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 Application
This office action is in response to the most recent response filed by applicants on 08/14/25. There is a preliminary amendment filed for
Claims 1, 16-17 are amended
Claim 18 is cancelled
No claims are added
Claims 1-17 are pending
Note:
The amended claims are still recited broadly, so it is unclear, who is performing the steps. For instance, the newly added claim limitation “causing the at least one forest management activity defined by the determined forest management plan to be performed by providing the determined forest management plan to a requesting entity”. It is unclear if the above step is being performed by a human being or by a machine. The same is true of the other steps in the amended claims.
Similarly, the claim limitation “accessing, by an apparatus, a set of input data related to a forest stand”. Here, the additional element “by an apparatus” is discussed at a high level of generality, such that it can still mean that a human being is performing the accessing step by an apparatus.
In light of these notes, the amended claims, do not overcome previously presented rejections under 101 and 103. As is discussed below. This note is intended as a conversation starter to help applicants understand the examiner’s perspective. Applicants are welcome to call the examiner to discuss this further.
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 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim 16 is/are directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 1-15 is/are directed to a device/apparatus which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim 17 is/are directed to a computer program product which is a statutory category.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Further, particular groupings of abstract ideas are consistent with judicial precedent and are based on an extraction and synthesis of the key concepts identified by the courts as being abstract.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong One, the claims as drafted, and given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (business relations; relationships or interactions between people). For instance, independent Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “accessing, a set of input data related to a forest stand; and determining, a forest management plan defining at least one forest management activity for the forest stand based on the accessed set of input data and at least one forest management preference, causing the at least one forest management activity defined by the determined forest management plan to be performed by providing the determined forest management plan to a requesting entity, wherein the determining of the forest management plan for the forest stand is performed by applying a parameterized policy to the accessed set of input data, the parameterized policy.”
Applicants’ specification describes the claimed invention in pg. 2, line 24 – pg. 3, line 5, as follows: “Institutional forest owners would need to repeat this process every five to ten years for each of their tens of thousands of forest stands; an unreasonable burden. Additionally, forest owners are unable to compare the economic consequences of CCF and RF in order to make a rational choice between these alternatives. Consequently, forestry stakeholders are often making decisions based on inaccurate valuations or on an imperfect understanding of what management strategy is best for a particular objective. The existing methods based on Silviculture guidelines may lead to economically sub-optimal forest management decisions and to inaccurate forest asset valuations, which in turn may lead to economic losses and unnecessary environmental destruction.” Here, the specification is discussing a solution to a business problem.
In light of the specification, these claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to optimizing forest management decision and accurately estimating forest asset valuations to prevent economic loss and environmental destruction. Managing the optimization of forest management decisions and accurate forest asset valuations for one or more human entities involves organizing human activity based on the description of “certain methods of organizing human activity” provided by the courts. The court have used the phrase “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as —fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Independent Claims 1 and 17 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 16 and is/are rejected under 2A for similar reasons to claim 16 above.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “A method, comprising: by an apparatus, having been trained via a machine learning process, using a forest development related simulation model” at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 16 and 17 do not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly dependent claims 2-15 are also directed to an abstract idea under 2A, first and second prong. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. For instance, dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the set of input data comprises at least one of size data, species data, quantity data, or age data of trees in the forest stand.”. Dependent claim 3 recite “wherein the set of input data further comprises image data related to the trees in the forest stand.” Dependent claim 4 recite “wherein the at least one forest management preference comprises at least one of maintaining biodiversity of the forest stand, improving carbon storage of the forest stand, maximizing timber revenue of the forest stand, or maximizing harvesting profit of the forest stand.”. Dependent claim 6 recite “wherein the at least one forest management activity further comprises a harvesting schedule for the forest stand”. Dependent claim 7 recite “wherein the harvesting schedule comprises at least one of a harvest target, a harvest timing, or a harvest intensity.”. Dependent claim 8 recite “wherein the at least one forest management activity further comprises at least one of a scenario-based carbon analysis for the forest stand or a scenario-based sustainability analysis for the forest stand.”. Here, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims which are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claim above.
