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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 7, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 12, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to a concept that falls within any of the categories of abstract idea. See Remarks pp. 12-13. In response, the Examiner points to the rejection, below, which concludes that the claims all within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category, because the claims recite steps for managing personal behavior. Essentially, the claims recite steps or rules that a human being could follow to determine a number of seeded boards to harvest and request a cross-supply of produce. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the claims provide steps for a computer implementation of a commercial practice for balancing supply and demand in an agricultural context. “Determining a plan” is an abstract idea. Coordinating production across multiple greenhouses is an abstract idea.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1 and 3-20 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: determining a number of seed boards to harvest (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1: “determine a number of seeded boards to harvest to meet the daily harvest plan”); and requesting a cross supply of produce (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 12: “request cross-supply of the variety of hydroponic produce from another greenhouse of the plurality of greenhouses”); abstract ideas. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “receive [ ] image data . . . and [ ] climate data;” “generate climate trends;” “collect operations data;” “determine . . . a yield forecast for the hydroponic produce;” “compare the yield forecast with a projected demand forecast;” “identify[ ] [a] shortage or excess;” “modify a greenhouse growing plan;” “generate a daily harvest plan;” and “determine a number of seeded boards to harvest to meet the daily harvest plan.” Claim 12 recites similar steps, but the method concludes by determining to resolve a shortage by requesting a cross-supply from another greenhouse. The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract ideas of determining a number of seed boards to harvest and/or requesting a cross supply of produce that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract ideas of determining a number of seed boards to harvest and/or requesting a cross supply of produce. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract ideas of determining a number of seed boards to harvest and/or requesting a cross supply of produce. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes determining the production yield of a greenhouse and balancing the production with a forecasted demand.
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a network system with a processor in independent claim 1; a network system with a storage medium and processor in independent claim 12; and a processor in independent claim 17). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. An imaging system is also recited, but the imaging system does not perform any steps of the claims. The imaging system also amounts to generic computer hardware. A greenhouse is recited, but the greenhouse does not have any particular structure, and the greenhouse does not perform any steps of the claims. The abstract ideas of determining a number of seed boards to harvest and/or requesting a cross supply of produce are generally linked to an environment with a greenhouse for implementation. Therefore, the greenhouse amounts to a field of use and/or technological environment for implementing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Similarly, the abstract ideas of determining a number of seed boards to harvest and/or requesting a cross supply of produce are generally linked to a machine learning algorithm for implementation. Therefore, the machine learning merely amounts to a field of use and/or technological environment for implementing the abstract idea. No apparent improvement in machine learning is recited in the claims. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. Referring to the additional elements provided in the analysis in step one, above, the generic computer hardware does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights