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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 4/20/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 15 pending claims.
Claims 34, 38, and 47 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/20/2026 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 6-8 of the remark filed on 4/20/2026 that “… In addition, the amended claim is not directed merely to mathematics or mental processes in the first place. The claim does not recite a mathematical formula, equation, or free-standing calculation. … Claim 34 is tied to a particular configuration of affixed plant sensors and to a particular use of the sensed data in a real-time plant-environment control loop.”
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 pages 7-11 of the remark filed that “It is respectfully submitted that, at minimum, amended claim 34 is patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two because any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. … Further, even if the assertion that claim 34 recites a judicial exception was maintained, the amended claim integrates any exception into a practical application … The current claims instead provide a stand-alone, small-scale digital sensor architecture physically affixed to the leaf or petiole, producing numeric data in real time without camera systems, with improved reproducibility and suitability for deployment in growth chambers, greenhouses, and open fields … .”
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 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”, and “the processor triggering an actuator based on the leaf movements in space and time, the actuator modifying environmental conditions of the plant and improving a condition of the plant” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The alleged improvement of reproducibility and suitability for deployment in growth chambers, greenhouses, and open fields by using a stand-alone, small-scale digital sensor architecture physically affixed to the leaf or petiole 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 pages 11-12 of the remark filed that “ … Further, the cited prior art does not show that the claimed additional elements, especially as now amended, are routine or conventional in the relevant field. … At most, the cited references disclose isolated pieces in different contexts. They do not establish that the claimed ordered combination, including an affixed horticulture appliance on a leaf or petiole, inclinometer/IMU orientation sensing of that plant part, algorithmic restructuring/visualization of the resulting sensor data in space and time, and processor-triggered actuation that modifies environmental conditions and improves plant condition in real time, was routine or conventional in the relevant horticultural field.”
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 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”, and “the processor triggering an actuator based on the leaf movements in space and time, the actuator modifying environmental conditions of the plant and improving a condition of the plant” 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the condition” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites a phrase “the condition” but the claim did not recite “a condition” prior to that phrase.
Claim 34 also recites “the sensory system” in line 9, and the phrase is indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as if “the sensor system” refers back to “a sensing device” or the sensing device and the horticulture device. For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation as the sensing device.
Claim 37 recites the limitations “a horticulture appliance” and “an attaching, fastening or affixing means” in lines 3-4, and the phrase are indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as to whether this is the same “a horticulture appliance” and “an attaching, fastening or affixing means” recited in claim 34, or whether additional “a horticulture appliance” and “an attaching, fastening or affixing means” is being recited. For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitations as the horticulture appliance, and the fastening or affixing means.
Claim 42 recites the limitations “wherein the sensing device comprise a digital inclinometer and/or an inertial measurement unit (IMU) for defining the orientation of the sensing device” in lines 1-3 and the phrase is indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as whether this is the same “a sensing device which comprises a digital inclinometer and inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device” recited in claim 34, or whether additional ”wherein the sensing device comprise a digital inclinometer and inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device” is being recited. For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner consider the phrase is referred back to the previously recited limitation in claim 34, and interprets this limitation as wherein the sensing device comprise the digital inclinometer and/or the inertial measurement unit (IMU) for defining the orientation of the sensing device.
Claim 43 recites the limitation “the processing unit” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim or the parent claim 34. The claim recites a phrase “the processing unit” but the claim did not recite “a processing unit” prior to that phrase.
The phrase “the processing unit” is also indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as if the claim is intended to recite “a processing unit” or should instead depend from claim 41 which recites “a processing unit”. For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner considers claim 43 depends from claim 41, and interprets this limitation as the processing unit.
Claim 47 recites the limitation “the steps” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim or the parent claim 34. The claim recites a phrase “all of the steps of” but the claim did not recite “all of steps of” prior to that phrase.
The phrase “the steps” also is indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as if parent claim 34 includes steps of storing and transmitting, or if they are first recited in claim 47. For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner consider they are first recited in claim 47, and interprets this limitation as all of steps of.
Dependent claims 35-36, 38-41, 44-46, and 48 are also rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 42 depends from claim 34, and claim 34 includes all of the limitations of dependent claim 42 of “wherein the sensing device comprises a digital inclinometer and/or an inertial measurement unit (IMU) for defining the orientation of the sensing device.” Therefore, claim 42 does not further limit claim 34.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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, and
the processor triggering an actuator based on the leaf movements in space and time, the actuator modifying environmental conditions of the plant and improving a condition of the plant.”
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; and the processor triggering an actuator based on the leaf movements in space and time, the actuator modifying environmental conditions of the plant and improving a condition of the plant.
The 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”, and “the processor triggering an actuator based on the leaf movements in space and time, the actuator modifying environmental conditions of the plant and improving a condition of the plant” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic processor is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
The additional element “a communicator” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is 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, the horticulture appliance 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 disclosed by “Masanao JP 2020003900 A”, Abstract and [0016]; [0017]; [0022]; [0026]; [0039]; [0043]; [0047]; [0072]; [0073]; [0078]; FIG. 1, the slave unit 20 can be considered as a horticulture appliance; FIG. 3, the communication unit 28; and “Kazuyuki JPH10323126A”, Abstract, [0004], [0009], [0010], Claim 3; FIGs. 1 and 3, detection sensor 2 and control device 5 control device.
For example, the processor triggering an actuator based on the leaf movements in space and time, the actuator modifying environmental conditions of the plant and improving a condition of the plant is disclosed by “Bongartz WO 2020167934A1”, [0284], [0481], [0899], [1765], [1863], [2181]; and “Bongartz US 20200184153”, [0139], [0218], [0427], [0637], [2275], [2425], [2622].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
As to Claim 37, the additional element of “a horticulture appliance” 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.
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 it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
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 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.
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 they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 35-36, 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”, “Dornbusch et al. (“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)”, “Bongartz WO 2020167934A1”, and “Bongartz US 20200184153, hereinafter Bongartz 2”.
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 teaches a sensing device which comprises an inertial measurement unit for defining the orientation of the sensing device (Schindler, [0139]), and/or a digital inclinometer.
Bongartz teaches the processor triggering an actuator based on the leaf movements in space and time, the actuator modifying environmental conditions of the plant and improving a condition of the plant (Bongartz, [0481], [0899], [1765]).
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Gharabegian US 20170138350” teaches “A tree power generation system, comprises one or more tree branch clasps, the one or more tree branch clasps to attach to branches of a tree and one or more power generators. The one or more wires couple the one or more tree branch clasps to the one or more power generators, wherein movement in the branches of the tree causes movement in the one or more wires and the power generator generates electrical energy. The two or more tree branch clasps may be attached to one tree branch”.
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- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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 2857
Prosecution Insights