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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed9/18/2025. Claims 1, 4, 6-11 were amended. Claim 3 was cancelled. Claim 12 is new. Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/18/2025, with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-12 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application of any alleged exception, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test. Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that even if it is assumed the claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is not conceded, independent claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea. In particular, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(v) indicates that in evaluating Step 2B, an additional element or combination of elements "[adds] a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application," has been found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Applicant submits that claim 1 (and similarly claims 10 and 11), as amended, provides an "inventive concept," and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities”, (see remarks , pg. 9-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for crop growth assistance, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as two individuals along with a database can interact with one another to determine forecasting models for crop growth based on previous crop growth, additionally falls under mathematical concepts such a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the models can be laid out by pen and paper as a human can perform calculation to present a model. The computing elements such as “apparatus, processor, learned model, nodes of claim 1; computer, learned model, nodes of claim 10; computer-readable medium, program, computer, apparatus, learned model, nodes of claim 11” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 9/18/2025 are moot in light of the newly cited Tedd.
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 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for crop growth assistance.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 10-11 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “accepting process of accepting a request containing any of a size, a taste, a harvest period, and a harvest yield of a crop which is a subject of growth; a generating process of generating response information containing a method for growing the crop which is the subject of growth, in accordance with the request and a [...] having learned relations between methods for growing a plurality of crops and growth results including any of sizes, tastes, harvest periods, and harvest yields of the plurality of crops; and an outputting process of outputting the method for growing the crop which is the subject of growth, wherein a grown graph, which contains related to a previously grown crop and links each indicating relationship between corresponding, and which has learned the relationship, wherein further carries out: a link prediction process of predicting to be linked to a contained in a to-be-grown graph containing regarding the subject of growth, from among contained in the grown graph and related to tasks performed during growth of a previously grown crop, with use of the to-be-grown graph and the grown graph, through a link prediction for predicting relationship between which are not connected together via a link in the to- be-grown graph and the grown graph; and automatically updating the to-be-grown graph” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, additionally mathematical concepts such a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the models can be laid out by pen and paper as a human can perform calculations to present a model for growth of crops. The mere recitation of a generic computer (apparatus, processor, learned model, nodes of claim 1; computer, learned model, nodes of claim 10; computer-readable medium, program, computer, apparatus, learned model, nodes of claim 11) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-2 and 4-12 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (apparatus, processor, learned model, nodes of claim 1; computer, learned model, nodes of claim 10; computer-readable medium, program, computer, apparatus, learned model, nodes of claim 11). The apparatus, processor, learned model, nodes of claim 1; computer, learned model, nodes of claim 10; computer-readable medium, program, computer, apparatus, learned model, nodes of claim 11, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 12 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the apparatus in claims 2, 4-9, 12; processor in claims 2, 4-9; nodes in claims 4-9 and 12; model and graph convolutional network, nodes in claim 12, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220240465 - hereinafter Iizuka) in view of Ingram-Tedd et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240306569 - hereinafter Tedd).
Re. claim 1, Iizuka teaches :
A crop growth assistance apparatus comprising:
at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: [Iizuka; ¶94].
an accepting process of accepting a request containing any of a size, a taste, a harvest period, and a harvest yield of a crop which is a subject of growth; [Iizuka; ¶26 and ¶30 shows information collected with regards to crop that is harvested such as “the cultivation assisting device of the invention further comprises a fourth information acquiring section configured to acquire fourth information related to a state of growth of the crop plant during a cultivation period for the each grower, wherein the correspondence identifying section identifies a primary correspondence between the set of the use condition and the cultivation condition, and the state of growth of the crop plant during the cultivation period, based on the first information, the third information and the fourth information of the each grower, and a secondary correspondence between the state of growth of the crop plant during the cultivation period and the outcome based on the second information and the fourth information of the each grower”].
a generating process of generating response information containing a method for growing the crop which is the subject of growth, in accordance with the request and [Iizuka; ¶26 and ¶30].
[…] a learned model having learned relations between methods for growing a plurality of crops and growth results including any of sizes, tastes, harvest periods, and harvest yields of the plurality of crops; and [Iizuka; ¶14-¶15 and ¶86].
an outputting process of outputting the method for growing the crop which is the subject of growth. [Iizuka; ¶81 and ¶109 presents outputting of cultivation method for the crops with the crop assisting device].
