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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
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 1-14 and 18-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A system for determining a distribution in a greenhouse of values of an environmental parameter, the system comprising
one or more air flow sensors for determining a magnitude and/or direction of air flow at first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse, and
one or more environmental sensors for measuring the values of the environmental parameter at second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse,
at least one actuator configured to influence the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter, and
a data processing system that is configured to
- receive first signals from the one or more air flow sensors, the first signals being indicative of the respective magnitudes and/or directions of air flow at the respective first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse, and
- receive second signals from the one or more environmental sensors, the second signals being indicative of the respective values of the environmental parameter at the respective second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse,
- assigning the magnitudes and/or directions of air flow at each of the first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse and the values of the environmental parameter at the second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse as boundary conditions for a fluid mechanics model,
- applying the fluid mechanics model to determine, based on the boundary conditions, values of the environmental parameter at third one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse thus determining the distribution in the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter, wherein the third one or more positions are different from the second one or more positions,
- determining a first action that would cause a change to at least one of the boundary conditions and to the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter, and
- operate the at least one actuator in accordance with the first action causing a change to the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter based on the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter determined.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted 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 groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the steps of “assigning the magnitudes and/or directions of air flow at each of the first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse and the values of the environmental parameter at the second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse as boundary conditions for a fluid mechanics model” and “applying the fluid mechanics model to determine, based on the boundary conditions, values of the environmental parameter at third one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse thus determining the distribution in the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter, wherein the third one or more positions are different from the second one or more positions” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “determining a first action that would cause a change to at least one of the boundary conditions and to the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter, and operating “in accordance with the first action” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining a first action” step, in the context of this claim, encompasses a user manually making a determination/judgement of an action based on detecting a change in conditions and/or parameter in a region of interest and based on that action, making a decision to actuate (“operate”) a corresponding actuator.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 13.
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 above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: one or more air flow sensors for measuring a magnitude and/or direction of air flow at first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse, and one or more environmental sensors for measuring the values of the environmental parameter at second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse, and a data processing system that is configured to receive first signals from the one or more air flow sensors, the first signals being indicative of the respective magnitudes and/or directions of air flow at the respective first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse, and receive second signals from the one or more environmental sensors, the second signals being indicative of the respective values of the environmental parameter at the respective second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse; at least one actuator configured to influence the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter, and operate the at least one actuator causing a change to the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter based on the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter determined.
In Claim 13: receiving first signals from the one or more air flow sensors configured to measure a magnitude and/or direction of air flow at first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse, the first signals being indicative of the respective magnitudes and/or directions of air flow at the respective first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse, and receiving second signals from the one or more environmental sensors that are configured to measure a value of the environmental parameter at second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse, the second signals being indicative of the respective values of the environmental parameter at the respective second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse the greenhouse, and operating the at least one actuator causing a change to the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter based on the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter determined.
The additional elements in the preambles (“A system for determining a distribution in a greenhouse of values of an environmental parameter” and “A computer-implemented method for determining a distribution in a greenhouse of values of an environmental parameter”) are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application. “A computer-implemented method” in Claim 13 as well as data processing system in Claim 1 are examples of a generic computer equipment (components) generally recited and, therefore, they are not qualified as particular machines.
The additional elements in the claims that generically recite air flow sensors for measuring a magnitude and/or direction of air flow at first one or more positions in the greenhouse, and one or more environmental sensors for measuring the values of the environmental parameter at second one or more positions in the greenhouse, and a data processing system that is configured to receive first signals from the one or more air flow sensors, the first signals being indicative of the respective magnitudes and/or directions of air flow at the respective first one or more positions in the greenhouse, and receive second signals from the one or more environmental sensors, the second signals being indicative of the respective values of the environmental parameter at the respective second one or more positions in the greenhouse represent insignificant represent extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
The additional elements that generically recite at least one actuator configured to influence the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter (Claim 1) and operating the at least one actuator causing a change to the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter based on the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter determined (Claims 1 and 13) represent insignificant represent extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record. For example, at least one actuator configured to influence the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter and operating the at least one actuator causing a change to the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter based on the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter determined are discussed in Bongartz and Jae.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-12, 14, and 18-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims and/or additional elements that are not meaningful as recited in generality, and, therefore, these claims are not eligible either without meaningful additional elements that would reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Examiner note:
Claims 16 and 17 recite meaningful additional elements (specific actuator’s actions) that indicate a practical application, and, therefore, these claims are found 101-eligible.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
In regards to Claims 1 and 13, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Ishikawa, Bartzanas, and Bongartz, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious assigning the magnitudes and/or directions of air flow at each of the first one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse and the values of the environmental parameter at the second one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse as boundary conditions for a fluid mechanics model, and applying the fluid mechanics model to determine, based on the boundary conditions, values of the environmental parameter at third one or more positions in the first region of the greenhouse thus determining the distribution in the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter, wherein the third one or more positions are different from the second one or more positions, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 16 and 17 are allowable as dependent on allowable but ineligible 1 (see above).
Claims 16 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (pp.8-9): The claims recite practical applications …
The Office Action notes that Claim 16 and 17 recite "meaningful additional elements (specific actuator's actions) that indicate a practical application" (see Office Action, Page 8). However, Claim 1 clearly recites "at least one actuator" which can "influence the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter" and Claim 13 recites "operating at least one actuator" so as to "causing a change to the distribution in the first region of the greenhouse of values of the environmental parameter". Accordingly, the claims provide meaningful elements (e.g., an actuator) and indicate a practical application (e.g., causing a change to the distribution of an environmental parameter).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that generically-recited actuator or actuating function is a meaningful limitation unlike types of specific actuator/actuator’s functions (“particular machines”) recited in Claims 16 and 17 that indicate a practical application.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to Claim 1(13) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 1(13) has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HUR DEOG JAE et al. (KR 101935482) discloses a system for controlling a greenhouse environment and a method thereof, capable of uniformly maintaining temperature and humidity suitable for a growth environment. The central server derives a three-dimensional spatial temperature distribution prediction equation based on the sensed temperature at the location where the first sensing sensor is installed in the greenhouse.
Paul Sebastian BOOIJ et al. (US 20170045548) discloses monitoring a state of a fluid in an indoor space using thermal fluid simulation analysis (i.e. fluid mechanics).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863