DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 28 July 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite display a packout order, the packout order configured to collect packout information for preparing a final product of the one or more indoor farming facilities; obtain the packout information to define a packout order based on inputs provided by a user, the packout information comprising a selection of plants available from the one or more indoor farming facilities; and display the packout order, the packout order configured for use to prepare the final product to fulfill the packout order. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system and the method are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of ordering products and shipping fulfillment, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106, as these functions are business and commercial activities. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as claims describe obtaining information. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are display a packout order, the packout order configured to collect packout information for preparing a final product of the one or more indoor farming facilities; obtain the packout information to define a packout order based on inputs provided by a user, the packout information comprising a selection of plants available from the one or more indoor farming facilities; and display the packout order, the packout order configured for use to prepare the final product to fulfill the packout order.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to computing devices, user interface, and panels of a computing device, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: computing devices, user interface, and panels of a computing device. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of determining what the packout order comprises, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 U.S. P.G. Pub. 2007/0203818 (hereinafter, Farmer).
Regarding claim 1, Farmer teaches a system for operating one or more indoor farming facilities each indoor fanning facility comprising a plurality of sensors, an irrigation system, a lighting system, and an air circulation system, the system comprising one or more computing devices configured to:
display a packout order user interface on one or more panels of a computing device, the packout order user interface configured to collect packout information for preparing a final product of the one or more indoor farming facilities (¶ 96, “a grower may use the web-based application to access packout and/or inventory information regarding produce that he or she grows or otherwise produces. Such packout and/or inventory information may include, but is not limited to, bin reports, packout reports, lot reports, and truck reports. These reports may allow the grower to view how his or her produce is being inspected, processed, and shipped.”);
obtain the packout information, via the packout order user interface, to define a packout order based on inputs provided by a user, the packout information comprising a selection of plants available from the one or more indoor farming facilities (¶ 68, “Returning to FIG. 8, the customer may alternatively desire to view the sales details for a particular order of produce (e.g., file number 62247). To do so, the customer may select the "View" link under the "Sales Detail" heading corresponding to the file number 62247. Upon selecting the "View" link, a sales details summary for the selected order appear on the screen.”) (¶ 71, “its corresponding sales details are available to be seen via the web-based application. Hence, in some examples, the customer may access the sales details of an order before it is shipped to verify that the order is correct.”); and
display the packout order via the packout order user interface, the packout order user interface configured for use to prepare the final product to fulfill the packout order (¶ 56, “the tagging system identifier (e.g., the bar code) corresponding to the containers in a particular purchase order is scanned into the central database as the containers are loaded onto the transport vehicle to fulfill the purchase order.”).
Regarding claim 2, Farmer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: obtain plant harvest information characterizing a type of plant and a quantity of plants grown in the one or more indoor farming facilities that are available; and display the plant harvest information via the packout order user interface for selection by the user (¶ 27, “keep track of and access information regarding the production, processing, inspection, and/or shipment of any type of produce (e.g., fruits and vegetables), grain, meat, livestock, or other food product”) (¶ 76, “The web page may include additional or alternative information as best serves a particular customer or type of produce. For example, the shipping details web page may include link to a digital video of the produce being processed and/or inspected within the packing facility.”).
Regarding claim 3, Farmer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plant harvest information displayed in the packout user interface includes plants growing in the one or more indoor farming facilities, the plant harvest information determined according to predetermined threshold (¶ 82, “The information may be sorted and viewed by packing facility, lot ID, tracking ID, USDA PLI number, customer, drop location, broker, field, grower, inspector, inspection results, harvest date, processing date, packing date, shipping date, shipping company, price, quantity, brand, type of produce, or by any other category as desired.”).
Regarding claim 4, Farmer teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the predetermined threshold comprises a number of days toward a plant's readiness to be harvested, and plant harvest information includes plants growing in the one or more indoor farming facilities when the number of days towards a plant's readiness to be harvested is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold (¶ 29, “The produce is then harvested and taken to a packing facility (11) where it is processed and packed for shipment to various destinations. The packing facility (11) is also known as a packing shed or a packing house. In some alternative examples, harvested produce is first taken to a storage facility where it is stored for a period of time prior to being taken to the packing facility (11).”).
Regarding claim 5, Farmer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the packout order user interface comprises a selectable list of plants available to fulfill the packout order (¶ 69, “FIG. 10 is a screen shot of a web page showing an exemplary number of sales details corresponding to a selected order. As shown in FIG. 10, the sales details summary may show the name of each brand of produce included within the order and description, quantity, pricing, and shipping destination information for each of the brands included within the order.”).
Regarding claim 6, Farmer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the packout order comprises a name of a customer, a creation date, a type of plants in the final product, and a quantity of plants in the final product (¶ 58, “FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary system whereby a customer may access information regarding a pending or already placed produce order via the Internet or any other type of networking configuration. The information may include, but is not limited to, sales, shipping, tracing, inspection, and other load information. As shown in FIG. 7, a packing facility terminal (50) may be located at a number of different packing facilities (11-1 through 11-3). Information regarding the production, processing, and inspection of an order of produce at each packing facility (11) is entered into the central database using the packing facility terminals (50) as described above in connection with FIGS. 3-6. This information is stored on a central server (51) which may also be located at any suitable location. The server (51) is connected to the Internet (53) or any other suitable network.”).
Regarding claim 7, Farmer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the step of collecting information for preparing the final product comprises obtaining a selection from one or more harvest orders, the harvest orders comprising information regarding plants harvested from the one or more indoor farming facilities (¶ 64, “Each sales order includes a file number (a number assigned to the order by the central database), a sales date, a ship date, a purchase order (PO) number, the name of the transport carrier, a link to view the order's sales details, a link to view the order's shipping details, a link to view the inspection report summary corresponding to the order, a link to view the Bill of Lading corresponding to the order, and a link to view a report of the transport vehicle (e.g., a truck). In some examples, the customer may sort the information shown in the sales orders web page by file number, sale date, ship date, or PO number.”).
Regarding claim 8, Farmer teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to associate a corresponding lot number with the harvest orders, the packout order recording the corresponding lot number of plants included in the final product (¶ 12, “FIG. 4 is a screen shot of an exemplary software program that may be used by a packing facility worker to assign a tracking identification (ID) to an incoming lot of produce within a central database according to principles described herein.”) (¶ 54, “the marking information is affixed directly to each piece of produce within an order (e.g., a sticker is affixed to each piece of fruit within an order).”).
Regarding claim 9, Farmer teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to create a label for the final product, the label including the corresponding lot numbers (¶ 36, “As shown in FIG. 3, a "lot identification" (lot ID) corresponding to a particular lot of produce to be processed in the packing facility is created within a central database (step 20). As used herein and in the appended claims, unless otherwise specifically denoted, the term "lot" will be used to refer to a particular batch or quantity of produce of the same kind that is taken to the packing facility to be processed. The lot ID may include any number of characters as best serves a particular application.”).
Regarding claim 10, Farmer teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the selection of one or more harvest orders includes a selection of plants from two or more different lot numbers (¶ 70, “As shown in FIG. 3, a "lot identification" (lot ID) corresponding to a particular lot of produce to be processed in the packing facility is created within a central database (step 20). As used herein and in the appended claims, unless otherwise specifically denoted, the term "lot" will be used to refer to a particular batch or quantity of produce of the same kind that is taken to the packing facility to be processed. The lot ID may include any number of characters as best serves a particular application.”).
Regarding claim 11, Farmer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the packout order user interface comprises a field displaying a list of all manufacturing orders for growing of plants in the one or more indoor farming facilities, the list of manufacturing orders organized according to a location in the one or more indoor farming facilities (¶ 86, “web-based application to quickly determine the location of all other produce processed at that packing facility”).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 8. Therefore, claim 19 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 9. Therefore, claim 20 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights