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.
Withdrawal of Objections and Rejections
Applicant's response, filed 04/30/2026, has been fully considered.
The following rejections and/or objections are either maintained or newly applied for claims 1 and 4-15. They constitute the complete set applied to the instant application. Herein, "the previous Office action" refers to the Final Rejection of 01/30/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-3 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 4-15 are pending.
Claims 1 and 4-15 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 and 4-15 is 12/23/2020.
Claim interpretation
Claim terminology
Regarding claim 1, the recited "wherein the terminal manages an amount of the fertilizer applied to the lawn within the predetermined period based on the application amount" is interpreted as intended use because the terminal is not part of the claimed device, therefore the recited wherein clause is only an intended use of what the terminal is doing with the information as supported by this instant specification starting at pg. 8 line 3 which discloses “Examples of the user golf course terminals 2 include a tablet computer, a personal computer, and the like… The employee… performs fertilization management by using the golf course terminals." There is no evidence that indicates the terminal can be something other than a computer giving instructions to an employee to perform the management. Same applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 12, the recited "wherein the terminal manages an amount of the fertilizer applied to the lawn within the predetermined period based on the application amount" is interpreted as intended use because the wherein clause only limits the terminal earlier recited, not limiting a method step, therefore not constituting an active step.
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 and 4-15 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)). Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
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 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Analysis of instant claims
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, 4-11 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 and 4-15: 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))?
Background
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
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) and mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) are as follows.
Mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) include:
• "determining, based on a ratio of the number of users indicated by the number-of-users information to the maximum value of the number of users, a conditional maximum amount, wherein the conditional maximum amount is a reference amount under an optimum air temperature for growth of the lawn" (independent claims 12-13).
The claims identified above read on math. The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and determined each element performed either in the mind and/or by mathematical operation. Without further detail as to the methodology involved in "using a ratio information to obtain an amount", under the BRI, one may simply, for example, use pen and paper to perform mathematical steps to arrive at the described steps. Further support for the mathematical techniques used in the claims is provided in the specification at pg. 33 para. 3, which discloses equation and parameters to arrive at said conditional amount. Thus, the recited terms correspond to verbal equivalents of mathematical concepts because they constitute actions executed by a group of mathematical steps in a form of a mathematical algorithm; thus mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). A mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) pertains.
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:
• "acquire/acquiring past number-of-users information indicating a number of users who have used a sports facility within a past period before a predetermined period" (independent claims 1 and 12-13);
• "acquire/acquiring number-of-users information indicating a number of users predicted to use the sports facility within a-the predetermined period based on the past number-of-users information, the sports facility having a lawn on which a sport is played" (independent claims 1 and 12-13);
• "determine a maximum value of the number of users of the sports facility within the predetermined period" (independent claims 1 and 12-13);
• "determine, based on a ratio of the number of users indicated by the number-of- users information to the maximum value of the number of users, a conditional maximum amount" (independent claim 1);
• "determining, based on a ratio of the number of users indicated by the number-of-users information to the maximum value of the number of users, a conditional maximum amount, wherein the conditional maximum amount is a reference amount under an optimum air temperature for growth of the lawn" (independent claims 12-13);
• "determine a cut element amount for the lawn based on the conditional maximum amount, an optimum air temperature, and air temperature information" (independent claims 1 and 12-13);
• "determine an application amount of at least one nutrient based on the cut element amount for the lawn, wherein the application amount is increased as the number of users indicated by the number-of-users information increases" (independent claims 1 and 12);
• "acquire reservation status information indicating a status of reservation for using the sports facility within the predetermined period" (claim 4);
• "acquire the number-of-users information indicating the number of users predicted to use the sports facility within the predetermined period based on the acquired reservation status information" (claim 4);
• "determine a growth use amount of the at least one nutrient to be used for growth of grass in the lawn based on the acquired number-of-users information, and determine the application amount based on the determined growth use amount" (claim 5);
• "determine a reference amount of the at least one nutrient to be used for the growth of the grass in the lawn at the optimum air temperature for the growth of the grass based on the acquired number-of-users information, and determine the growth use amount based on the determined reference amount and an air temperature within the predetermined period" (claim 6);
• "determine the growth use amount for each of a plurality of partial periods included in the predetermined period based on the determined reference amount and an air temperature in each of the plurality of partial periods, and determine the application amount for each of the plurality of partial periods based on the determined growth use amount" (claim 7);
• "determine the growth use amount of the first nutrient based on the acquired number- of-users information, and determine the growth use amount of the second nutrient based on the determined growth use amount of the first nutrient and ratio information indicating a ratio between an amount of the first nutrient and an amount of the second nutrient which are included in the grass in the lawn as constituents of the grass" (claim 8); and
• "determine by inductivity plasma analysis an elemental composition ratio of the lawn, and … determine the application amount based on the acquired number-of-users information and the elemental composition ratio (claim 15).
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 claims 9 and 14 recite further steps that limit the judicial exceptions in independent claim 1 and, as such, also are directed to those abstract ideas. For example, claims 9 and 14 recite further details about the nutrient.
[Step 2A Prong One: claims 1 and 4-15: 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, 4-8, 10-13 and 15 recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
• "at least one memory having computer program code stored thereon" (independent claim 1);
• "at least one processor configured to read the computer program code from the at least one memory and operate as instructed by the computer program code" (independent claim 1);
• "past number-of-users information acquisition code" (independent claim 1);
• "acquisition code" (claims 1 and 4);
• "determination code" (claims 1, 5-8 and 15);
• "computer program code" (claims 1, 4, 10 and 15);
• "determination program" (independent claim 13);
• "information output code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to 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 applied to the lawn of the sports facility by fertilization within the predetermined period, and wherein the terminal manages an amount of the fertilizer applied to the lawn within the predetermined period based on the application amount" (independent claim 1);
• "wherein the terminal manages an amount of the fertilizer applied to the lawn within the predetermined period based on the application amount" (claims 1 and 12-13);
• "reservation status information acquisition code" (claim 4)
• "output nutrient amount information indicating an amount of the at least one nutrient that should be applied to the lawn by fertilization based on the determined application amount" (claim 10)
• "in a case where the amount of fertilizer to be applied to the lawn within the predetermined period is input, output the nutrient amount information indicating an excessive or deficient amount of the at least one nutrient based on the input amount of fertilizer, a mass percentage of the at least one nutrient in the fertilizer, and the determined application amount" (claim 11);
• "transmitting 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 applied to the lawn of the sports facility by fertilization within the predetermined period, and wherein the terminal manages an amount of the fertilizer applied to the lawn within the predetermined period based on the application amount" (independent claims 12-13); and
• "determination program" (claim 15).
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
The recited limitations in claims 1, 4-8, 10-13 and 15 are interpreted as requiring the use of a computer. Hence, the claims explicitly recite steps executed by computers and therefore can be described as computer functions or instructions to implement on a generic computer.
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of a computing device/computer do not describe any specific computational steps by which the "computer parts" perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions.
The judicial exceptions in the claims are considered to perform the claimed abstract idea with a computer, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); since steps that can be performed mentally and merely performing the mental process in a computer environment do not negate the fact that something that can be carried out in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C. Additionally, claims 1-10 and 16-20 do not recite an additional element, and therefore there is nothing in the claims to provide a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2, or significantly more at Step 2B.
The recited "wherein the terminal manages an amount of the fertilizer applied to the lawn within the predetermined period based on the application amount" (claims 1 and 12-13) constitutes an intended use of what the terminal is doing with the information as supported by this instant specification [0024] which discloses “Examples of the golf course terminals 2 include a tablet computer, a personal computer, and the like… The employee… performs fertilization management by using the golf course terminals." There is no evidence that indicates the terminal can be something other than a computer giving instructions to an employee to perform the management; thus reading on as receiving and transmitting on information to an employee for the intended use of managing the fertilizer application.
Claims directed to "transmit the application amount to a terminal" (claim 1) and "transmitting the application amount to a terminal" (claims 12-13) read on receiving or transmitting data over a network -Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321 - MPEP 2106.05(a) pertains; which constitutes just necessary data gathering and therefore correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims directed to "output nutrient amount information" (claims 10-11) are interpreted as data outputting and as such insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 15, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer, including the terminal, and the recited "acquisition code" (claims 1 and 4)/ "determination code" (claims 1, 5-8 and 15)/ "computer program code" (claims 1, 4, 10 and 15) and "determination program" (claim 15) does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984; see MPEP 2106.05(A)). The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
Further, the limitation reciting "acquisition code" (claims 1 and 4)/ "determination code" (claims 1, 5-8 and 15)/ "computer program code" (claims 1, 4, 10 and 15) and "determination program" (claim 15) provides mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore the claims do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; 2106.05(f); and 2106.05(g)).
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.
[Step 2A Prong Two: claims 1 and 4-15: 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 1, 4-8, 10-13 and 15 recite a computer or computer functions, interpreted as instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, where the computer does not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions; which can be performed without the use of a computer (MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The computer-related elements, the terminal, and the general purpose "acquisition code" (claims 1 and 4)/ "determination code" (claims 1, 5-8 and 15)/ "computer program code" (claims 1, 4, 10 and 15) and "determination program" (claim 15) do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. The recited general computer use is supported by this instant specification starting at pg. 8 line 15 which discloses “Examples of the user terminals 3 include a portable information terminal such as a smartphone or a tablet computer, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA) , a personal computer, a set-top box, and the like."
Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984; see MPEP 2106.05(A)).
Further, the courts have found that receiving and outputting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versa ta Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il)(i)).
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).
The instant claims constitute insignificant extra solution activity, and when considered individually, are insufficient to constitute inventive concepts that would render the claims significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Hence, these elements, when considered individually, are insufficient to constitute inventive concepts that would render the claims significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
[Step 2B: claims 1 and 4-15: No]
Conclusion: Instant claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter
For the reasons above, 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 not clearly anything significantly more.
Response to applicant's remarks in regard to Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 101
The Remarks of 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but are not yet persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts at pg. 12 para. 1
…See id. at p. 2. In addition, because such systems require samples taken from an already affected lawn, they operate reactively and cannot proactively determine or apply a specific nutrient application amount before user induced damage, such as wear from user traffic, has manifested. In practice, the reactive limitation can be offset by relying on the subjective intuition and experience of groundskeepers to estimate appropriate fertilizer amounts. See id. at pp. 1-3. However, such reliance on experience is difficult to quantify, standardize, or transfer to others, and can result in under- or over-fertilization, lawn deterioration, and unnecessary maintenance costs. Id. at 27-28. The Specification thus identifies the need for a system capable of accurately determining, in advance and on the basis of objective, quantifiable inputs, the appropriate amount of nutrient to be applied to the lawn according to the use situation of the sports facility … This structured processing converts objective, predicted usage data into a proactively forecasted nutrient application amount calibrated to anticipated lawn wear and prevailing environmental conditions, and then applies that amount to the downstream management of fertilizer application at the terminal, an outcome that neither reactive sampling systems nor subjective estimation can achieve.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive because the argued "structured processing" that converts the "objective, predicted usage data into a proactively forecasted nutrient application amount" is not sufficient to provide a practical application. As it appears in the claims, there is no active step that integrates the identified judicial exceptions into a "real-life" application (i.e. actively fertilizing the lawn with the determined data). The recited "wherein the terminal manages an amount of the fertilizer applied to the lawn within the predetermined period based on the application amount" (claim 1) is interpreted as intended use because the terminal is not part of the claimed device, therefore the recited wherein clause is only an intended use of what the terminal is doing with the information. Same applies to claim 13. The recited "wherein the terminal manages an amount of the fertilizer applied to the lawn within the predetermined period based on the application amount" (claim 12) is interpreted as intended use because the wherein clause only limits the terminal earlier recited, not limiting a method step, therefore not constituting an active step. This instant specification describes the terminal as a computer - starting at pg. 8 line 15 which discloses “Examples of the user terminals 3 include a portable information terminal such as a smartphone or a tablet computer, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA) , a personal computer, a set-top box, and the like." Therefore, the claims merely recite providing information to a computer for the intended use by an employee to perform the actual management. There is nothing in the claims that supports their argument “and is used by the terminal to manage an amount of fertilizer”. Further, there is no "particular technological solution to a recognized technical problem in the field of lawn fertilization management" because there is no active real life step to apply a solution. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant asserts (in pg. 13) a series of juridical exceptions argued to predict how much fertilizer is applied. Applicant is reminded that the courts have made clear that a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter (Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)) if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, it is the additional elements (if any) in the claim that must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. It is submitted here that the instant claims do not include any additional elements that provide for a practical application.
Applicant asserts at pg. 15 para. 2
… Thus, the application amount is not merely displayed, reported, or provided as advisory information without any functional consequence. Instead, the application the technical solution described in the Specification. By anchoring the nutrient determination in a prediction of future usage derived from objective historical data, and by processing that predicted usage through this set of operations, the system achieves what conventional reactive sampling systems and subjective estimation could not: a proactive, objective, and quantitatively derived fertilization determination that reflects anticipated lawn wear due to user traffic as well as actual environmental conditions in the form of air temperature information. Because the terminal manages the amount of fertilizer applied to the lawn based on that application amount, the claim further ties the determined nutrient amount to a fertilization-management operation rather than to a mere mental process, data output, or presentation of information. In doing so, the system provides improved fertilization control and overcomes the limitations of both sample-based systems and subjective estimation by providing an objective and usage-based mechanism for proactively determining nutrient application amounts and using those amounts to manage fertilizer application at the terminal
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive the managing step executed by the terminal does not constitute a practical application that yields an active step (i.e. (i.e. actively fertilizing the lawn with the determined data). The argued "using those amounts to manage fertilizer application at the terminal" reads on data outputting and the courts have found that outputting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
No prior art has been applied to the following claims
Claims 1 and 4-15 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.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights