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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “data associated with a geographic area” in line 2 and “sensor data for the geographic area” in line 15 of the claim. It is unclear if “data” and “sensor data” are the same or different sets of data. For examination purposes, “data” and “sensor data” will be interpreted as the same data set.
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-7 inherit the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 15 are analogous to claim 1 and indefinite for the same reasons. Claims 8 and 15 will be interpreted the same as claim 1.
Claims 9-14 depend on claim 8, therefore claims 9-14 inherit the same issues as claim 8 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16-20 depend on claim 15, therefore claims 16-20 inherit the same issues as claim 15 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a product or process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method comprising: receiving, at one or more processors, data associated with a geographic area, the data comprising topology data and hydrological data;
generating, via the one or more processors using the data, a three dimensional map of the geographic area, the three dimensional map comprising a plurality of cells, each cell in the plurality of cells corresponding to a sub-portion of the geographic area, each cell in the plurality of cells having stored metadata based on the data;
modifying, via the one or more processors using the data, the three dimensional map to include relationships between the plurality of cells, the relationships based on interactions between the plurality of cells as identified by the one or more processors from the data, resulting in a digital mesh;
receiving, at the one or more processor from a user, a request for predicted water quality at a location within the geographic area;
modeling, via the one or more processor in response to the request, environmental conditions for the geographic area using the digital mesh, the metadata, and sensor data for the geographic area, resulting in predicted environmental conditions; and
providing, to the user in response to the request, the predicted environmental conditions.
The underlined limitations can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely steps of constructing a 3-D graph and using said graph to make predictions.
The additional limitations of “geographic area”, “topology data”, and “hydrological data” only limit the abstract idea to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional limitations of “receiving data”, “receiving a request”, and “providing” are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. mere data gathering or outputting results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitation of “one or more processors” does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)).
The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 8 and 15 are analogous to claim 1. Claim 8 and 15 additionally recite “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”. These additional elements are separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent claims 2-7 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 additionally recites “water quality” which only limits the field of use. Dependent Claim 3 additionally recites “air quality” which only limits the field of use. Dependent Claim 4 adds the recited “modeling predicts” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 5 additionally recites “water” which only limits the field of use. Dependent Claim 6 additionally recites “groundwater contaminants” which only limits the field of use. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “normalizing the data” to the abstract idea limitations. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-7 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 9-14 are analogous to claims 2-7, and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons.
Dependent Claims 16-20 are analogous to claims 2-6, and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (US 20230022508 A1) in view of Jolliff (US 20130304430 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Howell teaches:
receiving, at one or more processors (Processors 301 Fig. 3; Para 227: “one or more processors or processing units”), data associated with a geographic area, the data comprising topology data (Para 13: “maintaining access to a data source that includes a terrain mapping data representative of an agricultural land region”) and hydrological data (Para 16: “data representative of water flow and/or collection properties”);
generating, via the one or more processors using the data, a three dimensional map of the geographic area (Para 54: “a respective set of imaging data and elevation/point cloud data that has been defined (for example, via one or more pre-processing techniques that adjust input data) thereby to define sets of 3D model data for the respective regions”), the three dimensional map comprising a plurality of cells, each cell in the plurality of cells corresponding to a sub-portion of the geographic area, each cell in the plurality of cells having stored metadata based on the data (Fig. 5A; Para 136: “FIG. 5 illustrates a matrix of elevation values. Each elevation value represents a point in a point cloud or other 3D model, in some embodiments being a point cloud in which points are spaced equidistantly”);
modifying, via the one or more processors using the data, the three dimensional map to include relationships (Fig. 5B; Para 135: “a process whereby for each point an analysis process is performed thereby to identify a relationship between that point, and a radius of surrounding points”) between the plurality of cells, the relationships based on interactions between the plurality of cells as identified by the one or more processors from the data (Para 135: “This, in one embodiment, includes identifying an adjacent point with a lowest elevation value”), resulting in a digital mesh (Para 52: “3D model data may include data that allows for rendering of a 3D photomosaic, point cloud, 3D mesh, digital terrain model, and the like”);
receiving, at the one or more processor from a user (Devices 308 Fig. 3; Para 231: “one or more devices that enable a user to interact with computer system”), a request (Para 185-186: “The instruction may be provided by various means, including (by way of example). Selecting a function from a user interface menu”)
modeling, via the one or more processor in response to the request (Para 189: “In response, an algorithm is executed thereby to determine rainwater collection properties”),
providing, to the user in response to the request (Display 309 Fig. 3; Para 231: “one or more devices that enable a user to interact with computer system”),
Howell does not explicitly teach predicted water quality and modeling environmental conditions resulting in predicted environmental conditions.
Jolliff teaches predicted water quality at a location within the geographic area (165 Fig. 2; Para 6: “solving for the fully three-dimensional advection diffusion reaction (ADR) of dissolved or particulate tracers (biological or chemical materials) in aquatic environments”),
modeling, via the one or more processor in response to the request, environmental conditions for the geographic area using the digital mesh, the metadata, and sensor data for the geographic area, resulting in predicted environmental conditions (165 Fig. 2; Para 6: “solving for the fully three-dimensional advection diffusion reaction (ADR) of dissolved or particulate tracers (biological or chemical materials) in aquatic environments”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the model of Jolliff with the map analysis of Howell by incorporating the water quality prediction of Jolliff into the fluid flow analysis of Howell. Doing so would improve the analysis of Howell when modeling the flow of water by additionally predicting the water quality.
Regarding Claim 2, Howell in view of Jolliff teaches the limitations of claim 1, but Howell does not explicitly teach wherein the environmental conditions comprise water quality.
Jolliff teaches wherein the environmental conditions comprise water quality (165 Fig. 2; Para 6: “solving for the fully three-dimensional advection diffusion reaction (ADR) of dissolved or particulate tracers (biological or chemical materials) in aquatic environments”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the model of Jolliff with the map analysis of Howell by incorporating the water quality prediction of Jolliff into the fluid flow analysis of Howell. Doing so would improve the analysis of Howell when modeling the flow of water by additionally predicting the water quality.
Regarding Claim 4, Howell in view of Jolliff teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Howell further teaches wherein modeling predicts transmission of environmental matter within the geographic area, the transmission modeled by modifying the metadata of each cell based on the relationships and sensor data (Para 124: “the point-point flow analysis algorithm determines, for each given point, an adjacent point having a lowest point altitude value, and defines a point-point flow relationship between those points. Defining a point-point flow relationship between those points optionally includes defining an upstream flow relationship from the adjacent point having a lowest point altitude value to the given point. It will be appreciated that this enables subsequent algorithms/processes to analyze water (and/or soil) flow and accumulation characteristics across a 3D model”).
Regarding Claim 5, Howell in view of Jolliff teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Howell further teaches wherein the environmental matter comprises water (Para 73: “Water (including rainwater) flow analysis”).
Regarding Claim 6, Howell in view of Jolliff teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Howell further teaches wherein the environmental matter comprises groundwater contaminants (Para 217: “Rainwater flow analysis is applied thereby, in some embodiments, to enable analysis of chemical containment”).
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are analogous to claim 1. Howell teaches the additionally recited non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute operations (Fig. 3; Para 227: “The module 302 may be programmed into the integrated circuits of the processor 301, or loaded from memory 303, storage device 304, or network 307 or combinations thereof”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11-13, the limitations of claims 9 and 11-13 are found in claims 2 and 4-6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are analogous to claim 1. Howell teaches the additionally recited non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute operations (Fig. 3; Para 227: “The module 302 may be programmed into the integrated circuits of the processor 301, or loaded from memory 303, storage device 304, or network 307 or combinations thereof”).
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are found in claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18, Howell in view of Jolliff teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Howell further teaches wherein modeling predicts transmission of environmental matter within the geographic area, the transmission modeled by modifying the metadata of each cell based on the relationships and sensor data (Para 124: “the point-point flow analysis algorithm determines, for each given point, an adjacent point having a lowest point altitude value, and defines a point-point flow relationship between those points. Defining a point-point flow relationship between those points optionally includes defining an upstream flow relationship from the adjacent point having a lowest point altitude value to the given point. It will be appreciated that this enables subsequent algorithms/processes to analyze water (and/or soil) flow and accumulation characteristics across a 3D model”).
Regarding Claim 19, Howell in view of Jolliff teaches the limitations of claim 18, and Howell further teaches wherein the environmental matter comprises water (Para 73: “Water (including rainwater) flow analysis”).
Regarding Claim 20, Howell in view of Jolliff teaches the limitations of claim 18, and Howell further teaches wherein the environmental matter comprises groundwater contaminants (Para 217: “Rainwater flow analysis is applied thereby, in some embodiments, to enable analysis of chemical containment”).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (US 20230022508 A1) in view of Jolliff (US 20130304430 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Wong (US 8294899 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Howell in view of Jolliff teach the limitations of claim 1, but Howell and Jolliff do not explicitly teach wherein the environmental conditions comprise air quality.
Wong teaches wherein the environmental conditions comprise air quality (Predicted Air Quality Indices 124 Fig. 1; Para 3: “Described herein are techniques for inferring air quality information for areas in a region based on historical and real-time air quality data from existing air quality monitor stations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the techniques of Wong with the invention of Howell in view of Jolliff by incorporating the air quality data and inference of Wong into the environmental model of Howell in view of Jolliff. Doing so would increase the function capabilities by predicting air quality in addition to water analysis.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are found in claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17, Howell in view of Jolliff teach the limitations of claim 16, but Howell and Jolliff do not explicitly teach wherein the environmental conditions comprise air quality.
Wong teaches wherein the environmental conditions comprise air quality (Predicted Air Quality Indices 124 Fig. 1; Para 3: “Described herein are techniques for inferring air quality information for areas in a region based on historical and real-time air quality data from existing air quality monitor stations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the techniques of Wong with the invention of Howell in view of Jolliff by incorporating the air quality data and inference of Wong into the environmental model of Howell in view of Jolliff. Doing so would increase the function capabilities by predicting air quality in addition to water analysis.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (US 20230022508 A1) in view of Jolliff (US 20130304430 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Hanley (CA 3161234 AI).
Regarding Claim 7, Howell in view of Jolliff teach the limitations of claim 1, but Howell and Jolliff do not explicitly teach prior to the generating of the three dimensional map, normalizing the data.
Hanley teaches normalizing data (720 Fig. 7; Para 115: “process 700 further includes program code processing or manipulating the aggregated environmental data, including, for instance, correcting any raw environmental data to remove interference and anomalies, normalizing the data, handling edge cases, cross-referencing, tagging and/or labeling, etc., the data 720”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Hanely with the invention of Howell in view of Jolliff by preforming the normalization of environmental data of Hanley before generating the map of Howell in view of Jolliff. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the map thereby improving the accuracy of the model’s predictions.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are found in claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that claims 17-20 differ in dependency from analogous claims 3-6 and 10-13. Claims 3-4 and claims 10-11 depend on independent claims 1 and 8 respectively. However, claims 17-18 depend on dependent claim 16 instead of independent claim 15. Examiner requests confirmation of the intended dependency for claims 17-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (CN 108287950 A) teaches a water quality model using topological and hydrological data (Abstract). Chen additionally teaches using a model to predict transmission of pollutant (Abstract).
Wong (US 8294899 B2) teaches mapping airborne matter and predicting transmission of airborne matter (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights