DETAILED ACTION
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
2. Applicant's arguments received 04/14/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-7 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 1-7 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea of estimating carbon emission of a district heating system.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
An article of manufacture for identifying to a consumer the growing requirements of a plant, the article comprising:
a substrate associated with the plant;
a set of information, related to the plant, printed on the substrate; the set of information including a geographic location specific set of instructions for care of the plant, a plant guide number and a picture of the plant;
wherein the plant guide number includes a unique numerical component and a corresponding unique graphical component;
wherein the graphical component is one or more of the group of a color and a shape, wherein same colors represent same guide numbers for visual identification by the consumer;
wherein the numerical component includes one number of a finite set of numbers, and wherein each number of the finite set of numbers is encoded with a unique combination of a light value representing a light level requirement related to the plant and a water value representing a water level requirement related to the plant, and
wherein plants associated with the substrate having the same graphical component color and the same plant guide number are visually identifiable to the consumer as requiring similar light levels and watering levels and will grow successfully in the same geographic location.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
manufacture
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the bolded portion focuses solely on non-functional (or functionally interrelated) descriptive material for making the claimed article of manufacture. This kind of descriptive material is nothing more than the mere arrangement of printed matter on a substrate such as a sheet of paper to convey a message, it does not import any structure to the claim. Each and/or the combination of the limitations recited in the bolded portion encompasses mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III
As to the physical parameters/variables recited in the bolded portion, under the BRI, they encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 amounts to an abstract idea falling within the “Mental Process” grouping of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
Additionally, the elements identified in bold above are found to be nothing more than printed matter which conveys information regarding plant care. This information is equivalent to instructions long provided by, or to, human gardeners or farmers, such as water requirements or light requirements for optimal plant care. Therefore, the claim is also found to recite an abstract idea falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of Abstract Ideas which includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including “teaching” and “following rules or instructions”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The limitation of “a substrate associated with the plant” is recited at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, “a substrate associated with the plant” encompasses a sheet of paper. It is held that merely displaying the results of the abstract idea on a piece of paper is an ancillary part of the abstract idea. It does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 F.3d 1354).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. At most, it only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the claim does not include any additional limitation that can be treated as “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-7 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, claim 6 recites: “an electronic communications element having a memory location in which is stored an identifier representing one or more of the group of a plant type and the geographic location”. Under the BRI to the claim, an image of a QR-code (it is well-known that a standard QR code can store numeric characters, alphanumeric characters as well as Kanji characters) reads on “an electronic communications element having a memory location in which is stored an identifier representing one or more of the group of a plant type and the geographic location” as claimed. Accordingly, the limitation of instant claim 6 encompasses printed matter which is an ancillary part of the identified abstract idea.
Claims 1-7 are therefore treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oliver et al. (US 20150081058 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oliver discloses an article of manufacture for identifying to a consumer the growing requirements of a plant (Figs. 4 and 16; para. 0118, 0264), the article comprising: a substrate (404 of Fig. 4 or 1603 of Fig. 16) associated with the plant (para. 0118, 0125); a set of information, related to the plant, printed on the substrate (para. 0120, 0263); the set of information including a geographic location specific set of instructions for care of the plant (para. 0119), a plant guide number (para. 0135: a bar code, QR code, picture or text 1600 reads on “a plant guide number”; see also discussion of 1600 in para. 0263) and a picture of the plant (para. 0268); wherein the plant guide number includes a unique numerical component (by inherency, a barcode, formed of numbers and a pattern of parallel lines, includes “a unique numerical component”; also, it’s well known QR codes can contain numeric data) and a corresponding unique graphical component (by inherency, a pattern of parallel lines of the barcode reads on “a corresponding unique graphical component”); wherein the graphical component is one or more of the group of a color and a shape (para. 0355), wherein same colors represent same guide numbers for visual identification by the consumer (see discussion of Fig. 25; see also para. 0355: “When a property 2500, 2503, 2506, 2508 is out of range, then the user can be presented with a flashing or red colored version of the symbol and or the range value which is above or below the required value so that he understands the action required”); wherein the numerical component includes one number of a finite set of numbers (e.g., the combination of various numbers in a barcode or QR code 1600 encompasses “one number of a finite set of numbers”), wherein each number of the finite set of numbers is encoded (para. 0135) with a unique combination of a light value representing a light level requirement related to the plant and a water value representing a water level requirement related to the plant (para. 0040, 0204: “… such as watering and altering the positioning of the terrarium in the sun to keep the system within bounds specified in a profile”; para. 0263: “including environment preferences 1602 and a QR code or bar code 1600 which may be used to lookup on a remote server or a local database on the Mobile Computing device 399, the properties for care of the plant such as correct amounts of water, light and temperature needed as well as instructions for procedures to carry out on the plant at various times of year, such as moving the plant into more sunlight, or pruning. The QR code may also store some or all of this information internally”; see also Fig. 19 and related text), and wherein plants associated with the substrate (e.g., 2599 of Fig. 25) having the same graphical component color (e.g., the color of the graphical component 2506, which is applied to all the plants associated with the substrate 2599) and the same plant guide number (para. 0157, 0370) are visually identifiable to the consumer as requiring similar light levels (para. 0364-0365) and watering levels (e.g., the percentage range of moisture; see para. 0029, 0036, 0276) and will grow successfully in the same geographic location (para. 0133, 0353, 0355: “When a property 2500, 2503, 2506, 2508 is out of range, then the user can be presented with a flashing or red colored version of the symbol and or the range value which is above or below the required value so that he understands the action required”; see also para. 0399, 0454).
