DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on August 21, 2025, for the application with serial number 18/167,635.
Claims 1 and 12 are amended.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Interview
The Examiner acknowledges the interview conducted on May 15, 2025, in which the subject matter eligibility of the claims was discussed.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the rejection mischaracterizes the abstract idea. See Remarks pp. 11-12. In response, the Examiner points to the updated analysis, below, which considers every limitation of exemplary independent claim 1 in arriving at the conclusion that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter.
The Applicant additionally submits that the claims do not fall within the category of abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” See Remarks p. 12. In response, the Examiner submits that the present claims recite steps for managing a greenhouse that could be implemented mentally or on paper by a human being, but a general purpose computer is used as a tool to implement the process. As such, the claims provide steps for managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s assertion that the claims cannot be directed to a method of organizing human activity omits the possibility that the claims manage personal behavior or relationships, while only focusing on interactions between people. See Remarks p. 12. Overall, the claims merely involve a business solution to a business problem. Various calculations and steps for managing a greenhouse are recited. The claims do not involve a technical solution to a technical problem. The Examiner reiterates that the claims merely involve steps that could be implemented mentally or on paper by a human being.
The Applicant additionally contends that the Examiner’s analysis and the guidance in the MPEP are flawed. See Remarks p. 14. In response, the Examiner points out that the rules provided in the MPEP ae based on case law. As indicated in the rejection, below, the analysis follows guidance provided in MPEP §2106.
The Applicant further submits that the present claims recite steps that result in an improved greenhouse system. See Remarks p. 15. In response, the Examiner reiterates that the claims merely involve data analysis steps for managing a greenhouse. No apparent improvement to technology or a technical field (i.e., functional greenhouse design) is recited in the claims. Instead, the claims involve logistical steps for conducting business. The Examiner notes that mathematical relationships, such as formulas and calculations, are also ineligible abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a).
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
35 USC §103 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments incorporating subject matter from canceled claim 2 into independent claims 1 and 9; the prior art rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
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 1-20 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. Although claims(s) 1-20 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to greenhouse growing planning and analytics (as evidenced by the preamble of exemplary independent claim 1), an abstract idea. 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[s] digital input;” “collect[s] operations data;” “analyze[s] demand and supply forecasts;” “calculate[s] [a] customer fulfillment;” “integrate[s] the operations data and combine[s] the operations data;” “receive[s] a purchase order;” “transmit[s] the purchase order;” “review[s] the purchase order;” “review[s] an inventory;” “add[s] the previous day’s inventory to a current day’s packaging plan;” “review[s] a harvest order;” “determine[s] a number of cases required for packaging;” “calculate[s] a number of the cases that can be fulfilled;” “adjust[s] the number of cases that can be fulfilled;” and “track[s] real time packaging progress.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of greenhouse growing planning and analytics that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of greenhouse growing planning and analytics. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of greenhouse growing planning and analytics. 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 managing and analyzing operation of a greenhouse.
Under step 2A 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 process, storage medium, and network in independent claims 1 and 12; independent claim 17 does not positively recite hardware that performs the recited method). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. Independent claims 1 and 12 do recite a greenhouse or greenhouses, but the abstract idea of greenhouse growing planning and analytics is generally linked to a greenhouse environment for implementation. Therefore, the recited greenhouses merely amount to a field of use for implementing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(h). 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). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a process, storage medium, and network in independent claims 1 and 12; independent claim 17 does not positively recite hardware that performs the recited method) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). 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). 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
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 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