Dependent claims 5 recites “wherein the at least one forest management activity comprises an instruction to apply at least a thinning or a clearcut to the forest stand, or an instruction to wait.”. In this claim, “an instruction to apply at least a thinning or a clearcut to the forest stand, or an instruction to wait” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claim 11 recite “wherein the forest development related simulation model further comprises an empirically estimated model for forest dynamics.” In this claim, “wherein the forest development related simulation model further comprises an empirically estimated model for forest dynamics” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-15 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the invention lacks improvements to another technology or technical field [see Alice at 2351; 2019 IEG at 55], and lacks meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment [Alice at 2360, 2019 IEG at 55], and fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [2019 IEG, 55]. For the reasons articulated above, the claims recite an abstract idea that is limited to a particular field of endeavor (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and recites insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). By the factors and rationale provided above with respect to these MPEP sections, the additional elements of the claims that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application also fail to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “A method, comprising: by an apparatus, having been trained via a machine learning process, using a forest development related simulation model” are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in pages 14-16. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See MPEP 2106.05(f) - Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception - “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.). The additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent Claims 1 and 17 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 16 and is/are rejected under 2B for similar reasons to claim 16 above.
Further, it should be noted that additional elements of the claimed invention such as claim limitations when considered individually or as an ordered combination along with the other limitations discussed above in method claim 1 also do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-15 also do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under the second prong or 2B of the Alice framework. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. Further, it should be noted that the dependent claims do not include limitations that overcome the stated assertions. Here, the dependent claims recite features/limitations that include computer components identified above in part 2B of analysis of independent claims 1, 16 and 17. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-15 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106, January 2019 Guidance at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01 -07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 9,117,185) Vian et al., and further in view of (US 2020/0027096) Cooner et al.
As per claims 1, 16 and 17:
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian shows:
An apparatus (Vian shows in col. 3, lines 38-45: the illustrative embodiments provide a method and apparatus for managing a forest. In one illustrative embodiment, a forestry manager is configured to receive information about a forest from a group of autonomous vehicles. The forestry manager analyzes the information to generate a result about a state of the forest. The forestry manager also coordinates the operation of the group of autonomous vehicles using the result), comprising:
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian shows:
at least one processor (Vian shows col. 5, lines 35-42: forestry manager 202 may be implemented using hardware, software, or a combination of the two. When software is used, the operations performed by forestry manager 202 may be implemented in program code configured to run on a processor unit. When hardware is employed, the hardware may include circuits that operate to perform the operations in forestry manager 202); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian shows:
at least one memory including computer program code (Vian shows col. 5, lines 35-42: forestry manager 202 may be implemented using hardware, software, or a combination of the two. When software is used, the operations performed by forestry manager 202 may be implemented in program code configured to run on a processor unit. When hardware is employed, the hardware may include circuits that operate to perform the operations in forestry manager 202);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian shows:
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least perform (Vian shows col. 5, lines 35-42: forestry manager 202 may be implemented using hardware, software, or a combination of the two. When software is used, the operations performed by forestry manager 202 may be implemented in program code configured to run on a processor unit. When hardware is employed, the hardware may include circuits that operate to perform the operations in forestry manager 202):
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian shows:
A method (Vian shows in col. 3, lines 38-45: the illustrative embodiments provide a method and apparatus for managing a forest. In one illustrative embodiment, a forestry manager is configured to receive information about a forest from a group of autonomous vehicles. The forestry manager analyzes the information to generate a result about a state of the forest. The forestry manager also coordinates the operation of the group of autonomous vehicles using the result), comprising:
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian shows:
accessing, by an apparatus, a set of input data related to a forest stand (Vian shows in col. 19, lines 35-45: Input/output unit 1312 allows for input and output of data with other devices that may be connected to data processing system 1300. For example, input/output unit 1312 may provide a connection for user input through a keyboard, a mouse, and/or some other suitable input device. Further, input/output unit 1312 may send output to a printer. Display 1314 provides a mechanism to display information to a user); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian shows:
determining, by the apparatus, a forest management plan defining at least one forest management activity for the forest stand based on the accessed set of input data and at least one forest management preference
(Vian shows in col. 14, lines 22-29: (120) Level of intelligence 624 in controller 610 may allow for functions such as dynamic path planning. In this manner, obstacles may be identified along a path and may therefore be avoided. This identification and avoidance of obstacles may be performed in real time. These obstacles may include, for example, without limitation, a branch, a tree trunk, and other obstacles in forest 206.
