DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea Holler without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 (and claims 11-13), the following 2-step analysis is applied for analyzing the 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility of the claims. Claims 11-13 recite similar limitations.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 recite(s) statutory categories, specifically a machine (Claims 1 and 11), a process (Claim 12), and an article of manufacture (Claim 13).
Step 2A, Prong 1: recites an abstract idea
Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are directed to the abstract idea of collecting data, performing a mathematical calculation (calculating a degree of association by finding the difference between a value of size x coefficient of a current work area and a past work area), and prioritizing/outputting information based on the calculation. These fall under mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Step 2A, Prong 2: not integrated into a practical application
Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims simply invoke generic computer components (e.g., storage device, processors, memory, and displays) merely as a tool to execute the abstract calculations and output the results, without any improvement to computer functionality itself.
Step 2B: does not amount to significantly more
The additional elements in the claims (one or more memories, one or more processors, storage devices, and a display device) are recited at a high level of generality and merely represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer hardware functioning in its typical capacity to process and display data.
Conclusion: Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept. Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10: Limitations in all dependent claims have been examined in a similar way to the above independent claims. It was found that none of the dependent claims recite a specific technical improvement to computer functionality or a non-conventional arrangement of components sufficient to overcome the § 101 rejection.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10: Merely limit the abstract idea to a specific field of use (e.g., lawn/hedge work, types of plants, inclinations) or add specific data fields. They do not add an inventive concept.
Claims 4 and 5: Merely add routine, generic data-gathering steps (user input, capturing an image) to feed data into the abstract calculation. They do not add an inventive concept.
Claims 6 and 7: Merely recite standard data manipulation and generic presentation formatting (outputting information by predetermined divisions). They do not add an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holler et al (US8875088) in view of Ersek et al (US8126819) and further in view of Song (US20220413165A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Holler teaches an information processing device comprising a storage device configured to store history information in which area information regarding a past work area and time information regarding a work time in the past work area are associated with each other, the information processing device further comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
(Holler, Fig. 6; "The server computer 600, which may be used as a server system 404 (FIG. 4), typically includes one or more processing units (CPUs) 602 ... memory 604", c19:30-40; Fig. 4; "historical work completion data 416", c12:60-65; Ersek, Fig. 1; "Normally, the customer will provide their lot size dimensions, any previous treatment provided by the lawn care service provider, and the desired treatment service.", c1:25-35; Holler teaches a server system with processors and memory storing historical project work data; Ersek teaches lot size)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Ersek into the system or method of Holler in order to store historical area and treatment information associated with time, size and effort estimates. The combination of Holler and Ersek also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
The combination of Holler and Ersek further teaches:
acquire area information regarding a current work area;
(Holler, Fig. 2J; "The menu 2132 allows the user to specify criteria", c11:60; Ersek, Fig. 1; "the customer will either telephone or request an online quote for a treatment process for their lawn care service", c1:20-25; incorporating Ersek into Holler would allow the system to acquire the customer's specific lot size dimensions as the criteria for the current work area)
identify a degree of association between the acquired area information and the history information stored in the storage device; and
(Holler, Fig. 2J; "The project management software identifies work items that satisfy the criteria provided by the user in the menu 2132", c12:10-15; matching the inputted criteria to the stored historical data to identify associated records.)
output information included in the history information with priority according to the identified degree of association,
(Holler, Fig. 2I; "The graph 2116 includes a group of bars 2118 displaying historical work estimate data for the selected project hierarchy level 2012 ", c10:40-45; outputting and displaying the identified historical data that matched the specified criteria.)
wherein the area information includes size information regarding a size of the work area and workability information regarding easiness of work in the work area,
(Holler, Fig. 2A; "enter a work or size estimate", c6:50-55; Ersek, Fig. 1; "lot size dimensions", [abstract]; "reviewing the property and the surrounding circumstances", c1:50-55; incorporating Ersek into Holler would modify the work item parameters to include the physical lot size and surrounding circumstances (workability/easiness) of the property to generate accurate estimates)
wherein the degree of association is a difference between (i) a value of size x coefficient of the current work area and (ii) a value of size x coefficient of the past work area, and the coefficient corresponds to the workability information,
wherein the smaller the difference is the higher the degree of association is.
(Holler, Fig. 2C; "values calculated according to a formula ("synthetic attributes")", c5:55-60; Fig. 2K; "statistical metrics include, for example, average velocity", c12:45-50; “Other rates of work completion include but are not limited to the amount of estimated work completed per release or per a specified period of time (e.g., a day, a week, or a month)”, c5:35-40; completion time = size of work x [1/(rate of work)]; “Summary information below the graph 2116 also displays May 24, 2008 as the estimated time of completion 2128, which may be compared against the previously scheduled time of completion 2130”, c10:60-end; comparing historical completion times to figure out how close the completions are => degree of association for different works in history)
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the combination of Holler and Ersek teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination does not expressly disclose but Song teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the coefficient includes at least one of coefficients regarding an inclination, a waterside, an object, and a plant.
(Song, Fig. 5a; "The slope of a segment can be calculated by heights of both ends.", [0041]; => “inclination”; Fig. 7; "The object next to Segment 1 is a tree.", [0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Song into the modified system or method of Holler and Ersek in order to provide specific workability metrics, such as slopes (inclination) and trees (plants), to function as the coefficients that adjust the difficulty and time estimates for the specific work area. The combination of Holler and Ersek also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Holler, Ersek and Song teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein
the area information includes division information regarding a division of work,
the size information includes information regarding an area for each division of the work,
the workability information includes information regarding workability for each division of the work, and
the time information includes information regarding a work time for each division of the work.
(Song, Fig. 7; "the lawn has been marked with several zones of different sizes and shapes.", [0044]; Fig. 10; "calculations for the area sizes of each zone and the whole lawn, number of obstacles in each zone if there is any, number of segments in each zone, slope of each segment, time to finish mowing or caring for each zone and the lawn, difficulty level for each zone and the lawn", [0050]; incorporating Song into the combination of Holler and Ersek would allow the system to divide the overall work area into granular zones (divisions), generating the specific size, time, and difficulty (workability) for each individual zone to produce highly accurate, division-by-division schedules and quotes)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Holler and Ersek teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to acquire information input by a user as the area information.
(Ersek, Fig. 1; "the customer will provide their lot size dimensions", c1:25-30; acquiring area information directly inputted by the user/customer)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Holler and Ersek teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to acquire, as the area information, information based on a captured image of a device capable of capturing an image of the work area.
(Ersek, Fig. 1; "Using current GPS satellite imaging aerial photographs of area lot sizes", c1:65-end; acquiring area information based on captured images from satellite imaging devices)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Holler and Ersek teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the area information includes division information regarding a division of work, and
the one or more processors execute the instructions to output information included in the history information for each division of the work with priority according to the identified degree of association.
(Holler, Fig. 1; "groups of work items may be defined.", c4:10-15; "Reports may be generated for a specified level or node in the project hierarchy", c5:10-15; dividing the overall work area into designated groups (divisions) and outputting generated reports/historical information for each specific division based on the established parameters and associations)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Holler and Ersek teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to output information included in predetermined number of pieces of the history information having the high degree of association for each division of the work.
(Holler, Fig. 2K; "a Start Iteration field 2154 for selecting a first historical iteration, a Stop Iteration field 2156 for selecting a second historical iteration ", c12:40-45; Fig. 2I; " The graph 2116 includes a group of bars 2118 displaying historical work estimate data for the selected project hierarchy level 2012", c10:40-4; using defined start and stop parameters to output a predetermined number of historical data pieces (iterations) that correlate with the chosen work division metrics.)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Holler, Ersek and Song teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the size information includes information regarding a surface area of a hedge to be a work target.
(Song, Fig. 12; "While going through a boundary, the tool collects length, direction, and slope information.", [0052]; Fig. 5a; "The slope of a segment can be calculated by heights of both ends.", [0041]; Fig. 7; "The object next to Segment 1 is a tree.", [0047]; Fig. 7; "The object next to Segment 5 is a wall.", [0046]; Ersek, Fig. 1; "lawn care services", c2:10-15; While Holler, Ersek and Song do not explicitly use the exact word "hedge," Song explicitly teaches collecting the length and height dimensions of lawn boundaries and plant-based obstacles (like trees, walls, and fences) to map the work area. Under the KSR principle of applying a known technique to a similar item to achieve a predictable result, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply Song's known dimension-measuring capabilities to a hedge, which is essentially a living, plant-based wall or boundary common in the lawn care services of Ersek. Calculating the surface area (length x height) of a hedge target using these established size-gathering methods is a finite, identified, and predictable solution to accurately estimate the required work effort)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Holler, Ersek and Song teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the division of the work includes at least one selected from the group consisting of lawn work, grass work, manual work, and hedge work.
(Song, Fig. 10; "lawn mowing or caring jobs", [0002]; incorporating Song into Holler and Ersek specifies the actual divisions of work by categorizing the tasks into explicit lawn and grass work activities, allowing the estimating system to assign accurate parameters based on the distinct type of job)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Holler and Ersek teaches its/their respective based claim(s).
The combination further teaches the terminal device, comprising: one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
transmit the area information regarding the current work area to the information processing device according to claim 1;
receive information output by the output unit from the information processing device; and
display the received information on a display device.
(Holler, Ersek, see comments on claim 1. Furthermore, Holler teaches the client-side terminal device framework: Fig. 4; "A user interfaces with the server system 404 at a client system or device 402", c17:15-20; Fig. 5; "The client computer 500 may also include user interface hardware 508 comprising a display device 510", c18-20:25; Holler teaches a client device comprising processors, memory, and a display that transmits input criteria to the server and receives/displays the estimated output)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/4/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 103 on one or more of the pending claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Also, applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 101 on claims 1-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner’s answer to applicant’s argument regarding the § 101 rejection:
(1). The § 101 rejection to claims 1-23 have been updated based on the amendment.
(2). The Formula Is Still an Abstract Mathematical Concept
Applicant argues that computing "degree of association" as (size × workability coefficient) difference is a "specific algorithm" beyond abstraction. However, specifying the inputs to a math equation does not transform the equation itself into patent-eligible subject matter. The operation, multiply, subtract, rank, remains arithmetic that can be performed mentally or on paper, regardless of how domain-specific the variables are.
(3). No Practical Application Is Demonstrated
The amended claim still uses only generic hardware ("one or more processors") to run the formula and output a ranked list. Applying a domain-specific formula on a generic computer to display prioritized results is not a practical application, it produces only an informational result, not a technical effect. Narrowing the field of use to outdoor work area management does not, by itself, integrate the abstract idea into a real-world technical solution.
(4). Novelty ≠ Patent Eligibility
Applicant points to the formula being absent from the prior art as evidence of eligibility. These are separate inquiries. A claim can be novel and nonobvious yet still be directed to an abstract idea. The absence of the formula from cited references means it may be a new abstract idea, not that it is more than an abstract idea.
(5). The Combination Still Adds Up to Abstract Steps
Applicant argues elements should be weighed in combination. However, combining abstract steps, collect area data, apply a weighted formula, rank output, does not yield a non-abstract result. Each element (storing data, computing a difference, prioritizing output) is routine data processing, and their combination does not improve any underlying technology.
(6) Conclusion
The § 101 rejection is maintained. The amendments specify how to perform the abstract comparison (size × workability coefficient), but not how to improve a computer or technical system. The applicant's own specification treats the processor and memory as generic infrastructure, which the examiner may note via official notice as well-understood, routine hardware.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANXUN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9874. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 8AM-5PM Pacific Time.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/JIANXUN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662 6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights