilizing prior propagule growth information to quantitatively develop multi-cycle horticultural growth relationships; developing at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; said multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric for operation; determining the multi-cycle future propagule order fulfillment requirement; inputting said multi-cycle future propagule order fulfillment requirement into said multi- cycle replacement tray maximization metric for operation; primarily growing a first cycle customer tray having a plurality of propagules as provided for a program implemented to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; at least part simultaneously differentially growing a multi-cycle replacement tray based on said multi-cycle future propagule order fulfillment requirement and said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric as indicated to optimize multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; accepting a valid replacement need; providing for a program implemented to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; transplanting a multi-cycle replacement tray propagule from said multi-cycle replacement tray to replace a defective first cycle customer tray propagule in said first cycle customer tray through use; primarily growing a second cycle customer tray having a plurality of second cycle customer tray propagules as provided for implementing to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; accepting a valid replacement need; providing for implementing to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; and transplanting a multi-cycle replacement tray propagule from said multi-cycle replacement tray to replace a defective second cycle customer tray propagule through use.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 25 recites an abstract idea. Claim 25 includes “storing multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric, wherein said multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric includes parameters based on prior propagule growth information, and includes quantitative plant multi-growth stage parameterized horticultural growth relationships; a multi-cycle future propagule order fulfillment requirement input, multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; a first cycle customer tray having a plurality of propagules; a first cycle customer tray primary growth environment control having an operator interface; a first cycle customer primary growth environment to influence said first cycle customer tray, and to operate as provided for implementing to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; a multi-cycle replacement tray having a plurality of donor propagules; an at least partly simultaneous, differential donor growth environment control having an operator interface; a donor growth environment to operate as provided for implementing to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; a first cycle customer tray; a second cycle customer tray having a plurality of propagules; a second cycle customer tray primary growth environment control having an operator interface; a second cycle customer primary growth environment to influence said second cycle customer tray, and to operate as provided for implementing to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric; and a second cycle customer tray”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and certain methods of organizing human activity-commercial (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because the elements describe a process for cultivating plants for efficient order fulfillment. As a result, claims 1 and 25 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-10 and 26 further describe the process for cultivating plants for efficient order fulfillment. As a result, claims 2-10 and 26 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 25.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1 and 25 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 25 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1 and 25 include automatically, programming, a programmable plant growth configured computer system, and an automated propagule punch system. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1 and 25 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1 and 25. As a result, claims 2-7 and 9-10 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 25.
Claims 7-8 and 26 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 7-8 and 26 include automatically, computer system, an automated propagule punch system, and an artificially intelligent. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 7-8 and 26 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1 and 25 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1 and 25 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1 and 25 include automatically, programming, a programmable plant growth configured computer system, and an automated propagule punch system. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1 and 25 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1 and 25. As a result, claims 2-7 and 9-10 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 25.
Claims 7-8 and 26 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 7-8 and 26 include automatically, computer system, an automated propagule punch system, and an artificially intelligent. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7-8 and 26 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Software per se
Claims 25-26 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A system or apparatus defined merely by software, or terms synonymous with software or files, represents functional descriptive material (e.g. data structures or software) per se. Such material is considered non-statutory when claimed without appropriate corresponding structure. Here, in the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the Applicant’s claim 25 recites an automated, computer implemented efficient pl ant order fulfilment system comprising: “automatically”, “programming”, “a programmable plant growth configured computer system”, and “an automated propagule punch system” encompass functions that can be executed entirely as software per se. As currently written, the claimed system lacks structure and is therefore non-statutory. Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 26 also recite elements that encompass functions that can be executed entirely as software per se. As a result, claims 26 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 25-26 appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC § 101 and 112 rejections.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention Greenberg et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0304326) (hereinafter Greenberg et al.), in view of in view of Tagawa et al. (US Pub No. 2003/0029087) (hereinafter Tagawa et al.), in view of Maass et al. (US Pub No. 2007/0203774) (hereinafter Maass et al.), and further in view of in view of Abate et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0099590) (hereinafter Abate et al.) teach the limitations of claim 1 but do not teach programming said multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric for automated operation by a programmable plant growth configured computer system; as automatically indicated by said program to optimize multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric in said programable plant growth configured computer system; first indicating a transplant on said programmable plant growth configured computer system as a result of said step of automatically providing for a program implemented to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric in said programmable plant growth configured computer system; second indicating a transplant on said programmable plant growth configured computer system as a result of said step of automatically providing for a program implemented to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric in said programmable plant growth configured computer system limitations of claim 1). Therefore, the references do not individually disclose each and every limitation recited in claim 1, and there is no obvious rationale that if one were to combine the references, there is no predictable result. The novelty and nonobviousness of the claim is in the combination of limitations and not in any single limitation.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention Greenberg et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0304326) (hereinafter Greenberg et al.), in view of in view of Tagawa et al. (US Pub No. 2003/0029087) (hereinafter Tagawa et al.), in view of Maass et al. (US Pub No. 2007/0203774) (hereinafter Maass et al.), and further in view of in view of Abate et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0099590) (hereinafter Abate et al.) teach the limitations of claim 25 but do not teach at least one computer stored, multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric program stored in said programmable plant growth configured computer system, wherein said at least one computer stored, multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric program; a multi-cycle future propagule order fulfillment requirement input for said programmable plant growth configured computer system, and that interfaces with said at least one computer stored, multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric program; to operate as automatically provided for a program implemented to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric in said programmable plant growth configured computer system; a multi-cycle replacement tray having a plurality of donor propagules; at least partly simultaneous, differential donor growth environment control having an operator interface with said programmable plant growth configured computer system; a donor growth environment configured to operate as automatically provided for a program implemented to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric in said programmable plant growth configured computer system; and a second cycle customer primary growth environment configured to influence said second cycle customer tray, and to operate as automatically provided for a program implemented to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric in said programmable plant growth configured computer system limitations of claim 25). Therefore, the references do not individually disclose each and every limitation recited in claim 25, and there is no obvious rationale that if one were to combine the references, there is no predictable result. The novelty and nonobviousness of the claim is in the combination of limitations and not in any single limitation.
While the teachings of Greenberg et al., Tagawa et al., Maass et al., and Abate et al. separately address different parts of the claimed invention, these teachings would not be combinable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a predictable combination that would render the claimed invention obvious. Thus, the novelty of the claimed invention is in the combination of limitations rather than any single limitation.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US Pub No. 2004/0079263; US Pub No. 2005/0045079; US Pub No. 2011/0162274; US Pub No 2021/0319489; US Pat No. 11,158,006; US Pub No. 2021/0059105; US Pat No. 11,393,193; US Pub No. 2015/0143806; US Pat No. 5,320,649; US Pat No. 10,470,282; US Pat No. 10,922,428; US Pub No. 2017/0351790; Nonarni et al "Environmental Control for Plant Growth in Plant Factory Operation and Greenhouse Management From Physiological Viewpoint", IFAC Mathematical and Control Applications in Agriculture and Horticulture, pp. 125-130. (Year: 1991); and HG Megersa (Propagation methods of selected horticultural crops by specialized organs: review) J Hortic, 2017-researchgate.net.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri (8am - 5pm) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 07/10/2025