Notice of Pre-AIA or 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/8/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 34-48 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 13-14 of the remark filed on 9/8/2025 that “Notably, use of a horticultural appliance in the manner of claim 34 is not abstract and is not conventional, such that analyzing and algorithmically restructuring and visualizing data derived from the sensory system to represent leaf movements in space and time does not render the claim nonstatutory. … These additional elements are not abstract but instead include a particular and non-routine arrangement of components, such that they cannot be considered equivalent to simply mathematical calculations or mental steps performed by a generic computer.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “analyzing in real-time changes in leaf angle by motion detecting of the leaf or its petiole using a horticulture appliance mounted by an attaching”, and “algorithmically restructuring and visualizing data derived from the sensory system to represent leaf movements in space and time” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 12 of the remark filed that “At least this additional element, taken in combination with the further elements of claim 34, integrates any abstract idea into a practical application … .”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element “fastening or affixing means to the leaf or to its petiole, this horticulture appliance further comprising a sensing device which comprises a digital inclinometer and/or inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device and the plant part to which it is attached and comprising a communicator operatively connected to a processor” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The alleged improvement of controlling a system to improve the environment of the monitored plant(s), and improvement in an existing technology relate to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claim does not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on page 12 of the remark filed that “at least this additional element, taken in combination with the further elements of claim 34, … provides an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claim does not recite them. The additional element of fastening or affixing means to the leaf or to its petiole, this horticulture appliance further comprising a sensing device which comprises a digital inclinometer and/or inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device and the plant part to which it is attached and comprising a communicator operatively connected to a processor are routine in plant movement monitoring and multiple plant organs monitoring. Therefore, the claim 1 does not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 34-48 are proper.
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 34-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 34, the claim recites “A method of monitoring the condition of a plant, the method comprising:
analyzing in real-time changes in leaf angle by motion detecting of the leaf or its petiole using a horticulture appliance mounted by an attaching,
fastening or affixing means to the leaf or to its petiole, this horticulture appliance further comprising a sensing device which comprises a digital inclinometer and/or inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device and the plant part to which it is attached and comprising a communicator operatively connected to a processor, and
algorithmically restructuring and visualizing data derived from the sensory system to represent leaf movements in space and time.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 34).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 34, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
fastening or affixing means to the leaf or to its petiole, this horticulture appliance further comprising a sensing device which comprises a digital inclinometer and/or inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device and the plant part to which it is attached and comprising a communicator operatively connected to a processor.
The additional element “fastening or affixing means to the leaf or to its petiole, this horticulture appliance further comprising a sensing device which comprises a digital inclinometer and/or inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device and the plant part to which it is attached and comprising a communicator operatively connected to a processor” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic processor is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
The additional elements “horticulture appliance”, “a sensing device”, “a digital inclinometer”, “inertial measurement unit”, and “a communicator” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer 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, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, fastening or affixing means to the leaf or to its petiole is disclosed by “Masanao JP 2020003900 A”, Abstract and [0016]; and “Kazuyuki JPH10323126A”, [0004], [0010], Claim 3).
For example, defining the orientation of the sensing device by inertial measurement unit and the plant part to which it is attached is disclosed by “Schindler US 20200348385”, [0010], [0107], [0139], [0334]; and “Hill US 20050007450”, [0078]).
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
As to Claims 38 and 39, the additional element of “an actuator” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element.
As to Claim 40, the additional element of “a low-energy wireless communicator or a wired communicator” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is considered a generic computer element.
As to Claim 42, the additional element of “a digital inclinometer and/or an inertial measurement unit (IMU)” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element.
As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer 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, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 35-37, 41, 43-48 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 34-48, the most pertinent prior arts are “Masanao JP 2020003900A, “Schindler US 20200348385”, “Kazuyuki JPH10323126A”, “Hill US 20050007450”, “Miyazaki US 5870376”, and “Dornbusch (“Differentially Phased Leaf Growth and Movements in Arabidopsis Depend on Coordinated Circadian and Light Regulation”, The Plant Cell, American Society of Plant Biologists, published October 3, 2014)”.
As to claim 34, Masanao teaches analyzing in real-time changes in leaf angle by motion detecting of the leaf or its petiole using a horticulture appliance mounted by an attaching (Masanao, Abstract, [0016]; [0049]),
fastening or affixing means to the leaf or to its petiole, this horticulture appliance further comprising a sensing device and the plant part to which it is attached and comprising a communicator operatively connected to a processor (Masanao, FIG. 2 and 3; [0039]).
Schindler discloses a sensing device which comprises an inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device (Schindler, [0139]), and/or a digital inclinometer.
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “algorithmically restructuring and visualizing data derived from the sensory system to represent leaf movements in space and time” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 35-48 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 34.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 34-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Prosecution Insights