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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two (2) information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 9, 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The pending claims comprise 2 groups:
1) Apparatus: 13-20,
2) Method: 1-12.
As of 09/18/2023, independent claim 13 is as follows:
13.(Original) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium encoded with program code,
wherein, when the program code is executed by a processor of a computing device, the processor performs a method for optimizing indoor farming operations comprising:
(1) receiving a first input specifying that at least two of a plurality of grow lanes of a grow zone of an indoor farm facility are configured such that plants are loaded into the grow lane, and such that the loaded plants in the grow lane traverse two or more grow lane positions therein;
(2) receiving a second input specifying that each of a plurality of different plant species requires a corresponding amount of growing time between when a plant is loaded into the grow lane and when it is unloaded from the grow lane to be harvested;
(3) receiving a third input specifying respective assignments of a respective one of the plurality of plant species to at least two of the plurality of grow lanes, wherein the plurality of plant species-to-grow lane assignments include at least two different plant species of the plurality of plant species;
(4) determining an optimized seeding schedule, including determining a time that seeds for the corresponding plurality of different plant species will respectively be planted in the indoor farm facility in order to control a timing of unloading the plant species from the respective plurality of grow lanes of the grow zone.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals (1)-(4) are added to the beginning of each element.
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 13-20 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.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 13-20:
Claim categories:
1) Apparatus: 13-20.
Analysis of Step 1:
System: claims 13-20, comprising a program code that optimizes seed schedule. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 13-20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 13, as exemplary, recites non-transitory computer readable storage medium encoded with program code using determining steps which is a fundamental economic principle or business practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 13 recites an abstract idea related to non-transitory computer readable storage medium encoded with program code that optimizes seed schedule, which constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for planning movements for transporting devices, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] receiving a first input. Human activity.
[2] receiving a second input. Human activity.
[3] receiving a third input Human activity.
[4] determining optimized seed schedule. Mental step.
Steps 1-3 are a human activity that receives information on the plants being planned.
Step 4 is a determining step for optimizing seeding schedule. This is a mental steps or well-known business activities for analyzing when the most optimal time to seed.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) for evaluating / analyzing a container carrier terminal operation by inputting container carrier entry information and generating an estimated container related birth workload and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claim recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[4] above.
Steps 1-4 are for determining an optimal seeding schedule.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps 1-4, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. As for the system claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claims are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 14-20 (part of B2 above), which deal with further details of the receiving further information about the plants these further limit the abstract idea of the seeding optimization analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 14-20 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 14-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
The examiner suggests that claim 13 be amended to include a step where the program code actively seeds in accordance with the determined optimized seeding schedule and command some objects to do actively implement the seeding to overcome the 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “periodically” in claims 1, 6 and 10-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “periodically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what time period is “periodically” as it has not been defined in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2019/0133026 to Seaman et al. teaches farm networking, but lacks a teaching of an optimized seeding schedule.
Chinese Patent No. CN114186832 to Zhang et al. teaches controlling a feed plant, but lacks a teaching of optimizing a mix/pack schedule.
European Patent No. WO2018/136007 to Chong teaches indoor farming, but lacks a teaching of optimizing seeding or packing schedule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-3448. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/JUSTIN HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655