DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/06/2023, and the subsequent restriction election of 06/18/2025.
Claims 4-8 have been elected.
Claims 1-3 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending, and claims 4-8 have been examined.
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 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible 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.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 4:
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
A Horticulture cloud platform configured to provide a process and methodology for the proportional monetization of Cloud access among multiple parties, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
providing an architecture for bringing multiple devices together on one platform and operating environment, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
and then sharing the income derived from this process with multiple contributing parties. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 4:
…a security and monetization server
…a transaction server
…a back-end server
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations does not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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 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.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heath (USPGP 2013/0073387 A1), hereinafter HEATH.
Claim 4:
HEATH as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A Horticulture cloud platform configured to provide a process and methodology for the proportional monetization of Cloud access among multiple parties, (see at least paragraphs 0073, 0077, 0139, 0140)
providing an architecture for bringing multiple devices together on one platform and operating environment, (see at least Figure 22 as well as associated and related text)
then sharing the income derived from this process with multiple contributing parties. (see at least paragraphs 0073, 0077, 0139, 0140)
HEATH does not specifically disclose each of the above limitations in a single embodiment. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of HEATH to provide “…educational related and integrated social networking, real time geospatial mapping, geo-target location based technologies including GPS and GIS and multiple points of interest, receiving current location of user's electronic or mobile device and multiple points of interest, cloud-type configuration storing and handling user data across multiple enterprises, generating user behavior data, ad links and promotions ("social/geo/promo") links on a website for educational related products, goods, or services, including educational related social/geo/promo data sets for user customized visual displays showing 3D map presentations with correlated or related broad or alternative categories of social/geo/promo links to be displayed with web page content for view by an end user.” (HEATH: paragraph 0013). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 5:
HEATH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HEATH further discloses the following limitations:
further configured to allow manufacturers of hardware devices and products in the horticulture and agriculture Industries, not currently Cloud enabled, to connect to the Cloud in a secure manner, and receive revenue from an End-User.
See at least paragraphs 0073, 0077, 0139, and 0140.
Claim 6:
HEATH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HEATH further discloses the following limitations:
a security and monetization server;
a transaction server;
a back-end server configured to maintain and store a product data table and a third party partner table.
See at least paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0169, 0213, 0265, and 0266, and 0403.
Claim 7:
HEATH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HEATH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the security and monetization server is configured to store security certificates for devices and banking information for device manufacturers, developers and third party partners of the proprietor of the platform.
See at least paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0169, 0213, 0265, and 0266, and 0403.
Claim 8:
HEATH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HEATH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction server is configured to communicate with the security and monetization server and a payment gateway to distribute revenue received from an end-user according to the banking information stored on the security and monetization server to the proprietor of the Horticulture cloud platform, a device manufacturer, a developer and a third-party partner in a prearranged distribution proportion.
See at least paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0169, 0213, 0265, and 0266, and 0403.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
John Fulton et al. “Developing a Farm Digital Strategy 3 – Data Management Considerations.” (Oct. 15, 2020). Retrieved online 07/24/2025. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/fabe-557
Sjaak Wolferta et al. “Big Data in Smart Farming–A review.” (07 February 2017). Retrieved online 07/24/2025. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16303754
Emerson Navarro et al. “A Systematic Review of IoT Solutions for Smart Farming.” (2020 July 29). Retrieved online 07/24/2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7436012/
Foreign Art:
HAMIDISEPEHR A et al. “Computer-implemented Method For Mapping Yield To Picking Area For Horticultural Products, Involves Mapping Quantitative Data To Digital Geographic Location Data To Produce Digital Yield Map Using Digital Timestamp Data.” (WO 2022/015944 A1)
AUNE T. “Computer-implemented Method For Predicting Yield For Horticultural Operations, Involves Computing First Predicted Yield For Agricultural Field Location Using Annotated Image Data.” (WO 2022/015943 A1)
MILLER P et al. “System Facilitating Agriculture Management, Has Processor That Is Configured To Perform Method Of Facilitating Consistent User Experience For Agriculture Management Comprising Providing User Interface To Grower.” (WO 2021/067257 A1)
KANG J et al. “Agricultural Insurance Compensation Crop-hail Disaster Remote Sensing And Monitoring Method, Involves Inverting Loss Rate Of Disaster Relief Block According To Regression Model, And Detecting Disaster Loss Rate Greater Than Certain Range.” (CN 108414455 A)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)