DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 3/5/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 5 have been amended.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 have been cancelled.
Claims 8-14 are new.
Claim 5 and 8-14 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §103, respectively. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]-[0004]) that the legalization of marijuana has led to a fast growing and prosperous industry involving thousands of cannabis strains, each of which having a different effect on the body, yet not much is known about the effects of each strain. So a need exists to organize these human interactions through monitoring and customizing consumption of herbs using the steps of “measuring pressure on scales, grinding herbs, deriving herb weight from scales, generating customized plans for herb consumption,” etc. Applicant’s system/method is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities.
Rejection
Claim(s) 5 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 5 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “monitoring and customizing consumption of herbs,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0001]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 5 and 8-14 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
In the alternative, the claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method for performing the steps of “measuring pressure on scales, grinding herbs, deriving herb weight from scales, generating customized plans for herb consumption,” etc., that is “monitoring and customizing consumption of herbs,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 5 and 8-14 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. electronic scale, herb grinder, computing device, network, server computer, advertiser computer, mobile computing device, processor, app distribution computer (Applicant’s Specification [0023], [0025], [0031], [0037], [0068], [0073]), etc.) to perform steps of “measuring pressure on scales, grinding herbs, deriving herb weight from scales, generating customized plans for herb consumption,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 5 and 8-14 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. electronic scale, herb grinder, computing device, network, server computer, advertiser computer, mobile computing device, processor, app distribution computer, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. electronic scale, herb grinder, computing device, network, server computer, advertiser computer, mobile computing device, processor, app distribution computer, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0023], [0025], [0031], [0037], [0068], [0073], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “electronic scale, herb grinder, computing device, network, server computer, advertiser computer, mobile computing device, processor, app distribution computer,” etc. to perform the functions of “measuring pressure on scales, grinding herbs, deriving herb weight from scales, generating customized plans for herb consumption,” etc. The recited “electronic scale, herb grinder, computing device, network, server computer, advertiser computer, mobile computing device, processor, app distribution computer,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 5 and 8-14 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 8-14 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
In the alternative, although dependent claims 8-14 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 8-14 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 8-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessiman 2016 (Reference U), in view of Walczak (US 2016/0270597), further in view of Adams (US 2018/0058909), further in view of Chu (US 2020/0372993).
CLAIM 5
As per claim 5, Jessiman 2016 discloses:
a digital herb scale (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2) having a second mode to calculate the weight of the herbs, the digital herb scale comprising:
a top part (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2) comprising:
a lid member having a ledge (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2),
a top housing unit (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2),
a bottom part (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2) comprising:
a bottom housing unit (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2)
a scale plate embedded within the bottom housing unit, the scale plate having area that has a snug fit connection with said ledge of said lid member (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2),
an electronic scale arranged such that to measure pressure on said scale plate (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2),
a power module (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2), and
wherein in the second mode to operate the scale, the bottom part is set upon the top part so that the ledge of the lid member fits the embedded area on the bottom part (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2)
wherein, weight of herbs on said digital herb scale is derived from pressure on said scale plate from said lid member that said scale plate is placed thereupon (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2).
Jessiman 2016 fails to expressly disclose:
combined
an herb grinder having a first mode to grind herbs
a top grinding plate
a bottom grinding plate
wherein in the first mode to operate the herb grinder, the top part is set upon the bottom part, and the top grinding plate and the bottom grinding plate are used to grind herbs.
However, Walczak teaches:
combined (Walczak, Figure 3, Figure 4)
an herb grinder having a first mode to grind herbs (Walczak, Figure 3, Figure 4)
a top grinding plate (Walczak, Figure 3)
a bottom grinding plate (Walczak, Figure 4)
wherein in the first mode to operate the herb grinder, the top part is set upon the bottom part, and the top grinding plate and the bottom grinding plate are used to grind herbs (Walczak, Figure 3, Figure 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “combined,” etc. as taught by Walczak within the apparatus as taught by the Jessiman 2016 with the motivation of providing prevent injury when operating electronic herb grinding devices (Walczak, [0002]-[0005]).
Jessiman 2016 and Walczak further disclose:
wherein the lid member top housing unit (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2) and top grinding (Walczak, Figure 3 ) are formed as a unitary body (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2)
wherein the bottom grinding plate (Walczak, Figure 4), the bottom housing unit, the electronic scale are formed as a unitary body (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2).
Jessiman 2016 and Walczak fail to expressly teach:
a microprocessor
a communication module
wherein the digital herb scale is configured to communicate with.
However, Adams teaches:
a microprocessor (Adams, [0032])
a communication module (Adams, [0038])
wherein the digital herb scale is configured to communicate with (Adams, [0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “a microprocessor,” etc. as taught by Adams within the apparatus as taught by the Jessiman 2016 and Walczak with the motivation of providing weight measurements for harvested products that must be measured at an extremely accurate rate (Adams, [0003]).
Jessiman 2016 and Walczak and Adams fail to expressly teach:
a server computer coupled to a database, and wherein the digital herb scale is used for generating a customized plan for herb consumption for a person.
However, Adams teaches:
a server computer coupled to a database, and wherein the digital herb scale is used for generating a customized plan for herb consumption for a person (Chu, [0063]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “a server computer coupled to a database, and wherein the digital herb scale is used for generating a customized plan for herb consumption for a person,” etc. as taught by Chu within the apparatus as taught by the Jessiman 2016 and Walczak and Adams with the motivation of providing improve Cannabis formulations (Chu, [0030]).
CLAIM 8
As per claim 8, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu
teach the apparatus of claim 5 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the top part and bottom part have a hexagonal shape (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2).
Examiner Note: Recitation of a hexagonal shape is a design choice with no patent distinguishing function or attribute. See JP20001502A, JP200326151A.
CLAIM 9
As per claim 9, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu
teach the apparatus of claim 5 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the top grinding plate is removable for cleaning purposes (Walczak, Figure 4).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Walczak with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016 is discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 10
As per claim 10, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu
teach the apparatus of claim 5 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the bottom grinding plate is removable for cleaning purposes (Walczak, Figure 4).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Walczak with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016 is discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 11
As per claim 11, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu
teach the apparatus of claim 5 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the bottom housing unit is a tubular casing member(Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2).
Examiner Note: Recitation of a hexagonal shape is a design choice with no patent distinguishing function or attribute. See JP20001502A, JP200326151A.
Claims 12-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessiman 2016 (Reference U), in view of Walczak (US 2016/0270597), further in view of Adams (US 2018/0058909), in view of Chu (US 2020/0372993), further in view of Seckel et al. (US 2017/0319009).
CLAIM 12
As per claim 12, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu
teach the apparatus of claim 5.
Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu do not teach:
wherein the bottom part further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB).
However, Seckel et al. teach:
wherein the bottom part further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (Seckel et al., Figure 12, [0053] PCB).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “wherein the bottom part further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB),” etc. as taught by Seckel et al. with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu with the motivation of providing an apparatus for grinding, storing, transporting, and dispensing herbs, (Seckel et al., [0002])
CLAIM 13
As per claim 13, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu
teach the apparatus of claim 12 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the bottom part further comprises a battery (Seckel et al., [0131] battery).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Seckel et al. with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 14
As per claim 14, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu
teach the apparatus of claim 13 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the printed circuit board (PCB) and the battery 407 are mounted under a connecting plate, wherein the connecting plate that holds the bottom grinding plate on the top side and holds the PCB on the bottom (Seckel et al., Figure 12, [0053] PCB).
Examiner Note: The configuration of the PCB board and battery is a design choice with no patent distinguishing function or attribute.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Seckel et al. with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/5/2025 with respect to claims 5 and 8-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 3/5/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/5/2025 with respect to claims 5 and 8-14 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Chu, Adams, Stivoric, Heinbach and Walczak do not render obvious the present invention because Chu, Adams, Stivoric, Heinbach and Walczak do not disclose “a combined digital herb scale and herb grinder having a first mode to grind herbs and a second mode to calculate the weight of the herbs,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), it is respectfully submitted that the Examiner has applied/recited new passages and citations to amended claims 5 and newly added claims 8-14 at the present time. The Examiner notes that the amended and newly added limitations were not in the previously pending claims. As such, Applicant’s remarks with regard to the application of Chu, Adams, Stivoric, Heinbach and Walczak to the amended and newly added limitations are addressed above in the Office Action.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 free 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 CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights