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 .
Response to Amendment
The Reply filed 06 May 2026 included specification amendments that overcome the objections thereto and claim amendments that overcome the 112(f) claim interpretation by reciting structure capable of performing the recited functions and the prior art rejections.
In regards to the prior art, Although Aoki JP-2021132642-A discloses an algae information management apparatus that tracks culturing status of algae including determining algae color from image data to determine algae concentration, none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the specific combination of steps recited in amended claim 1 including specifying second identification information given to a color sample closest to a color of the microalgae among a plurality of color samples for comparison with the color of the microalgae, wherein the microalgae belongs to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii using an image of the microalgae captured by a camera, specifying a protein content of the microalgae based on the identification information and classifying the microalgae are further recited and in combination with the other elements of independent claims 1, 9 and 10.
Furthermore, the amendments also revolve the 112(a) rejection by limiting the claims to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii species instead of generic microalgae. See also the first office action which provided guidance on how to overcome this rejection and wherein such guidance has been followed by Applicant using claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the amended claims now recite a concrete technological workflow implemented by a processor.
In response, each of the steps performed by the processor may be performed mentally by the human mind. See below for updated claim mapping and the original claim mapping demonstrating this point. Moreover, the technological components of the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to “apply it”.
Although Applicant contends that these operations cannot be performed in the human mind, no specific reasons are offered as to why this may be so. In contrast, the office action clearly establishes how the human mind may perform each of the recited processor functions with no more than a human judgement and pen & paper which are permitted implements in the caselaw when analyzing whether a recited process can be mentally performed within the context of 35 USC 101.
Lastly, Applicant argues that “Furthermore, the amendments add significantly more under Step 2B. The claimed processor performs a specific sequence of technical operations that transform raw image data into actionable classification information for microalgae application determination. This constitutes a practical application and a technological improvement in microalgae analysis and information management. For these reasons, amended claims 1-10 recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §101.”, Reply, pgs. 11-12.
In response, the claims as a whole a wholly comprised of mental steps and mere “apply it” type of hardware (processor, storage device, and camera) such that there is nothing that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the specifying the protein content and classifying microalgae in accordance with the specified protein content by intended application may also be considered abstract ideas because they are laws of nature and/or natural phenomena. Specifically, the color of microalgae is naturally or inherently indicative of its protein content. In, other words natural law governs the fact that the protein content of Chlamdyomonas reinhardtii microalgae is directly indicated by its color. Likewise, the suitability of the intended application of Chlamdyomonas reinhardtii microalgae as a food source or as a fuel is naturally or inherently determined by its protein content.
See MPEP 2106.04(b)(I) summary of decisions in which courts have identified the following concepts and products as examples of laws of nature or natural phenomena which include qualities of bacteria such as their ability to create a state of inhibition or non-inhibition in other bacteria, Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 which is considered directly analogous to qualities of microalgae such as the microalgae’s color that is indicative of protein content, and, in turn, classification by intended application (food or fuel) in accordance with such protein content.
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, 4, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. All of the claims pass Step 1 reciting statutory categories of apparatus (1-8), article of manufacture (9) and method (10), but under Step 2A all of these claims recite abstract ideas and specifically mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion which are:
Recited in claim 1 as
An algae information management apparatus comprising a processor {e.g. mental notes and/or a notebook kept by human managing algae crops while noting that using a pen and paper is within the definition of mental process as per CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The pen and paper may serve as the apparatus embodiment while noting that such manual recordation of information is also within the scope of the functionally defined claim elements}, the processor configure to:
receive input of first identification information given for each measurement microalgae {which corresponds to and encompasses a human looking at and recognizing first identification information (e.g. label or other ID for a specific sample of algae which may be visually and mentally determined by a human and inputted by a human onto paper as per [0046-[0047]]};
specify second identification information given to a color sample closest to a color of the microalgae among a plurality of color samples for comparison with the color of the microalgae, using an image of the microalgae captured by a camera and image processing {a human may mentally compare the algae color from an image of the algae with a color chart 200 as per [0033]-[0034], [0049] by using human vision and manually specifying the second ID information (color)};
specify a protein content of the microalgae based on the second identification information {{this may be done by a human referring to a paper LUT (look up table) consistent with [0060]},
classify the microalgae in accordance with the protein content by intended application {once the protein content is known as explained above using a paper LUT, the human may mentally classify the microalgae based on the protein content as, for example, having a high or low protein content classification}.
this may be done by a human referring to a paper LUT (look up table) consistent with [0060]},
in the storage device, the first identification information and the classification result to be associated with each other {a human may record these informations in a table or other associative format using pen and paper}
wherein the microalgae belonging to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii {field of use}
b) recited in claim 4 as:
4. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
the processor is configured to classify the intended application as a protein source when the protein content is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and classify the intended application as a starch source when the protein content is less than the predetermined threshold {this is another mental process and the threshold is governed by common knowledge in that microalgae is well-known as having different protein/starch ratios which are more or less suitable as a protein (e.g food) source or as a starch (e.g. fuel) source. Official Notice is taken regarding the general suitability of microalgae for food or fuel sources depending upon the relative amounts of protein and starch. See also Lingeman, Jake, Honda’s Microscopic CO2 Fighter Can Eliminate The Effects of 20,000 Civics, Published Nov 12, 2022 at 10:00 AM EST, retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/hondas-microscopic-co2-fighter-can-eliminate-effects-20000-civics-1758392 on 06 February 2026.
d) recited in claim 5 as:
5. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive input of the first identification information by reading the first identification information from an image captured by a camera {a human may also read the ID information from a displayed image captured by a camera thus not distinguishing from a mental process}.
e) recited in claims 8 as:
8. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the microalgae is Honda DREAMO strain, accession number: FERM BP-22306 {a human may observe both of these conventional strains for their pigmentation/color}
f) claims 9 and 10 are parallel to claim 1 and broadly recite (claim 9) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program and (claim 10) a method; further as to claim 9 the invention’s article of manufacture elements are recited at a very broad, “apply it” level that does not add significantly more.
It is noted that the above analysis is according to Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Under Step 2B, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-10 are devoid of structural elements other than high-level, “apply-it” elements of processor, storage device and camera and may be performed in the human mind as a mental process solely utilizing human faculties such as eyes, brain, and pen and paper to perform the broadly recited methods thus failing to integrate the judicial exception of a mental process into a practical application.
Moreover, the processor, storage device and camera amount to a generic computer implementing the method and fail to integrate the mental process exception into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as well as the case law cited therein.
Consider also that “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). See also footnotes 14 and 15 of the Federal Register Notice.
For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1-10 recites a non-statutory mental process.
Furthermore, the specifying the protein content and classifying microalgae in accordance with the specified protein content by intended application may also be considered abstract ideas because they are laws of nature and/or natural phenomena. Specifically, the color of microalgae is naturally or inherently indicative of its protein content. In, other words natural law governs the fact that the protein content of Chlamdyomonas reinhardtii microalgae is directly indicated by its color. Likewise, the suitability of the intended application of Chlamdyomonas reinhardtii microalgae as a food source or as a fuel is naturally or inherently determined by its protein content.
See MPEP 2106.04(b)(I) summary of decisions in which courts have identified the following concepts and products as examples of laws of nature or natural phenomena which include qualities of bacteria such as their ability to create a state of inhibition or non-inhibition in other bacteria, Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 which is considered directly analogous to qualities of microalgae such as the microalgae’s color that is indicative of protein content, and, in turn, classification by intended application (food or fuel) in accordance with such protein content.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions (mental process and/or law of nature) because the generic computer implicated in that claim does not amount to significantly more and/or are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind or are otherwise a law of nature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aoki JP-2021132642-A discloses an algae information management apparatus that tracks culturing status of algae including determining algae color from image data to determine algae concentration. See abstract, pgs. 2-6.
Heo, Jina, et al. "PhotoBiobox: A tablet sized, low-cost, high throughput photobioreactor for microalgal screening and culture optimization for growth, lipid content and CO2 sequestration." Biochemical Engineering Journal 103 (2015): 193-197 discloses culturing and screening microalgae using a PhotoBiobox that appears well suited to gathering and managing test data from a variety of microalgae samples being cultured. See abstract, Figs. 1-2,
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights