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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant of the opinion that claims are not directed to abstract idea. Claims are not directed to generating a prediction, rather in the claims the predicted nutrient absorption amount is used to determine a fertilizer application amount for a crop. Claims are analogous to In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., 887 F. 3d 1117 (Fed Cir. 2018). Claim integrates abstract idea into practical application as it applies the calculated nutrient absorption amount to determine a fertilizer application amount and further outputs the determined fertilizer application amount as information used for cultivation management. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving an input of an initial value…; reading a parameter…; acquiring information…; creating a growth model…; determining a fertilizer application amount…; and outputting the determined fertilizer application amount…” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of receiving input values, reading parameters, acquiring information, creating a growth model and predicting a nutrient absorption amount; determining a fertilizer application amount based on the predicted nutrient absorption amount and outputting determined fertilizer amount which is a process that deals with mathematical calculations because claims are directed to generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Additionally, the steps of method, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite concepts that are performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements. In particular, receiving input values, reading parameters, acquiring information, creating a growth model and predicting a nutrient absorption amount; determining a fertilizer application amount based on the predicted nutrient absorption amount and outputting determined fertilizer amount that may be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, claim recites concepts performed in the human mind, which fall within the mental processes category of abstract idea.
With respect to claims are analogous to In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., 887 F. 3d 1117 (Fed Cir. 2018). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Vanda, the claims were found eligible specifically because they recited a treatment step: physically administering a defined dose of iloperidone to the patient based on the patient’s genotype. It was that final, physical, treatment administering step, not the upstream calculation of dosage, that integrated the claim into practical application and distinguished it from claims merely collecting and analyzing data. On the other hand, instant claims contains no analogous step and recite receiving input values, reading parameters, acquiring information, creating a growth model and predicting a nutrient absorption amount; determining a fertilizer application amount based on the predicted nutrient absorption amount and outputting determined fertilizer amount which is a process that deals with mathematical calculations because claims are directed to generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value. The steps of “creating a growth model”, “predicting a nutrient absorption amount…by using the growth model”, and “determining a fertilizer application amount based on the predicted nutrient absorption amount” recite mathematical concepts. These steps, and underlying growth model itself, can be performed as a series of mathematical operations without any particular machine.
Claims are not directed to improving any functionality of any agriculture management system or any computer technology as claims are directed to generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to out a result value which is an abstract idea. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 have been examined.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, claim 4 is directed to a method and claim 5 is directed to a device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims directed to generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving an input of an initial value…; reading a parameter…; acquiring information…; creating a growth model…; determining a fertilizer application amount…; and outputting the determined fertilizer application amount…” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of receiving input values, reading parameters, acquiring information, creating a growth model and predicting a nutrient absorption amount; determining a fertilizer application amount based on the predicted nutrient absorption amount and outputting determined fertilizer amount which is a process that deals with mathematical calculations because claims are directed to generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Additionally, the steps of method, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite concepts that are performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements. In particular, creating a growth model”, “predicting a nutrient absorption amount…by using the growth model”, and “determining a fertilizer application amount based on the predicted nutrient absorption amount that may be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, claim recites concepts performed in the human mind, which fall within the mental processes category of abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as, a device, computer and non-transitory medium, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the device, computer and non-transitory medium perform the steps or functions of receiving input values, reading parameters, acquiring information, creating a growth model and predicting a nutrient absorption amount; determining a fertilizer application amount based on the predicted nutrient absorption amount and outputting determined fertilizer amount. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a device, computer and non-transitory medium, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, a device, computer and non-transitory medium perform the steps or functions of receiving input values, reading parameters, acquiring information, creating a growth model and predicting a nutrient absorption amount; determining a fertilizer application amount based on the predicted nutrient absorption amount and outputting determined fertilizer amount. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 further describe the abstract idea of generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value. Specifically, claims 2-3 describing the values which are part of the abstract idea of generating a prediction based on values and utilizing the prediction to output a result value. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights