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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
No claims are canceled.
Priority
As detailed on the 29 September 2023 filing receipt, the application claims do not claim priority to an earlier filing date. At this point in examination, all claims have been interpreted as being accorded the effective filing date of 19 September 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed on 19 September 2023, 11 December 2024, 15 May 2026, and 10 August 2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the references are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification discloses Figure 4, Ref. 402 includes four species of plants: “ash 406, beech 408, and cedar 410” (pg. 33, paragraph [68]). However, the list only includes three species, not four, as there are two instances of ash. It is unclear whether this should disclose three species or if there are two species of ash and thus four total species
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 § I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claims as a whole, considering all claim elements individually and in combination, are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong 2, and the additional elements of the claims, considered individually and in combination, do not provide significantly more at Step 2B than the abstract idea of calculating a pollen distribution.
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1-7), a computer system (claims 8-14), and a tangible computer-readable medium (claims 15-20), each of which falls within one of the categories of statutory subject matter. [Step 1: Yes]
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
• mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships
and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or
• mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite identifying plant species from images from different locations using a classification model. The classification model is not specific and identifying plant species from an image is within the scope of what the human mind can practically perform.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite crating at least one growth cycle prediction model for at least one plant species. The growth cycle prediction model is interpreted as a description of a mathematical function under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The specification discloses the model may be trained using plant species and data and local environmental data and outputs growth rate and cycle, which are interpreted as numerical values (pg. 20-21, paragraph [47]).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite modelling pollen count mappings for the plant species. This step is interpreted as organizing the data such that the pollen count is related to the plant species and thus a data organization step practically performed by the human mind.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite predicting pollen yields at the locations using the growth cycle prediction models and pollen count mappings. A yield prediction is interpreted as a mathematical step of determining a numerical value for the pollen count, and also disclosed as a calculation in the specification (pg. 22, paragraph [50]).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite calculating pollen distributions at the locations using the predict pollen yields and aerodynamic models. Calculating a distribution based on yields and other models is considered a verbal description of a mathematical process.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite navigating a user based on the calculated one or more pollen distributions at one or more of the locations. This step is managing the behavior of a human user by following rules or instructions and thus a method of organizing human activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the locations are located within a plurality of regions, where the locations are data input into the models, and data per se is abstract.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite designating one of the regions as a reference region for a plant species of the one or more plant species and wherein the growth cycle prediction model for the plant species is created based on historical phenological data of the reference region. Designation is a selecting step, where making a selection is a step practically performed by the human mind. The source of the data for the model being phenological data is a data description and data per se is abstract.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite creating one or more deviation correction models for the plant species based on historical phenological data pertaining to the one or more regions comprising the plant species that are not the reference region of the plant species. A deviation correction model is interpreted as mathematical model for a modification of the plant values.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the calculating comprises, responsive to determining that a location of the locations does not comprise the reference region, normalizing an output of the growth cycle prediction model pertaining to the plant species using a deviation correction model of the one or more deviation correction models pertaining to the plant species and a region of the regions comprising the location. Normalizing is a mathematical concept.
Claims 7 and 14 recite the calculating is based on a plurality of real-time Internet of Things sensor data. This step describes the source of the data and data per se is abstract. The data is collected in real-time but real-time analysis of the data does not appear to be required.
Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas and thus must be examined further to determine whether elements in addition to the abstract ideas integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). [Step 2A Prong One: Yes]
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Because the claims recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A Prong Two provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they recite elements in addition to the abstract ideas which integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
Claim 1 recites a processor. Claim 8 recites a computer system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories and readable mediums. Claim 15 recites a program product comprising one or more computer-readable tangible mediums executed by a processor.
The claims comprising computer components do not describe any specific computational steps by which the computer performs or carries out the abstract idea, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer are used to implement these functions. The claims are considered to state nothing more than that a generic computer performs the functions that constitute the abstract idea. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the claims recite elements in addition to the abstract ideas which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, and must be examined further to determine whether elements in addition to the abstract ideas provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05). [Step 2A Prong Two: Yes]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Step 2B of 101 analysis determines whether the claims contain additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, and an inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 1 recites a processor. Claim 8 recites a computer system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories and readable mediums. Claim 15 recites a program product comprising one or more computer-readable tangible mediums executed by a processor.
The claims recite a computer, interpreted as instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, where the computer does not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions, which can be performed without the use of a computer (MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)). Storing data on a computer is a conventional computer function (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the recited additional elements, alone or in combination, do not appear to provide an inventive concept. [Step 2B: No]
Conclusion: Claims are Directed to Non-statutory Subject Matter
For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole,
are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Hence, the claimed invention does not
constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Efstathiou (Atmospheric Environment 45: 2260-2276, 2011; previously cited on the 11 December 2024 IDS form).
Claim 1 recites identifying, by a classification model, one or more plant species within a plurality of locatable images taken at a plurality of locations.
Efstathiou teaches images portraying plant information in the form of a leaf area index for one specific plant species – birch (Fig. 4a) and ragweed (Fig. 4b) – in a plurality of locations where the locations are counties as determined by the United States Forest Service (pg. 2265, col. 1, second paragraph).
Claim 1 recites creating one or more growth cycle prediction models for the one or more plant species.
Efstathiou teaches modeling seasonal parameters and diurnal cycles (pg. 2262, col. 2, first paragraph), which is interpreted as growth cycles, and annual time series for specific plants – here birch and ragweed – showing annual cycles in pollen emergence based on plant counts (pg. 2271, col. 1, first paragraph).
Claim 1 recites modelling one or more pollen count mappings for the one or more plant species.
Efstathiou teaches modeling using a phenological progression of pollination period with plant specific (pg. 2265, col. 2, first paragraph) and duration of flowering season (pg. 2266, col. 1, first paragraph).
Claim 1 recites predicting one or more pollen yields at the locations for the one or more plant species based on the one or more growth cycle prediction models and the one or more pollen count mappings.
Efstathiou teaches pollen species specific equations to determine trends in emission (pg. 2261, col. 2, second paragraph).
Claim 1 recites calculating a pollen distribution at the locations based on the one or more predicted pollen yields and one or more aerodynamic models.
Efstathiou teaches estimating airborne allergens in the form of pollen (pg. 2274, col. 2, third paragraph) where the distribution is taught as trajectory and deposition of pollen (pg. 2265, col. 1, first paragraph) and the aerodynamic model is taught by taking into account factors such as air concentration, wind field (pg. 2265, col. 1, first paragraph) and effects of wind and precipitation (pg. 2268, col. 2, last paragraph).
Claim 1 recites the method is carried out using a processor.
Efstathiou teaches programs for carrying out the methods and thus a computational environment which requires a processor (Fig. 1).
Claim 8 recites a computer system comprising processors, memory, and tangible storage for carrying out the method of claim 1.
Efstathiou teaches programs for carrying out the methods and thus a computational environment which requires a processor (Fig. 1).
Claim 15 recites a computer program product comprising computer-readable tangible medium and instructions for performing the steps of claim 1 using a processor. The medium being tangible is, given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, interpreted as a non-transitory medium, which is consistent with the specification which discloses “a computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se” (pg. 9, paragraph [27]).
Efstathiou teaches programs for carrying out the methods (Fig. 1).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite navigating a user based on the calculated one or more pollen distributions at one or more of the locations.
Efstathiou teaches preventative actions such as avoiding peak exposure (pg. 2260, col. 2, last paragraph to pg. 2261, col. 1, first paragraph), where advice on behavior is interpreted as navigating.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the locations are located within a plurality of regions.
Efstathiou teaches counties or parishes (pg. 2265, col. 1, second paragraph) which are analyzed in larger regional modules (pg. 2264, col. 2, fourth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efstathiou as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) above and further in view of van den Broek (Biomass & Bioenergy 21: 335-249, 2001; newly cited).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite designating one of the regions as a reference region for a plant species of the one or more plant species and wherein the growth cycle prediction model for the plant species is created based on historical phenological data of the reference region.
Van den Broek teaches estimating growth for a certain region based on known plant information from a reference region, where the reference region’s previous results – interpreted as historical data – informs the non-reference region (pg. 337, col. 1-2 Section 2).
Combining Efstathiou and van den Broek
An invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to modify prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the invention. One would have been motivated to combine van den Broek with Efstathiou because van den Broek teaches using a reference region to inform non-reference regions which would be desirable because it allows estimation of potential growth rate of the same crop based on a factor based on the environment in the non-reference region (pg. 337, col. 2; pg. 340, col. 2), thus allowing of expectations regarding plant yield and growth outside the reference (abstract). Efstathiou and van den Broek are both directed to the shared field of endeavor of estimating output from plants based on environmental factors and thus their combination is prima facie obvious.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efstathiou in view of van den Broek as applied to claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 above and further in view of Brentrup (European Journal of Agronomy 20: 247-264, 2004; newly cited).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite creating one or more deviation correction models for the plant species based on historical phenological data pertaining to the one or more regions comprising the plant species that are not the reference region of the plant species.
Brentrup teaches normalization, which is interpreted as a correction, based on a reference region (pg. 258, col. 1).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the calculating comprises, responsive to determining that a location of the locations does not comprise the reference region, normalizing an output of the growth cycle prediction model pertaining to the plant species using a deviation correction model of the one or more deviation correction models pertaining to the plant species and a region of the regions comprising the location.
Efstathiou teaches the growth cycle for a given plant while Brentrup teaches normalization based on a reference region (pg. 258, col. 1)
Combining Efstathiou, van den Broek, and Brentrup
An invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to modify prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the invention. One would have been motivated to combine van den Broek with Efstathiou further with Brentrup because Brentrup teaches normalization based on a reference region. Van den Broek teaches a reference region for making predictions for growth expectations on non-reference regions, and Brentrup teaches normalizing versus a reference allows one to interpret the non-reference more readily (pg. 250, col. 1, first paragraph) and better understand the results in the study (pg. 257, Section 3.2). The combined prior art is directed to the shared field of endeavor of estimation of plant production based on plant life cycle and environmental data and thus their combination is prima facie obvious.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efstathiou as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 rejected under 35 USC 102 above and further in view of Wachira (US 20210125035 A1; previously cited on the 19 September 2023 IDS form).
Claims 7 and 14 recite the calculating is based on a plurality of real-time Internet of Things sensor data.
Wachira teaches an internet of things for remote sensing (paragraph [21]).
Combining Efstathiou and Wachira
An invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to modify prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the invention. One would have been motivated to combine the sensor data derived from an Internet of Things as taught by Wachira with the pollen prediction method of Efstathiou because Wachira teaches accurate insights of an environment can be gained from IoT sensors (paragraph [21]). Wachira teaches applicability to pollen sources (paragraph [20]) and so combination with Efstathiou would be expected to succeed. Both Efstathiou and Wachira are both directed to the shared field of endeavor of sensing and modelling pollen as part of an environmental process and thus their combination is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deutsch (US 11340097 B1; newly cited) teaches sensors for air quality monitoring wherein sensor data from an Internet of Things provides air monitoring for health and safety (paragraph [27]) including air quality concerns such as high pollen (paragraph [11]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert J Kallal whose telephone number is (571)272-6252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Olivia M. Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/Robert J. Kallal/Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights