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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed December 15, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-30 are presented and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
Note: The following analysis is based on the Revised Guidance titled "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Vol. 84, No. 4).
STEP 1
Under Step one of an analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim. Likewise, claim 7 is a method claim. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
.
STEP 2A. Prong 1
The claims disclose the abstract idea of managing greenhouse and the sowing and harvesting of greenhouse produce.
The claims recite the limitations below in the abstract idea indicated in non-bold and the additional elements in bold.
Claim 1 as an example recites:
a scanner;
a network interface configured to communicate over a network with a plurality of greenhouse computer systems; and
at least one processing device operable to:
access historical order data for a first crop for a first period of time from a previous year relative to a current year;
generate a rolling average of orders for the first crop for a second time period from the current year;
use the accessed historical order data for the first crop for the first period of time from the previous year and the rolling average of orders for the first crop for the second time period from the current year to generate a prediction of orders for the first crop for a third time period;
based at least in part on generated prediction of orders for the first crop for the third time period, initiate a sowing a corresponding quantity of the first crop in at least a first greenhouse;
receive, from a remote system, orders for greenhouse crops including the first crop; and
transmit, using the network interface, crop pick instructions to a first of the plurality of greenhouse computer systems to thereby effect a corresponding harvest of at least the first crop;
receive optically scanned data from the scanner corresponding to components; and
based at least in part on the optically scanned data corresponding to components, enabling additional components to be obtained.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of performing mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because it amounts to the function of:
receiving, orders for greenhouse crops including the first crop, transmit crop pick instructions to thereby effect a corresponding harvest of at least the first crop, receive optically scanned data corresponding to components; and based at least in part on the optically scanned data corresponding to components, enabling additional components to be obtained. Therefore, the claim is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 16.
STEP 2A, Prong 2
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
The claim recites one additional element: that a processor is used to perform the steps, and a scanner is used to capture barcode identification of greenhouse produce.
The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (receiving, by a processor, inventory data). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, the claim recites the additional elements of a scanner, a network interface, a computer system, a processing device, and a remote system.
The claimed “network interface, a computer system, a processing device, and a remote system“) are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system. Performing steps or functions by a processor merely limits the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers to process data (i.e. collecting data relating to a greenhouse product).
Furthermore, the scanner is performing a generic scanner function of determining greenhouse and the sowing and harvesting of greenhouse produce identification, by using processes already built in the scanner. This generic scanner limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 16.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely conventional. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
There is no indication that indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, processing device computer component, and the Symantec, TL/, and O/P Techs. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Independent claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,1355,112 USPQ2d 1093,1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DOR Holdings, LLC v. Hoteis.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, Vne claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, VersataDev. 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.
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been considered but are not persuasive. With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant has amended the claim to recite a scanner, … receive optically scanned data from the scanner corresponding to components; and based at least in part on the optically scanned data corresponding to components, enabling additional components to be obtained… determining product identification, by using processes already built in the scanner. However, scanners in general, read barcodes to provide product identification. A barcode consists of lines and spaces that may be read by a scanner. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
5. The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest:
“use the accessed historical order data for the first crop for the first period of time from the previous year and the rolling average of orders for the first crop for the second time period from the current year to generate a prediction of orders for the first crop for a third time period, based at least in part on generated prediction of orders for the first crop for the third time period, initiate a sowing a corresponding quantity of the first crop in at least a first greenhouse, receive, from a remote system, orders for greenhouse crops including the first crop, and transmit, using the network interface, crop pick instructions to a first of the plurality of greenhouse computer systems to thereby effect a corresponding harvest of at least the first crop, receive optically scanned data from the scanner corresponding to components, based at least in part on the optically scanned data corresponding to components, and enabling additional components to be obtained” as recited in claims 1, and 16.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Van et al (WO2007105168 A2) teach a greenhouse system for crop, plant in agriculture and horticulture.
- Kuchens et al (US Patent No. 4689067) teach a method for qualitatively and quantitatively improving the fertilizing or leaf dressing of cultivated and ornamental plants in greenhouses, outdoors or agriculture.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/ROMAIN JEANTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights