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
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s April 3, 2025 filing with the USPTO.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 30, 2025 and August 14, 2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are to a device without a tangible form (hardware components). Independent claim 1 is to a “program” which is interpreted as software when read in light of the instant specification “planting planning unit 52 creates a planting plan by using, for example, mathematical programming such as linear programming or nonlinear programming, a search algorithm such as a linear search or genetic algorithm, or the like on a basis of the limit information from the terminal 11 and various databases included in the database 51.” (Spec. [82]). It is suggested that Applicant either add hardware to the claim or provide an embodiment for the software, e.g. non-transitory medium.
A device is interpreted as falling under the statutory class of a machine. Where a machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. MPEP 2106.03(I). The courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03(I). As currently claimed the claims are found to be software per se. Where products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. MPEP 2106.03(I).
The Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media memorandum (01/26/2010) states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium . . . typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signal per se . . . particularly when the specification is silent”, Also see MPEP 2106.03(I). It is suggested that Applicant add “non-transitory” to the claimed limitation to overcome the rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are to a device without a tangible form (hardware components). A device is interpreted as falling under the statutory class of a machine. Where a machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. MPEP 2106.03(I). The courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03(I). As currently claimed the claims are found to be software per se. Where products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. MPEP 2106.03(I). It is noted that the instant specification provides support for adding hardware in at least Specification [0435-0440] and Figures 1-6.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim 20 falls within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claim 20 is to a method (process).
No, claims 1-19 do NOT falls within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mental processes. Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
[Claim 1] A program causing a computer to function as an information processing device comprising:
a planting planning unit that creates a planting plan including a target plant species which is set as a target of planting and a planting time for which the target plant species can be planted, on a basis of a cultivation period during which plants are cultivated, a growth period during which a plant species can be grown, and biological diversity index information as an index of biological diversity, and generates planting plan information indicating the planting plan.
The claim is directed to creating a planting plan based on known information. The Claim is made to a high level of generality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the planning elements of the claim could be achieved using the evaluation and judgement capabilities of the human mind. Nothing in the claimed elements would prevent a person from carrying out the claimed invention.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The generating elements are determined to be an outputting step – insignificant extra-solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perry et al (US 2019/0050948 A1).
Claims 1, 19, and 20
Perry teaches a program causing a computer to function as an information processing device (Perry abstract “crop prediction system performs various machine learning operations to predict crop production and to identify a set of farming operations that, if performed, optimize crop production”) comprising:
a planting planning unit that creates a planting plan including a target plant species which is set as a target of planting and a planting time for which the target plant species can be planted, (Perry fig. 5-7 and [122] “Operations describing planting, including one or more of: a planting rate operation, a planting depth operation, a planting date range operation, an operation to plant an identified crop variant, an operation to not plant a crop, an operation to plant a different type of crop than an identified type of crop (e.g., an operation to plant an intercrop, an operation to plant a cover crop), and the like”) associated with a plot index and crop variant.”) on a basis of a cultivation period during which plants are cultivated, a growth period during which a plant species can be grown, and biological diversity index information as an index of biological diversity (Perry [10] “field information collected from the sensors is used to compute additional field information, including one or more of: a ratio of soil to air temperature, a ratio of leaf to air temperature, a soil wetness index, a number of cumulative growing degree days, a chlorophyll content, evapotranspiration, a daily light integral, a daily minimum temperature, a daily mean temperature, a daily maximum temperature, and a change in the normalized difference vegetation index.”, [81] “geographic database 135 for a machine learning crop prediction system. In the example database of FIG. 2, information describing geographic characteristics that may impact crop production are associated with a plot index that uniquely identifies a particular field or plot of land associated with the characteristics.” and [102] “Data calculated based on other agricultural information, including the ratio of soil to air temperature, the ratio of leaf to air temperature, a soil wetness index, cumulative growing degree days, chilling hours, a chlorophyll content, evapotranspiration, a daily light integral, photosynthetically active radiation, a daily minimum temperature, a daily mean temperature, a daily maximum temperature, a normalized difference vegetation index, modified soil-adjusted vegetation index, data calculated using other information in the database, and the like”), and
generates planting plan information indicating the planting plan (Perry [34] “the grower client device 102 accesses the crop prediction system 125 via an interface 130 generated by the crop prediction system 125. In some embodiments, the grower client device 102 receives user input from a grower describing geographic and agricultural data associated with one or more portions of land farmed by a user of the grower client device, for instance in conjunction with a request for crop prediction information” and [41] “GUI generated by the interface module 130 and displayed via the grower client device 102, the agronomist client device 108, or the like). Examples of external databases 112 can include: [0042] Databases including inputs from growers or grower client devices 102 describing crops planted (including crop variety, hybrid crop types, and chemical/microbial coatings of crop seed), actions taken during past years or seasons, planting dates, planting depths, row spacing, planting speed, seed application rate (including minimum, average, and maximum rates), locations and identification of portions of land on which the crops were planted (e.g., management zones), and actions taken before, during, and after planting”).
[Claim 19] recites limitations that are substantially similar to those rejected above; therefore these limitations are also rejected for the reasons given above. Perry additionally teaches the claimed limitation of an information processing device comprising (Perry [206] “an apparatus or system for performing the operations herein. Such an apparatus or system may be specially constructed for the required purposes, and/or it may comprise a general-purpose computing device selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer.”).
[Claim 20] recites limitations that are substantially similar to those rejected above; therefore these limitations are also rejected for the reasons given above. Perry additionally teaches the claimed limitation of an information processing method comprising (Perry [5] “a method for crop productivity optimization by accessing, for a first portion of land associated with a user, field information describing characteristics of the first portion of land related to crop growth from a plurality of data sources. ”):
Claim 2
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 1, wherein the planting planning unit creates the planting plan such that the biological diversity is enhanced (Perry [41], [89], [91] and [140] where variety is the equivalent of the claimed diversity).
Claim 3
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 1, wherein the planting planning unit creates the planting plan further including a planting position at which the target plant species is to be planted, on a basis of space information indicating a size of an occupancy permission space in which occupancy of the plant is permitted and size information indicating a size of the plant species (Perry fig. 5-7 and [164-167]).
Claim 4
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 3, wherein the planting planning unit creates the planting plan by arranging the plant species in the occupancy permission space (Perry fig. 5-7 and [167-169]).
Claim 5
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 4, wherein the planting planning unit creates the planting plan such that the biological diversity and a space filling rate are enhanced, the space filling rate indicating a proportion at which the plant species arranged in the occupancy permission space occupies the occupancy permission space (Perry [12], [14], and [42]).
Claim 6
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 1, wherein the planting planning unit creates the planting plan on a basis of the plant species that can be planted and can be a target of planting (Perry [4] and [92]).
Claim 7
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 1, wherein the planting planning unit creates the planting plan on a basis of a climate of a planting point where the plant is to be planted (Perry [36]).
Claim 8
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 1, wherein the planting plan information is a planting plan graphical user interface (GUI) that expresses the planting plan by using an image (Perry fig. 5-7 and [54]).
Claim 9
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 8, wherein the planting plan information is the planting plan GUI that expresses the planting plan in time series by using an image (Perry fig. 5-7).
Claim 10
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 9, wherein the planting plan information includes a navigation message that navigates work to be performed by a user (Perry [99] and [104] see location).
Claim 11
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 1, wherein the biological diversity index information is information of phylogenetic classifications of plants (Perry [10] and [87] see NDVI).
Claim 12
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 1, wherein the biological diversity index information is information as an index of a functional diversity of plants (Perry [10] and [87]).
Claim 13
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 12, wherein the information as an index of the functional diversity is information of microbiota in a co-occurrence relationship with a plant species (Perry [87] and [102]).
Claim 14
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 12, wherein the information as an index of the functional diversity is information of metabolites appearing in a plant species (Perry [140]).
Claim 15
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 3, wherein the size information indicates a size of a plant species at each stage of a life cycle (Perry [201]).
Claim 16
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 15, wherein the growth period is a period during which a plant species can be grown at each stage of the life cycle (Perry [55] and [201]).
Claim 17
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 5, wherein the planting plan information includes information of one or both of the biological diversity and the space filling rate (Perry [8] and [121]).
Claim 18
Perry teaches all the limitation of the program according to claim 1, wherein the planting planning unit creates the planting plan by mathematical programming or a search algorithm (Perry [5-7]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al (US 2025/0037145) teaches the sensor unit 24 can process (analyze) an image of the ecosystem captured by a camera to recognize plant species appearing in the image, and obtain the number of plant species as (the value of) the component expressing plant diversity.
Suzuki et al (US 2024/0407311) teaches setting, as target information, information that represents an increase in the diversity of species such as plant species, soil microbial species, and insect species is set, mist spraying can be performed so that the target field environment is formed with greater diversity of the species such as the plant species, the soil microbial species, the insect species and greater diversity of niches.
Suzuki et al (US 2024/0320761) teaches decision unit 52 calculates the plant species diversity score together with the influence degree score of the calculation formula of Formula (1). For example, the number of plant species in the interaction network of FIG. 28, 4, is calculated as the plant species diversity score.
Funabashi (US 2023/0316431 A1) teaches crude drug flower model, the crude drug flower model construction unit 22 sets cultivation parameters that include at least a parameter associated with synecoculture (registered trademark) and included in significant data registered in the database 14, such as a yield of a crude drug (a medicinal plant producing the crude drug) cultivated by synecoculture (registered trademark), a quantity of solar radiation in a farm field where the crude drug is cultivated, diversity of soil microorganisms, types of mixed plants, a height of ridges, and a soil quality.
Funabashi (US 2017/0199880 A1) teaches the user can recognize each vegetation combination suitable for creating a dense mixture state with the plant species the user has input in step S11. The user can select a predetermined combination from among the combinations presented by the ecosystem utilization system and displayed, and actually grow the combination of plants in a field. The displayed combinations are respective vegetation combinations suitable for creating a dense mixture state with the plant species designated by the user, and the yield amount can be made larger than that in a case where a random combination of plants are grown.
Acedo et al (US 2022/0268756) teaches systems and methods for generating and implementing overall functional diversity indices, for generation of agronomic indices that can be used to maintain or improve outcomes related to crops/agricultural sites.
Khait et al (US 2023/0039763) teaches precision agriculture and particularly to precision agriculture techniques for real-time monitoring and treatment of the plant or its environment condition. More specifically, the current invention relates to plants expressing biosensors for monitoring the plant or its environment condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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 at (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 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights