DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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.
Applicant's response, filed 10/30/2025, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. Herein, "the previous Office action" refers to the Non-Final Rejection of 07/30/2025.
Withdrawal of rejections
In view of the claim amendments and the Remarks from 10/30/2025, the rejection of the following claims is hereby withdrawn:
claims 1-2, 5 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
claims 3-4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following rejections and/or objections are either maintained or newly applied for claims 1-15. They constitute the complete set applied to the instant application.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Priority
This US Application 17/644,385 (12/15/2021) claims priority from Foreign Application No. JP2020-213386 (12/23/2020) as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on Dec. 30, 2021. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged and the effective filing date of claims 1-15 is 12/23/2020.
Claim Rejections and Responses - 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.
Rejections
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more Judicial Exceptions (JEs) without significantly more. Regarding JEs, "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas..., natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 §I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
101 background
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
The instant claims are directed to a system (claims 1-11 and 14-15), a method (claim 12), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 13); each of which falls within one of the categories of statutory subject matter.
[Step 1: claims 1-15 - Yes]
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
• mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships
and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or
• mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Analysis of instant claims
Mental processes, defined as concepts or steps practically performed in the human mind such as steps of observations, evaluations, judgments, analysis, opinions or organizing information include:
• "determine/determining .. an application amount of … nutrient …" (claims 1, 12-13 and 15);
• "determine a growth use amount of … nutrient …" (claims 5-6 and 8);
• "determine a reference amount of the at least one nutrient to be used for the growth …" (claim 6); and
• "determine the growth use amount for each of a plurality of partial periods " (claim 7);
Under the BRI, the recited limitations are mental processes because a human mind is sufficiently capable of comparison or evaluation of data and making a decision based on the data. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Dependent claim 2 recites further details about the "determination" step; dependent claims 9 and 14 recite further details about the "nutrient"; not reciting any additional non-abstract elements; all reciting further aspects of the information being analyzed, the manner in which that analysis is performed. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas. The instant claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong One: claims 1-15 - Yes]
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Background
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Analysis of instant claims
Instant claims 1, 3-4, 10-13 and 15 recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
• "at least one memory and at least one processor" (claim 1);
• "performing the method on at least one computer" (claim 12);
• "computer readable medium" (claim 13);
• "computer program code" (claims 1 and 15);
• "acquire/acquiring number-of-users information …" (claims 1 and 12-13);
• "transmit the application amount to a terminal" (claims 1 and 12-13);
• "acquire past number-of-users information …" (claim 3);
• "acquire reservation status information …" (claim 4); and
• "output nutrient amount information …" (claims 10-11).
Hence, the claims explicitly recite steps executed by computers and therefore can be described as computer functions. Dependent claims 3-4 recite further details about the "computer program code".
Claims directed to "acquiring" data read on receiving data and performing a standard computer task, which the courts have identified as a conventional computer function in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). MPEP 2106.05(a) pertains.
Claims directed to "outputting" data read on transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321. MPEP 2106.05(a) pertains. Claims directed to "transmit the application amount to a terminal, wherein the application amount notifies the terminal of an amount applied to the lawn" also read on outputting data; not amounting to an actual practical application yet.
Merely providing an indication of nutrient amount cannot be a practical application because the limitation does not provide an actual improvement to the technology. These additional elements appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g) because they merely serve as necessary data gathering/outputting and do not amount to a practical application. Any improvement to technology must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and the improvement must be provided by one or more additional elements, either on their own or in combination with the recited judicial exception.
Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore the claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; 2106.05(f); and 2106.05(g)). None of the dependent claims recite any additional non-abstract elements; they are all directed to further aspects of the information being analyzed, the manner in which that analysis is performed, or the mathematical operations performed on the information.
In Step 2A, Prong One above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In this Step 2A, Prong Two immediately above claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more additional elements. Additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B below.
Here in Step 2A, Prong Two, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, Prong Two considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement.
[Step 2A Prong Two: claims 1-15 - No]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during examination that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
Claims directed to "acquiring" data read on performing a standard computer task, which the courts have identified as a conventional computer function in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claims directed to "outputting" data read on electronically outputting data on a computer which is a conventional computer function (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) MPEP 2106.05(d)).
When the claims are considered as a whole, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; they do not confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology; they do not solve a problem rooted in or arising from the use of a particular technology; they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(h).
[Step 2B: claims 1-15 - No]
Conclusion: Instant claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter
For these reasons, the claims in this instant application, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so instant claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to applicant's remarks in regard to Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 101
The Remarks of 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but are not yet persuasive for the reasons below:
At pg. 10 para. 3 Applicant asserts (emphasis added):
...claim 1 is not directed to a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One, … claim 1, as amended, recites transmitting the determined application amount to a terminal functionality that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
It appears that the remarks address Step 2A, Prong One. It can be agreed that claim 1 in its entirety is not directed to a mental process. However, claim 1 does present certain recitations that can be performed in the human mind such as "determining amount of nutrients" (all identified mental processes are described in this instant examination). The fact that the claims recite mental steps claimed to be executed by a device does not negate the fact that said steps can be performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the "transmitting" step has been identified as an additional element and not as a mental process. See Claim Rejections above. While this limitation is not a judicial exception, it does not negate the fact that there are limitations that recite a judicial exception in the claim.
Applicant asserts (pg. 11 para. 2)
…the claim as a whole integrates any such idea into a practical application. … claim 1 provides a technically implemented solution to a technological problem. The Specification explains … Determining proper fertilizer nutrient amounts has therefore been an imprecise, labor-intensive process prone to under- or over-fertilization, resulting in lawn deterioration or unnecessary maintenance costs. Id. at 27-28 … To address this technical problem, the disclosed system automates nutrient application determination … the system determines an appropriate nutrient application amount based on this data and transmits it to a terminal for execution. This approach prevents both under- and over fertilization, …, the Specification describes - and claim 1 embodies - a technological improvement in the form of automated, data-driven nutrient management …
It appears that the remarks address Step 2A, Prong Two – 1st consideration regarding improvement over the previous state of a technology field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). As noted by the Applicant at pg. 1 – "incorporating claim limitations directed to the use of the determined application amount in fertilization may demonstrate integration of the alleged abstract idea into a practical application". As currently recited, the claims do not demonstrate the integration of the judicial exception (determination of an amount of a nutrient) into a practical application. The argued "solution to a technological problem" is not yet realized by an additional element. All identified additional elements read on either receiving or outputting data; which is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a) pertains. Furthermore, the argued "the system automates nutrient application determination" is not recited in any element of the claims. The step of transmitting the information about the determination step reads on receiving/outputting data and does not serve as an additional element that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application, as explained in the previous paragraph.
Response to applicant's remarks regarding Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 103
No prior art has been applied to the following claims
Claims 1-15 are free of the analogous art at least because close art, e.g. Cropper, as cited in the now withdrawn art rejections as well as art found on the IDSs and in the search histories, either individually or in obvious combination, does not teach the claim 1 recited combination of "acquire number-of-users information indicating a number of users who use a sports facility within a predetermined period, the sports facility having lawn on which a sport is played; … determine based on the acquired number-of-users information an application amount of at least one nutrient … transmit the application amount to a terminal, wherein the application amount notifies the terminal of an amount of the at least one nutrient to be used in a fertilizer." Independent claims 12-13 recite similar limitations and also are free of the art. Additionally, Applicant's 10/30/2025 remarks at p. 14 support withdrawal of the rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 FRANCINI A FONSECA LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM ET.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/F.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686