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. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter? Claim 1 recites a system, Claim 5 recites a method, and Claim 6 recites a non-transitory storage medium . Thus, the claims are to a machine, a method, and a manufacture, which are among the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea? Independent claim 1 recites: A temperature estimation system comprising: a temperature measurement unit that measures a temperature in a vehicle cabin of a vehicle parked in a vicinity of a greenhouse; and an in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit that includes a temperature estimation model that is based on a correlation between the temperature in the vehicle cabin and a temperature in the greenhouse, and that is able to output estimated temperature information in the greenhouse by inputting temperature information acquired from the temperature measurement unit to the temperature estimation model . [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process because it can be performed in the human mind]. Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application? The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., “a temperature measurement unit that measures a temperature in a vehicle cabin of a vehicle parked in a vicinity of a greenhouse” and “ an in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit that includes a temperature estimation model ” ). The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the estimating step is performed. The measuring step is mere gathering of data from a generic temperature sensor for use in the mental process . The temperature estimation unit that includes the temperature estimation model is merely generic computer hardware for performing the mental process. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea? The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent Claims 5 and 6 recite the same steps as Claim 1, and are also not patent eligible. Dependent Claims 2-4 merely recite further details of the data gathering and mental process, and generic computer hardware (i.e., the mobile terminal) that is used to implement the abstract idea , and are also not patent eligible. 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 (s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virtanen ( WO-2012052606-A1 ) in view of Crabtree et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0136120 , hereinafter “Crabtree”) . Regarding Claim 1, Virtanen teaches a temperature estimation system (Fig. 2) comprising: a temperature measurement unit ( Fig. 2, 100a) that measures a temperature in a vehicle cabin of a vehicle parked in a vicinity of a greenhouse ( Fig. 2, 300a associated with 100a in system 700 ; page 114, lines 24-34, first item 300a may be a vehicle; page 88, lines 14-20, cabin temperature ; page 115, lines 1-7, manufacturing system 900/subsequent system 700 may be a greenhouse ) ; and a greenhouse control unit that monitors and controls operation of the greenhouse based on the temperature in the vehicle cabin (page 115, lines 1-7, manufacturing system 900/subsequent system 700 may be a greenhouse; page 71, lines 8-10; page 41, lines 17-19; page 3, lines 14-24 ) . Virtanen does not specifically teach that the greenhouse control unit includes an in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit that includes a temperature estimation model that is based on a correlation between the temperature in the vehicle cabin and a temperature in the greenhouse, and that is able to output estimated temperature information in the greenhouse by inputting temperature information acquired from the temperature measurement unit to the temperature estimation model . However, Crabtree teaches a temperature estimation model that is based on a correlation between the temperature in the vehicle cabin and a temperature in the greenhouse, and that is able to output estimated temperature information in the greenhouse by inputting temperature information acquired from the temperature measurement unit to the temperature estimation model (paragraph s [00 31 ] and [0 072 ] , same temperature sensor and model can be used to predict both the internal temperature of a greenhouse and a car ; such a model would be able to estimate the temperature in the greenhouse based on the temperature in the vehicle, and vice versa ). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a model such as is taught in Crabtree in the greenhouse monitoring and control system of Virtanen, in order to provide a common data model to manage assets (see Crabtree, paragraph s [0025]-[0026], [00 31 ] , and [0 072 ] ). Regarding Claim 3, Virtanen in view of Crabtree teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1 . Virtanen further teaches further comprising a communication unit (Fig. 2, communication between 100a and 200) that is provided in the vehicle (page 114, lines 24-34, first item 300a that is associated with sensor 100a may be a vehicle) and that is able to transmit temperature information in the vehicle cabin (page 88, lines 14-20, cabin temperature) acquired by the temperature measurement unit (100a) to a mobile terminal (200 ; page 20, lines 18-23 ), wherein the in-greenhouse control unit is provided in association the mobile terminal (200 ; page 3, lines 14-28 ; page 115, lines 1-7, manufacturing system 900/subsequent system 700 may be a greenhouse ) . Virtanen does not specifically teach wherein the in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit is provided in the mobile terminal. However, Crabtree teaches an in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit (paragraphs [0031] and [0072] ) that is part of a computer system, which may include one or more mobile computing device s (see paragraph [0 074 ]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a model and a mobile computing device such as is taught in Crabtree in the greenhouse monitoring and control system of Virtanen , b ecause combining prior art elements (i.e., a temperature sensor and a n associated model , and running the model on a mobile device) according to known methods yield s predictable results . Regarding Claim 4, Virtanen in view of Crabtree teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Virtanen further teaches wherein: the temperature estimation system further includes a communication unit (Fig. 2, communication between 100a and 200) that is provided in the vehicle (page 114, lines 24-34, first item 300a that is associated with sensor 100a may be a vehicle ; page 88, lines 14-20, cabin temperature ) and that is able to transmit temperature information to a mobile terminal ( Fig. 2, communication between 100a and 200 ; reader 200 is equated to mobile terminal, see page 20, lines 18-23 ) . Virtanen does not specifically teach that the in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit is provided in the vehicle; and transmit ting the estimated temperature information to the mobile terminal. However, Crabtree teaches an in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit (paragraphs [0031] and [0072] ) that is part of a computer system, which may include one or more mobile computing device s (see paragraph [0 07 4] ; it is noted that because a mobile device is by definition mobile, such a device may be located anywhere ). Crabtree further teaches that computing devices that may run the models of paragraphs [0031] and [0072] may be in communication with many other computing devices , which may also be mobile computing devices (see paragraph s [0074]- [0 075 ]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to transmit the estimated temperature , such as is taught in Crabtree, to a mobile device , such as is taught in Crabtree , using the data transmission system that is shown in Virtanen, b ecause combining prior art elements (i.e., a temperature sensor and a model , and communications between various computing devices ) according to known methods yield s predictable results . Regarding Claim 5, Virtanen teaches measuring a temperature in a vehicle cabin of a vehicle parked in a vicinity of a greenhouse (Fig. 2, 100a and 300a; page 114, lines 24-34, first item 300a may be a vehicle; page 88, lines 14-20, cabin temperature ; page 115, lines 1-7, manufacturing system 900/subsequent system 700 may be a greenhouse ) ; and monitoring and controlling operation of the greenhouse based on the temperature in the vehicle cabin (page 115, lines 1-7, manufacturing system 900/subsequent system 700 may be a greenhouse; page 71, lines 8-10; page 41, lines 17-19; page 3, lines 14-24) . Virtanen does not specifically teach that monitoring and controlling the greenhouse includes estimating a temperature in the greenhouse by inputting temperature information in the vehicle cabin to a temperature estimation model that is based on a correlation between the temperature in the vehicle cabin and a temperature in the greenhouse . However, Crabtree teaches a temperature estimation model that is based on a correlation between the temperature in the vehicle cabin and a temperature in the greenhouse (paragraphs [0031] and [0072] , same temperature sensor and model can be used to predict both the internal temperature of a greenhouse and a car ; such a model would be able to estimate the temperature in the greenhouse based on the temperature in the vehicle, and vice versa ). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the model of Crabtree in the greenhouse monitoring and control system of Virtanen, in order to provide a common data model to manage assets (see Crabtree, paragraphs [0025]-[0026], [0031], and [0072] ). Regarding Claim 6, Virtanen teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a temperature estimation program that causes at least one processor (page 36, line 31-page 37, line 4, MEM2 and control unit) to measure a temperature in a vehicle cabin of a vehicle parked in a vicinity of a greenhouse (Fig. 2, 100a and 300a; page 114, lines 24-34, first item 300a may be a vehicle; page 88, lines 14-20, cabin temperature ; page 115, lines 1-7, manufacturing system 900/subsequent system 700 may be a greenhouse ) ; and monitoring and controlling operation of the greenhouse based on the temperature in the vehicle cabin (page 115, lines 1-7, manufacturing system 900/subsequent system 700 may be a greenhouse; page 71, lines 8-10; page 41, lines 17-19; page 3, lines 14-24) . Virtanen does not specifically teach that monitoring and controlling the greenhouse includes estimating a temperature in the greenhouse by inputting temperature information in the vehicle cabin to a temperature estimation model that is based on a correlation between the temperature in the vehicle cabin and a temperature in the greenhouse . However, Crabtree teaches a temperature estimation model that is based on a correlation between the temperature in the vehicle cabin and a temperature in the greenhouse (paragraphs [0031] and [0072] , same temperature sensor and model can be used to predict both the internal temperature of a greenhouse and a car ; such a model would be able to estimate the temperature in the greenhouse based on the temperature in the vehicle, and vice versa ). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the model of Crabtree in the greenhouse monitoring and control system of Virtanen, in order to provide a common data model to manage assets (see Crabtree, paragraphs [0025]-[0026], [0031], and [0072] ). Claim (s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virtanen in view of Crabtree and Tanizawa et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0189840, hereinafter “ Tanizawa ”) . Regarding Claim 2, Virtanen in view of Crabtree teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Virtanen does not specifically teach a weather forecast information acquisition unit that is able to acquire weather forecast information, wherein the in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit forecasts an expected time at which the temperature in the greenhouse becomes a predetermined temperature, by inputting a forecasted temperature at a predetermined time obtained from the weather forecast information to the temperature estimation model as the temperature in the vehicle cabin, and outputs the expected time as the estimated temperature information . However, Tanizawa teaches a weather forecast information acquisition unit that is able to acquire weather forecast information, wherein the in-greenhouse temperature estimation unit forecasts an expected time at which the temperature in the greenhouse becomes a predetermined temperature, by inputting a forecasted temperature at a predetermined time obtained from the weather forecast information to the temperature estimation model as the temperature in the vehicle cabin, and outputs the expected time as the estimated temperature information (paragraphs [0030] and [0121], acquire weather forecast information in order to control greenhouse; plan of the timing for watering is based on predicting ambient temperature from the weather forecast information; the plan is equated to outputting the time). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the weather forecast information based greenhouse control of Tanizawa in the system of Virtanen and Crabtree, because greenhouse control based on only the environment sensor may be an impediment to the plan t s in the greenhouse (see Tanizawa , paragraph [0120]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1599 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shelby A Turner can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6334 . 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. /CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857