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 Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 17 November 2023.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 14 recite limitations for receiving a status report, determining quantities of farm inputs based on received metered data, determining a quantity of produce expected at the end of a grow cycle, calculating traditional inputs to grow an equivalent quantity of produce and generating a efficiency and benefits report based on differences between traditional inputs and the quantity of inputs to the indoor farm. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Receiving a status report, determining quantities, determining an expected quantity, calculating traditional inputs to grow an equivalent quantity and generating a report based on the differences illustrate high level observation and evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. But for the processor and memory, the claims encompass a user simply observing or gathering data and making determinations, calculations and a report in their mind or manually. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component or computer system environment does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including a processor and memory storing instructions to execute the claimed steps. Even if the receiving and generating a report were recited as performed by a particularly recited additional element or via an application programming interface, receiving/inputting and generating/outputting are forms of insignificant extra solution activity since they are mere data gathering and transmission. The processor that performs the other steps is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automates those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the receiving/inputting and generating/outputting steps that could be considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-19 include all of the limitations of claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing the inputs, interpolate conversion constraints, i.e. analyze data, describe savings in the report, and determine fuel savings to include in the report. The additional elements recited including a high level recitation of an application programming interface for receiving fails to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention. The API is a generically linked environment that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 14-19, as recited, are directed towards a software product comprising instructions stored on computer-readable media. These claims are not found in one of the four statutory categories of invention. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a software product, computer or machine readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer readable medium”. In this instance, the specification in at least [0024-0025] describes software but does not exclude signals or transitory media. As a result, claims 14-19 encompass within their scope signals per se and are thus not statutory. See in re. Nuijten, 500 F.3rd 1346, 1356-57. To overcome the rejection, the claim must not encompass a signal or transmission type medium, such as by specifying non-transitory or storage mediums in the specification and claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 8-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad et al. (US 2017/0332544).
As per Claim 1 Conrad teaches:
A system for determining indoor farming efficiency and benefits, comprising: a processor; and memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive a status report indicative of a crop being grown by an indoor farm (Conrad in at least [0026-0027] and Fig. 2 item 206 describe and illustrate receiving crop status and acquiring sensor data, i.e. a status report indicative of a crop being grown in an indoor farm);
determine quantities of farm inputs to the indoor farm to grow the crop based on received metered data (Conrad in at least [0034-0038] describe determining specifications relevant to the crop being monitored such as, but not limited to crop species, expected grown cycle, growing style, location, etc., constraints include a daily budget for electricity, daily maximum water use and target cost per unit weight of produce, the simulation determines solution while taking into account historical data of price fluctuations for utility services and other variables affecting cost);
determine a quantity of produce expected at an end of a grow cycle of the crop based on the status report (Conrad in at least [0034-0040] describes the input specification and constraints being utilized to determine an expected yield for a particular growth cycle);
calculate traditional inputs to a traditional farm to grow an equivalent quantity of produce (Conrad in at least [0002, 0018, 0033, 0036, 0040] describe calculating costs and resources required for traditional outdoor farming and the ability to compare the simulation with the non-optimized resource usage to determine total savings); and
generate an efficiency and benefits report for the indoor farm based on differences between the traditional inputs to the traditional farm and the quantities of the farm inputs to the indoor farm (Conrad in at least [0002, 0005, 0006, 0012, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0033, 0038, 0040] describe a detailed report of analytics generated and displaying overall savings as well as comparisons).
As per Claim 2 Conrad further teaches:
an application programming interface for receiving the status report and the quantities of the farm inputs (Conrad in at least Fig. 1 and [0020, 0024, 0041] describe a user interface for data input, receipt, transmission and outputting including status and quantity information as described in at least [0026-0027 and 0034-0038]).
As per Claim 3 Conrad further teaches:
the farm inputs comprising at least two of: water data indicative of water used by the indoor farm, fertilizer data indicative of fertilizer used by the indoor farm, and pesticide data indicative of pesticide used by the indoor farm (Conrad describes receiving data related to resource usage including water, electricity, heat, and fertilizers in at least [0002, 0014-0016, 0034, 0036, 0038]).
As per Claim 4 Conrad further teaches:
the memory further storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to interpolate conversion constants based on geographic location, plant type, grow cycle, and time of year to determine traditional quantities for each of the traditional inputs to the traditional farm to grow the equivalent of the crop (Conrad in at last the Abstract and [0002, 0006, 0032-0040] describe making predictions using plant type, location information, growth cycle, time and other historic data).
As per Claim 5 Conrad further teaches:
wherein the efficiency and benefits report includes accurately estimated savings made by the indoor farm over traditional farming techniques such that the efficiency and benefits report is usable by an organization to determine compensation and/or incentives for the indoor farm (Conrad in at least [0002, 0005, 0006, 0012, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0033, 0038, 0040] describe a detailed report of analytics generated and displaying overall savings as well as comparisons).
As per Claims 8-11 and 14-17 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claims 1-5 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claims 1-5 above.
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.
Claims 6-7, 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad et al. (US 2017/0332544) in view of Johnson (US 2022/0164736).
As per Claim 6 Conrad in at least [0002, 0005, 0006, 0012, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0033, 0038, 0040] describe a detailed report of analytics generated and displaying overall savings and individual savings calculated from different data. Conrad does not explicitly recite a savings based on fuel or transportation costs and distances between locations. However, Johnson teaches an automated process to identify optimal conditions and practices to grow plants with specific attributes. Johnson further teaches:
the memory further storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine a fuel savings based on (a) a first transportation distance between the indoor farm and a location of a consumer of the crop and (b) a second transportation distance between a nearest traditional farm and the location of the consumer (Johnson in at least [0031-0032, 0059, 0065, 0091, 0099, 0179-0189] describes determining transportation costs and other attribute metrics using location information and distances between locations that attribute to those costs and describes how the impact of certain characteristics can be reduced via certain types of soils, drainage and other characteristics as well as the ability to run scenarios that analyze fuel economy and other not food related scenarios).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to simulate and compare conventional farming with indoor farming to report savings to include a fuel or transportation cost attribute because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By taking fuel/transportation costs into account when optimizing farming operations the combination provides another metric to show the benefit of indoor vs. traditional farming techniques.
As per Claim 7 Conrad in at least [0002, 0005, 0006, 0012, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0033, 0038, 0040] describe a detailed report of analytics generated and displaying overall savings and individual savings calculated from different data. Conrad does not explicitly recite a fuel savings based on transportation distances. However, Johnson teaches an automated process to identify optimal conditions and practices to grow plants with specific attributes. Johnson further teaches:
wherein the fuel saving is included in the efficiency and benefits report (Johnson in at least [0031-0032, 0059, 0065, 0091, 0099, 0179-0189] describes determining transportation costs and other attribute metrics using location information and distances between locations that attribute to those costs and describes how the impact of certain characteristics can be reduced via certain types of soils, drainage and other characteristics as well as the ability to run scenarios that analyze fuel economy and other not food related scenarios).
Johnson is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
As per Claims 12-13 and 18-19 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claims 6-7 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claims 6-7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gandy et al. (US 12572716) Predictive Agricultural System and Dynamic Modeling Tool that can be used to perform system modeling, obtain, store and use historical data related to agricultural scenarios and generate or display simulations based on inputs.
Van Bruggen et al. (US 12127518) Greenhouse Environment Optimization by determining targets and actions based on received status data and characteristics and making predictions for designated circumstances.
Bongartz et al. (US 20200184153) Controlled Agricultural Systems and methods of managing agricultural systems where processing lines of growing plants are configured to move plats through a system and using growth conditions to satisfy parameters.
Moghimi et al. (US 12008663) Comprehensive Multi-criteria multi-objective economic analysis tool for growing crops that considers risk factors and determines feasibility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights