DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1-10 and 25-26 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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 11/26/2025, amended claims 1-10 and 25-26; withdrawn claims 11-24.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-10 and 25-26, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-10 and 25-26, under 35 USC 112(b), have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 11/26/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “independent claims 1 and 25 that are not the abstract idea are not simply generic computing elements as asserted by the Office, but rather integrate any abstract ideas of these claims into a practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claim 25, are the recitations of “a first cycle customer tray having a plurality of propagules; a multi-cycle replacement tray; 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; a second cycle customer tray having a plurality of second cycle customer tray propagules; transplanting a multi-cycle replacement tray propagule from said multi-cycle; replacement tray to replace a defective second cycle customer tray propagule; 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; 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; a second cycle customer tray having a plurality of propagules; a second cycle customer tray primary growth environment control having an operator interface; and a second cycle customer primary growth environment to influence said second cycle customer tray are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
Applicant asserts that “independent claims 1 and 25, like those in Example 25, add meaningful limitations on the use of the alleged abstract ideas.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Initially it is noted that the Diamond V. Diehr case was directed to a manufacturing control system that operated a rubber-molding press. At issue in the case was the use of a mathematical formula, which determined the cure time for the rubber. The Court repeated its earlier holding that mathematical formulas in the abstract are not eligible for patent protection. However, it also held that a physical machine or process that makes use of a mathematical algorithm is different from an invention, which claims the algorithm, as such, in the abstract. Thus, if the invention as a whole meets the requirements of patentability—that is, it involves "transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing"—it is patent-eligible, even if it includes a software component.
The instant application is not directed to a manufacturing control process nor do the claims transform or reduce an article to a different state or thing. Although the claims recited limitations that generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely the field of use of an agricultural production. – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
In addition, paras [0020]-[0021] of the Specification discloses that an optimally efficient donor process, to attain 100 percent order fulfillment, additional metrics may be utilized….receive 100 percent or a high percentage of order fulfillment, new metrics may be generated are mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims are also directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity concepts.
Applicant asserts that “Applicant's amended independent claims 1 and 25 are like the patent eligible claims in Example 36.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument regarding similar to Example 36 is not persuasive. In Example 36, the memory and processor in combination with a high-resolution video camera array with predetermined overlapping views that reconstructs the 3-D coordinates of the item of inventory using overlapping images of the item and prior knowledge of the location and field of view of the cameras provides significantly more than the abstract idea of using data collection techniques to manage inventory. Further, using a high-resolution video camera array with overlapping views to track items of inventory was not well understood, routine, conventional activity to those in the field of inventory control. In fact, the use of this camera array provides the ability to track objects throughout the entire storage space rather than simply the view of a single camera and determine their 3‐D location without any of the manual steps that were required of previous methods. That is, the video camera array with reconstruction software provides the technological solution to the technological problem of automatically tracking objects and determining their physical position using a computer vision system. In the instant application, it does not provide a specific technical solution beyond simply using generic computer concepts in a conventional way in order to (i.e. replacing defective propagules of cultivated plants and cultivating plant defective propagule replacement). There is no such analog in applicant’s specification.
Applicant asserts that “Like in Finjan, review of the Applicant's specification (discussed above) discloses that growth curve information optimizes donor tray replacement timing dependent on such growth curves, and also like in Finjan.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The patent in Finjan provides a method that improves computer security where a security profile is attached to the downloaded item. The independent method claim in Finjan recites: A method comprising: receiving by an inspector a downloadable; generating by the inspector a first downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the received downloadable; linking by the inspector the first downloadable security profile to the downloadable before a web server makes the downloadable available to web clients. Also, the claims recited more than a mere result and provided specific steps of generating a security profile that identifies suspicious code and links it to a downloadable. There is no such analog in Applicant’s specification. Further, the applicant's use of a computer is merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment which does not provide significantly more.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claim 25, are the recitations of “a first cycle customer tray having a plurality of propagules; a multi-cycle replacement tray; 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; a second cycle customer tray having a plurality of second cycle customer tray propagules; transplanting a multi-cycle replacement tray propagule from said multi-cycle; replacement tray to replace a defective second cycle customer tray propagule; 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; 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; a second cycle customer tray having a plurality of propagules; a second cycle customer tray primary growth environment control having an operator interface; and a second cycle customer primary growth environment to influence said second cycle customer tray are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant asserts that “Like in McRO, Applicant's specification (discussed above) explains how the use of growth curves enables donor tray optimization that previously could not be automated, and also like in McRO.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of McRO decision/case. McRO invention is different as compared to Applicant’s claimed invention, in that McRO invention improves the computer technology by enabling computer technology to perform a fundamental human process of lip-synching by using rules that are different than a human would perform lip-synching. Further, the Applicant’s argument focuses on the ordered combination of rules/algorithms/techniques such as vector space model and others that are stated to be part of the abstract idea in the outstanding rejection, and not on the limitations identified as additional elements. Note that, a claim to an abstract idea is not rendered patentable even if it is “[groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant.” See SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018). See also October 2019 Guidance, page 13 – “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited a mental process concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
Further, additional limitations of the claimed invention do not include any particular machine. While the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Merely adding automatically, computer system, an automated propagule punch system, and an artificially intelligent (see applicant’s specification paras 0047-0049 “According to some embodiments, a future projection of transplant propagule need comprises a 100 percent or near 100 percent (within 10 percent) customer order fulfillment metric……”) to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). On the contrary, Applicant’s claimed invention merely invokes the additional limitations of hardware and software elements as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which does not provide a practical application/significantly more for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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; deriving growth curve information based on said multi-cycle horticultural growth relationships; developing at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric utilizing said growth curve information; said multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric utilizing said growth curve information for operation; determining the multi-cycle future propagule number requirement; inputting said multi-cycle future propagule number requirement into said multi- cycle replacement tray maximization metric utilizing said growth curve information for operation; primarily growing a first cycle customer tray having a plurality of propagules utilizing said growth curve information as provided for a program implemented to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric utilizing said growth curve information; at least part simultaneously differentially growing a multi-cycle replacement tray utilizing said growth curve information based on said multi-cycle future propagule number requirement and said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric utilizing said growth curve information 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 utilizing said growth curve information; 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 utilizing said growth curve information; primarily growing a second cycle customer tray having a plurality of second cycle customer tray propagules utilizing said growth curve information as provided for implementing to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric utilizing said growth curve information; accepting a valid replacement need; providing for implementing to utilize said at least one multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric utilizing said growth curve information; 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 utilizing said growth curve information.
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
utilizing growth curve information derived from
prior propagule growth information, and includes quantitative plant multi-growth stage parameterized horticultural growth relationships; a multi-cycle future propagule number requirement input, multi-cycle replacement tray maximization metric utilizing growth curve information; 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 utilizing growth curve information; 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 utilizing growth curve information; 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 utilizing growth curve information; 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 replacing defective propagules of cultivated plants and cultivating plant defective propagule replacement. 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 replacing defective propagules of cultivated plants and cultivating plant defective propagule replacement. 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 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 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 12/16/2025
Prosecution Insights