Iizuka doesn’t teach, Tedd teaches:
wherein the learned model is a grown graph, which contains a plurality of nodes related to a previously grown crop and links each indicating relationship between corresponding nodes of the plurality of nodes, and which has learned the relationship between nodes of the plurality of nodes, [Tedd; ¶99-¶101 shows comparison of stored with data with historic data for previously grown crops, and determining relationships
wherein the at least one processor further carries out:
a link prediction process of predicting a node to be linked to a node contained in a to-be-grown graph containing a plurality of nodes regarding the subject of growth, from among nodes contained in the grown graph and related to tasks performed during growth of a previously grown crop, with use of the to-be-grown graph and the grown graph, through a link prediction for predicting relationship between nodes which are not connected together via a link in the to- be-grown graph and the grown graph; and [Tedd; ¶104, ¶160-¶163 shows population for predictions for yielding of produce
automatically updating the to-be-grown graph. [Tedd; ¶165 shows automatically adjusting schedules according to feedback provided by collected data].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Tedd in the system of Iizuka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 10,
Method of claim 10 substantially mirrors the Apparatus of claim 1.
Re. claim 11,
Medium of claim 11 substantially mirrors the Apparatus of claim 1.
Claims 2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka in view of Tedd in view of Englard et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210209705 - hereinafter Englard).
Re. claim 2, Iizuka in view of Tedd teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Iizuka doesn’t teach, Englard teaches:
wherein
the at least one processor further carries out a basis generating process of generating basis information containing a previous instance which is similar to the method for growing the crop which is the subject of growth, and in the outputtinq process, the at least one processor further outputs the basis information. [Englard; ¶34 shows utilization of previous records to assist in crop growth such as “it may generate prediction(s) during the growing season with regard to the optimal or suggested or required harvest time metrics (e.g., beginning and/or ending of harvest), based on analysis of overall past seasons and historical data, current data, domain knowledge and pre-defined rules and cultivation protocols, current season weather and imagery information (until prediction date), weather forecast, comparison to historical weather data and/or historical imagery from past growing seasons, and one or more pre-defined manufacturing goals or manufacturing targets or manufacturing processes that are linked to this particular crop-of-interest (e.g., a pre-defined target to utilize grapes for a first type of wine if a first set of conditions is met, or to utilize them for a second type of wine or for a different product such as grape juice if another set of conditions is met)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Englard in the system of Iizuka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 4, Iizuka in view of Tedd in view of Englard teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Iizuka doesn’t teach, Englard teaches:
wherein
in the generatinq process, the at least one processor generates the response information according to the node predicted the link prediction process. [Englard; ¶34-¶36 presents the prediction unit assisting in predictions utilizing the machine learning such as “a Crop Performance Prediction Unit 421 of the ML/AI processing units 420 may analyze the integrated data and may generate predictions or estimations for the metrics of a crop-of-interest. In a first example, it may generate prediction(s) during the growing season with regard to the optimal or suggested or required harvest time metrics (e.g., beginning and/or ending of harvest), based on analysis of overall past seasons and historical data, current data, domain knowledge and pre-defined rules and cultivation protocols, current season weather and imagery information (until prediction date), weather forecast, comparison to historical weather data and/or historical imagery from past growing seasons, and one or more pre-defined manufacturing goals or manufacturing targets or manufacturing processes that are linked to this particular crop-of-interest (e.g., a pre-defined target to utilize grapes for a first type of wine if a first set of conditions is met, or to utilize them for a second type of wine or for a different product such as grape juice if another set of conditions is met)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Englard in the system of Iizuka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 5, Iizuka in view of Tedd in view of Englard teaches the apparatus of Claim 4.
Iizuka doesn’t teach, Englard teaches:
wherein
in the accepting process, the at least one processor further accepts an input of a condition regarding the grown graph, and in the link prediction process, the at least one processor predicts a node to be linked to a node contained in the to-be-grown graph, from among nodes contained in the grown graph that satisfies the condition and related to tasks performed during growth of a previously grown crop. [Englard; ¶34-¶36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Englard in the system of Iizuka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 6, Iizuka in view of Tedd in view of Englard teaches the apparatus of Claim 4.
Iizuka doesn’t teach, Englard teaches:
wherein
the at least one processor further carries out an evaluating process of evaluating a recommendation level of the node predicted in the link prediction process, in accordance with another node contained in the grown graph which includes the node predicted in by the link prediction process. [Englard; ¶37 shows analyzing the recommendations such as “Agricultural Actions Recommendations Generator 422 may analyze the data generate recommendations for agricultural actions and/or agricultural decisions. For each growing season during the different phases of the cycle, the farmer 102, optionally in coordination with the manufacturer operational unit 103, may receive generated insights indicating agricultural decisions and the corresponding actions that should be performed. For example, for wine grapes, the farmer needs to decide regarding per plot timing of post winter first irrigation, as well as per plot scheduling and priority of pruning (which is a labor-intensive operation) based on the estimated effect on end of season revenues. For potatoes, the decisions are regarding operations of Planting, Vine Killing, Harvest date, as well as per plot recommendations of weekly irrigation and fertilization quantities during the course of the growing season”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Englard in the system of Iizuka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 7, Iizuka in view of Tedd in view of Englard teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Iizuka doesn’t teach, Englard teaches:
wherein
in the accepting process, the at least one processor further accepts an input of at least selected from the group consisting of details and a timing of a task to be performed on the subject of growth, the at least one processor further carries out the crop growth assistance apparatus further comprises a link prediction process of a probability that a node indicating a predetermined growth result is linked to a to-be-grown graph containing a node which indicates at least one selected from the group consisting of the details and the timing of the task inputted, with use of the to-be-grown graph and the grown graph, through a link prediction for predicting relationship between nodes which are not connected together via a link in the to-be-grown graph and the grown graph, and in the generating process, the at least one processor generates the response information in accordance with the probability calculated in the link prediction process. [Englard; ¶34-¶39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Englard in the system of Iizuka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 8, Iizuka in view of Tedd in view of Englard teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Iizuka doesn’t teach, Englard teaches:
wherein
in the acceptinq process, the at least one processor accepts an input of a desired growth result in relation to the crop which is the subject of growth, the at least one processor further carries out a link prediction process of predicting a node to be linked to a node contained in a to-be-grown graph containing a node which indicates the growth result inputted, from among nodes contained in the grown graph and related to tasks performed during growth of a previously grown crop, with use of the to-be-grown graph and the grown graph, through a link prediction for predicting relationship between nodes which are not connected together via a link in the to-be-grown graph and the grown graph, and in the generatinq process, the at least one processor generates the response information in accordance with the node calculated in the link prediction process. [Englard; ¶34-¶39 and ¶54 allows an input to maximize growth such as “the system of the present invention may further enable dynamic creation, modification and implementation of smart, adaptive, field-specific/plot-specific, optimal irrigation and/or fertilization protocols that allow extracting maximal (or increased) crop quantity and quality at every field or plot. Accordingly, some embodiments may utilize irrigation and/or fertilization data to optimize or improve crop quality and/or quantity. Optionally, insights generated by the system may enable to create or modify or adjust irrigation and fertilization best-practices or protocols, to be tailored to individual fields or plots. The system may perform, or may enable to perform, automatic monitoring of historical irrigation and fertilization practices across large numbers of fields, spread across different geographical areas, planted on different types of soil, and being exposed to different weather conditions, along with acquisition of the resulting crop performance in each growth cycle of every field”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Englard in the system of Iizuka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 9, Iizuka in view of Tedd in view of Englard teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Iizuka doesn’t teach, Englard teaches:
wherein the at least one processor further carries out a link prediction process of identifying a crop which has predetermined relationship with the subject of growth and which is included in a plurality of previously grown crops, with use of a to-be-grown graph containing a plurality of nodes regarding the subject of growth and a plurality of grown graphs which are generated individually for the plurality of previously grown crops and each of which is the grown graph, through a link prediction for predicting relationship between nodes which are not connected together via a link in the to-be-grown graph and the grown graph, and in the generatinq process, the at least one processor generates the response information regarding the crop identified in the link prediction process. [Englard; ¶34-¶39 and ¶54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Englard in the system of Iizuka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that dependent claim 12 has overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628