Regarding claim 2, Oliver discloses: wherein the light level requirement and the water level requirement are location dependent (para. 0119, 0040, 0204, 0263; see also Fig. 19 and related text).
Regarding claim 3, Oliver discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 1 further comprising a machine readable graphic code (e.g., 115 or 126 in Fig. 1, or QR code 1600 in Figs. 5B) for electronically accessing the geographic location specific information regarding care for the plant (para. 0134, 0157, 0377, 0390).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Oliver discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 1 further comprising a code for accessing information related to the plant guide number (para. 0134, 0157); wherein the code is one or more of the group of graphical code and a numerical code (para. 0134, 0157).
Regarding claim 6, Oliver discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 1 further comprising an electronic communications element (e.g., QR code 1600) having a memory location (it is well-known that a standard QR code can store numeric characters, alphanumeric characters as well as Kanji characters) in which is stored an identifier representing one or more of the group of a plant type and the geographic location (para. 0134, 0157; see also Fig. 5B and 19 and related text).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. in view of Shulman et al. (US 20140168412 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Oliver does not mention explicitly: wherein the plant guide number further comprises one of the group of: tag number 1, representing water level low and light level high; tag number 2, representing water level high, and light level high; tag number 3, representing water level medium, and light level high; tag number 4, representing water level low, and light level medium; tag number 5, representing water level high, and light level medium; tag number 6, representing water level medium, and light level medium; tag number 7, representing water level low, and light level low; tag number 8, representing water level high, and light level low; and, tag number 9, representing water level medium, and light level low.
Shulman discloses a system to identify a plant (Abstract), comprising: deriving a plant guide number from a plant ID number (a plant guide number [plant identifier] which may be simple identification numbers, para. 0019, using a plant ID number [bar code] to derive the plant identifier, para. 0042); and locating a set of plant information related to the plant guide number (the plant and plant identifier being used to identify individual plants and determine such as their GPS position and other data information to be displayed in a real time way that visually associates biological assessments and parameters to the actual plant or harvest product, see para. 0017, 0019, 0036); wherein the plant guide number comprises one of the group of: tag number 1, representing water level low and light level high; tag number 2, representing water level high, and light level high; tag number 3, representing water level medium, and light level high; tag number 4, representing water level low, and light level medium; tag number 5, representing water level high, and light level medium; tag number 6, representing water level medium, and light level medium; tag number 7, representing water level low, and light level low; tag number 8, representing water level high, and light level low; and, tag number 9, representing water level medium, and light level low, (the plant identifier indicating plant levels for example tag 7, i.e. the plant needs additional sunlight and/or water, or tag 2, i.e. the plant needs less sunlight and/or water, or a combination of indications, para. 0058).
Since Oliver teaches the general condition of the plant guide number in association with the water and light requirements related to the plant (para. 0276-0284), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oliver’s plant guide number by incorporating specification of various tag numbers as taught by Shulman to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow to provide more detailed instructions to be performed on a particular plant (Shulman, para. 0058) thus improve the feasibility and applicability of the Oliver invention.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857