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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-6, drawn to a system with a plant community.
II. Claims 7-13, drawn to an interactive avatar system.
III. Claims 14-20, drawn to a wellness metaverse system.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as a system with a plant community. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions I, II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as a system with an interactive avatar system. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions I, II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination III has separate utility such as a system with a wellness metaverse system. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Because these inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Roy Diaz on 3/23/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-6. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mental processes. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please see recent Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International for guidance.
Claim 1 is an independent claim directed to an apparatus. Products fall within statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In particular, the process of matching users to an application can be done mentally.
generate garden attributes and garden recommendations (This can be done by a person or group of people mentally offering opinions.)
The steps cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “electrical circuitry”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
(Step 2A, prong one: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether there are additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this case, the claims recite that “electrical circuitry” is configured perform the steps.
The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Viewing the limitations individually,
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
The additional element, “electrical circuitry” is configured perform the steps, in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of an electronic method of generating garden attributes and garden recommendations with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of generating garden attributes and garden recommendations.
(Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 have been considered each as whole claim as to the abstract idea and the “significantly more” criterion. While being more specific, the limitations did not make the claims less abstract nor provide “significantly more” to the claims to make them patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HealingForest (NPL).
HealingForest shows,
In regards to claim 1,
A system, comprising:
a plant community (The author and the commenter on the last page are considered to be the community.) component including electrical circuitry (The published website) configured
to generate one or more garden attributes (the food garden and the meditation garden) and one or more garden community recommendations
based on at least one input indicative of a target garden characteristic (location or garden geolocation information is emphasized in the food garden and is considered to be a target garden characteristic.) and at least one input indicative of a calmness state. (“A meditation garden is an island of tranquility” is considered to be indicative of a calmness state.)
In regards to claim 5,
a plant community exchange component including electrical circuitry configured to broadcast a plant community user request. (the healingforest.org website broadcasts the group discussion. The comment section is the author user’s request for comments on the plant discussion.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HealingForest in view of Weaver (US patent 7,685,237).
HealingForest, as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying the hardware behind the website including on one or more client devices and to enable communication and digital content exchanges between multiple users in different physical locations.
Weaver teaches, column 11, lines 11-13, “Chat system users may be distributed geographically and communicate with the chat host system 310 using chat participant systems” Also see figure 3.
Based on the teaching of Weaver, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the HealingForest disclosure to incorporate on one or more client devices and to enable communication and digital content exchanges between multiple users in different physical locations in order to provide the hardware computer network for the website.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HealingForest in view of Martin (US PG pub 2012/0071706).
HealingForest, as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying input indicative of the target garden characteristic and at least one biometric input indicative of a stress state; and an input indicative of the predicted calmness state based on an input indicative of a stress state.
Martin teaches a SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELICITING A RELAXATION RESPONSE, paragraph [0004], “One means by which to address the stress reaction is with natural landscape images. Visual stimuli, as a primary sensory input processed in the brain, may provoke either positive or negative physiological responses and/or self-reported psychological states. In some cases, for example, the viewing of a complicated and unrecognizable picture, such as a piece of abstract art, challenges the mind to essentially decode the picture in creative terms in order to interpret the image, provoking an anxious state. On the other hand, certain types of images, such as images of natural landscape scenes, may elicit a physiological and/or psychological relaxation response, particularly when such images have specific characteristics as further described herein.”
Addressing the stress reaction is an input indicative of the predicted calmness state.
The visual stimuli, natural landscape images or garden attributes, provoking either positive or negative physiological responses and/or self-reported psychological states is considered to be biometric input indicative of an anxiety state, a stress state, or an alertness state.
Based on the teaching of Martin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the HealingForest disclosure to incorporate input indicative of the target garden characteristic and at least one biometric input indicative of a stress state; and an input indicative of the predicted calmness state based on an input indicative of a stress state in order to provide helpful content for the website.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HealingForest in view of Moses (NPL).
HealingForest, as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying broadcast an offer to adopt a plant or to place a plant for adoption.
Moses teaches a chat for a plant swap. The plant swap is considered to be an offer to adopt a plant or to place a plant for adoption.
Based on the teaching of Moses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the HealingForest disclosure to incorporate a link to the plant related chat of Moses, including broadcasting an offer to adopt a plant or to place a plant for adoption in order to provide cross platform advertisement for like-minded organizations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715