Vian shows “a forest management plan” in col. 8, lines 40-48: “With result 302, mission generator 308 identifies missions 310. Additionally, mission generator 308 also may identify missions 310 without result 302. For example, prior to obtaining information 220 about forest 206, mission generator 308 may generate one or more of missions 310 to obtain information 220 for analysis 300 by analyzer 306. In this illustrative example, a mission is a goal or objective. In other words, a mission in missions 310 may be one or more goals or objectives.” Vian in col. 18, lines 15-21: “The process begins by identifying a mission (operation 1200). This mission may be identified based on at least one of user input, a state of the forest, and other suitable information. For example, user input may select a particular mission to be performed in the forest. In other examples, forestry manager 202 may generate missions based on the state of the forest.” Col. 20, lines 29-40: “Further, the illustrative embodiments also generate missions based on a current state of the forest as well as from user input. These missions may be sent to one or more autonomous vehicles. These missions may include information gathering or state changes to be implemented in the forest. Information gathering may be performed for various purposes in managing the forest. These purposes include maintaining a health of the forest, identifying inventory in the forest, identifying safety risks in the forest, identifying illegal activities in the forest, and other purposes. The effect of changing states in the forest may include fighting fires, pest control, harvesting, and other suitable state changes.”),
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian shows:
causing the at least one forest management activity defined by the determined forest management plan to be performed by providing the determined forest management plan to a requesting entity
(Vian shows in col. 14, lines 22-29: “Level of intelligence 624 in controller 610 may allow for functions such as dynamic path planning. In this manner, obstacles may be identified along a path and may therefore be avoided. This identification and avoidance of obstacles may be performed in real time. These obstacles may include, for example, without limitation, a branch, a tree trunk, and other obstacles in forest 206.”
Vian shows “a forest management plan” in col. 8, lines 40-48: “With result 302, mission generator 308 identifies missions 310. Additionally, mission generator 308 also may identify missions 310 without result 302. For example, prior to obtaining information 220 about forest 206, mission generator 308 may generate one or more of missions 310 to obtain information 220 for analysis 300 by analyzer 306. In this illustrative example, a mission is a goal or objective. In other words, a mission in missions 310 may be one or more goals or objectives.” Vian in col. 18, lines 15-21: “The process begins by identifying a mission (operation 1200). This mission may be identified based on at least one of user input, a state of the forest, and other suitable information. For example, user input may select a particular mission to be performed in the forest. In other examples, forestry manager 202 may generate missions based on the state of the forest.” Col. 20, lines 29-40: “Further, the illustrative embodiments also generate missions based on a current state of the forest as well as from user input. These missions may be sent to one or more autonomous vehicles. These missions may include information gathering or state changes to be implemented in the forest. Information gathering may be performed for various purposes in managing the forest. These purposes include maintaining a health of the forest, identifying inventory in the forest, identifying safety risks in the forest, identifying illegal activities in the forest, and other purposes. The effect of changing states in the forest may include fighting fires, pest control, harvesting, and other suitable state changes.”
Vian shows “providing the determined forest management plan to a requesting entity” in col. 19, lines 35-42: “Input/output unit 1312 allows for input and output of data with other devices that may be connected to data processing system 1300. For example, input/output unit 1312 may provide a connection for user input through a keyboard, a mouse, and/or some other suitable input device. Further, input/output unit 1312 may send output to a printer. Display 1314 provides a mechanism to display information to a user.”),
Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the determining of the forest management plan for the forest stand is performed by applying a parameterized policy to the accessed set of input data, the parameterized policy having been trained via a machine learning process using a forest development related simulation model.
(Regarding the claim limitation above, “parameterized policy” is shown in applicants originally submitted disclosure as page 15, paragraph 3: various example embodiments of training inputs will be discussed. It is to be understood that the disclosure is not limited to these example embodiments. For example, while the following example embodiments and the related equations (1) - (31) use profit as a parameter, the disclosure is not limited to profit or profit maximization as a forest management preference. Additionally/alternatively, the forest management preference may include, e.g., maintaining biodiversity of the forest stand, improving carbon storage of the forest stand, and/or maximizing a per period economic output. For example, "gross profit" may be directly replaced with "per period economic output" in the following example embodiments and the related equations (1)-(31). In light of the description in the specification, Vian does not explicitly show “parameterized policy”. Reference Cooner shows this limitation.
Vian shows Abstract: A method and apparatus of managing a forest. A forestry management system comprises a forestry manager. The forestry manager is configured to receive information about a forest from a group of autonomous vehicles, analyze the information to generate a result about a state of the forest from the information, and coordinate operation of the group of autonomous vehicles using the result. Col. 14, lines 22-28: Level of intelligence 624 in controller 610 may allow for functions such as dynamic path planning. In this manner, obstacles may be identified along a path and may therefore be avoided. This identification and avoidance of obstacles may be performed in real time. These obstacles may include, for example, without limitation, a branch, a tree trunk, and other obstacles in forest 206. Further in col. 1, lines 10-18, Vian shows: Forestry management is a branch of forestry that includes many different aspects. These aspects may include environmental, economic, administrative, legal, and social aspects of managing a forest. Forestry management may consist of various techniques such as timber extraction, planting trees, replanting trees, cutting roads and pathways through forests, preventing fires in a forest, maintaining the health of the forest, and other suitable activities.
Vian shows “a forest management plan” in col. 8, lines 40-48: “With result 302, mission generator 308 identifies missions 310. Additionally, mission generator 308 also may identify missions 310 without result 302. For example, prior to obtaining information 220 about forest 206, mission generator 308 may generate one or more of missions 310 to obtain information 220 for analysis 300 by analyzer 306. In this illustrative example, a mission is a goal or objective. In other words, a mission in missions 310 may be one or more goals or objectives.” Vian in col. 18, lines 15-21: “The process begins by identifying a mission (operation 1200). This mission may be identified based on at least one of user input, a state of the forest, and other suitable information. For example, user input may select a particular mission to be performed in the forest. In other examples, forestry manager 202 may generate missions based on the state of the forest.” Col. 20, lines 29-40: “Further, the illustrative embodiments also generate missions based on a current state of the forest as well as from user input. These missions may be sent to one or more autonomous vehicles. These missions may include information gathering or state changes to be implemented in the forest. Information gathering may be performed for various purposes in managing the forest. These purposes include maintaining a health of the forest, identifying inventory in the forest, identifying safety risks in the forest, identifying illegal activities in the forest, and other purposes. The effect of changing states in the forest may include fighting fires, pest control, harvesting, and other suitable state changes.”
One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands that the mission described above in Vian reads on forest management plan, and based on the specification, as is discussed in col. 18, lines 15-21: the mission being identified based on at least one of user input, a state of the forest, and other suitable information. Here, user input, a state of the forest, and other suitable information in Vian reads on “parameterized policy”. However, Vian does not explicitly show profit or financial considerations as a parametrized policy.
As such, Reference Cooner shows profit and financial considerations in relation to forest management decisions. Reference Cooner shows “parameterized policy” at least in [0647]-[0649]:Quality control policies, [0740]: parameters/measurements, [0820]: meeting financial and operating goals., [1119]: revenue, [1204]: financial considerations…carbon revenue, [1227]: expense, [1473]: financial, [1519], [1537], [1548]: profit, [1549]-[1550]: financial and economic services, [1681]-[1685]: profit.
Reference Vian and Reference Cooner are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of forestry (Vian shows forestry management in abstract and Cooner shows forestry sectors and projects [1114], [1118], [1282], [1424], [1519]). Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Cooner, particularly the parameterized policy ([1473]: financial, [1519], [1537], [1548]: profit, [1549]-[1550]: financial and economic services, [1681]-[1685]: profit, [0647]-[0649]:Quality control policies, [0740]: parameters/measurements, [0820]: meeting financial and operating goals), in the disclosure of Reference Vian, particularly in the economic aspects of forestry management (col. 1, lines 10-18), in order to provide for a system that for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) projects, the Project Proponent shall provide maps, Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefiles, or other relevant information to delineate the project boundary (Cooner: [1114]), (Cooner: [1204] Under the implementation barriers test, Project Proponents shall choose at least one of three barrier assessments: i) financial, ii) technological, or iii) institutional… [1205] Financial—Financial barriers can include high costs, limited access to capital, or an internal rate of return in the absence of carbon revenues that is lower than the Proponent's established and documentable minimum acceptable rate. Financial barriers can also include high risks such as unproven technologies or business models, poor credit rating of project partners, and project failure risk. If electing the financial implementation barrier test, Project Proponents shall include solid quantitative evidence such as net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) calculations, as taught by Reference Cooner, where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Cooner for estimates on defined and defensible assumptions about how the Project Activity will alter social and economic well-being, including potential impacts of changes in natural resources and ecosystem services identified as important by the communities for the project duration (Cooner, [1289]) so that the process of forestry management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar forestry field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Vian in view of Reference Cooner, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 2: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the set of input data comprises at least one of size data (Vian shows in col. 10, lines 26-34: (81) Additionally, forest health mission 406 may be used to generate information 220 about spacing between trees. This forest health mission 406 may identify a presence of foreign species with respect to trees. In other words, types of species of trees that are not normally present in forest 206 may be identified using forest health mission 406. Additionally, pests, infection, and other information about trees in forest 206 may be identified through information 220 generated from forest health mission 406), species data (Vian shows in col. 14, lines 45-50: sensor system 606 may include a laser scanner used below the surface of a tree canopy to determine tree size), quantity data, or age data of trees in the forest stand.
As per claim 3: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the set of input data further comprises image data related to the trees in the forest stand (Vian shows in col. 8, lines 20-31: analysis 300 may be performed using any currently available analysis technique for data. For example, without limitation, analyzer 306 may perform analysis 300 of information 220 using image processing systems, light detection and ranging systems, geographic information systems, visual inspection systems, or other suitable types of systems. In particular, analyzer 306 may perform analysis 300 to obtain result 302 by using data clustering and correlation, anomaly detection, statistical and prognostic methods, and other suitable types of data analysis techniques. In some cases, analysis 300 also may include simulations using models of forest 206).
As per claim 4: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the at least one forest management preference comprises at least one of maintaining biodiversity of the forest stand (Vian shows in col. 10, lines 21-25: Forest health mission 406 may, for example, obtain information about trees in a location in forest 206. In particular, forest health mission 406 may identify a biodiversity of trees and other vegetation in forest 206), improving carbon storage of the forest stand, maximizing timber revenue of the forest stand, or maximizing harvesting profit of the forest stand (Vian shows in col. 11, lines 45-51: Harvesting mission 418 may be performed to harvest trees in forest 206. Assets 204 may be assets configured to harvest trees that have been identified in particular locations in forest 206. For example, tree harvesters in vehicles 212 in FIG. 2 may be used to harvest trees in forest 206. These tree harvesters may take the form of autonomous vehicles within group of autonomous vehicles 226).
As per claim 5: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the at least one forest management activity comprises an instruction to apply at least a thinning or a clearcut to the forest stand, or an instruction to wait.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Vian shows in col. 5, lines 35-40: forestry manager 202 may be implemented using hardware, software, or a combination of the two. When software is used, the operations performed by forestry manager 202 may be implemented in program code configured to run on a processor unit. When hardware is employed, the hardware may include circuits that operate to perform the operations in forestry manager 202. Here, the program code reads on “instructions to apply” in the claim. Vian does not explicitly show “at least a thinning or a clearcut to the forest stand, or an instruction to wait”.
However, Cooner shows “instructions to wait”. It should be noted that this claim limitation is broad and as such, both prior art references would read on the limitation. Cooner is brought in to support Vian to show the above limitation. Cooner shows in abstract: The distributed ledger can provide records that combine the details of the carbon credits' origin, transaction history, and financial instructions associated with trading of the carbon credits via a distributed ledger system, at least in [0331]: There are many types of devices and machines out there already equipped with sensor type technology that is simply waiting to be tapped into.
Reference Cooner shows “parameterized policy” at least in [0647]-[0649]:Quality control policies, [0740]: parameters/measurements, [0820]: meeting financial and operating goals., [1119]: revenue, [1204]: financial considerations…carbon revenue, [1227]: expense, [1473]: financial, [1519], [1537], [1548]: profit, [1549]-[1550]: financial and economic services, [1681]-[1685]: profit.
Reference Vian and Reference Cooner are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of forestry (Vian shows forestry management in abstract and Cooner shows forestry sectors and projects [1114], [1118], [1282], [1424], [1519]). Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Cooner, particularly the parameterized policy ([1473]: financial, [1519], [1537], [1548]: profit, [1549]-[1550]: financial and economic services, [1681]-[1685]: profit, [0647]-[0649]:Quality control policies, [0740]: parameters/measurements, [0820]: meeting financial and operating goals), in the disclosure of Reference Vian, particularly in the economic aspects of forestry management (col. 1, lines 10-18), in order to provide for a system that for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) projects, the Project Proponent shall provide maps, Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefiles, or other relevant information to delineate the project boundary (Cooner: [1114]), (Cooner: [1204] Under the implementation barriers test, Project Proponents shall choose at least one of three barrier assessments: i) financial, ii) technological, or iii) institutional… [1205] Financial—Financial barriers can include high costs, limited access to capital, or an internal rate of return in the absence of carbon revenues that is lower than the Proponent's established and documentable minimum acceptable rate. Financial barriers can also include high risks such as unproven technologies or business models, poor credit rating of project partners, and project failure risk. If electing the financial implementation barrier test, Project Proponents shall include solid quantitative evidence such as net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) calculations, as taught by Reference Cooner, where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Cooner for estimates on defined and defensible assumptions about how the Project Activity will alter social and economic well-being, including potential impacts of changes in natural resources and ecosystem services identified as important by the communities for the project duration (Cooner, [1289]) so that the process of forestry management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar forestry field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Vian in view of Reference Cooner, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 6: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the at least one forest management activity further comprises a harvesting schedule for the forest stand (Vian shows in col. 11, lines 25-33: (90) In these illustrative examples, state changes 404 include missions that are used to change state 304 of forest 206. The change in state 304 may be for a portion or all of forest 206. As depicted, state changes 404 may include various types of missions 400. For example, state changes 404 may include at least one of intruder tracking mission 414, pest control mission 416, harvesting mission 418, and other suitable types of missions 400. Col. 11, lines 45-51: Harvesting mission 418 may be performed to harvest trees in forest 206. Assets 204 may be assets configured to harvest trees that have been identified in particular locations in forest 206. For example, tree harvesters in vehicles 212 in FIG. 2 may be used to harvest trees in forest 206. These tree harvesters may take the form of autonomous vehicles within group of autonomous vehicles 226).
As per claim 7: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the harvesting schedule comprises at least one of a harvest target, a harvest timing, or a harvest intensity.
Vian shows in col. 11, lines 25-33: (90) In these illustrative examples, state changes 404 include missions that are used to change state 304 of forest 206. The change in state 304 may be for a portion or all of forest 206. As depicted, state changes 404 may include various types of missions 400. For example, state changes 404 may include at least one of intruder tracking mission 414, pest control mission 416, harvesting mission 418, and other suitable types of missions 400. Col. 11, lines 45-51: Harvesting mission 418 may be performed to harvest trees in forest 206. Assets 204 may be assets configured to harvest trees that have been identified in particular locations in forest 206. For example, tree harvesters in vehicles 212 in FIG. 2 may be used to harvest trees in forest 206. These tree harvesters may take the form of autonomous vehicles within group of autonomous vehicles 226. Col. 8, lines 40-49: (65) With result 302, mission generator 308 identifies missions 310. Additionally, mission generator 308 also may identify missions 310 without result 302. For example, prior to obtaining information 220 about forest 206, mission generator 308 may generate one or more of missions 310 to obtain information 220 for analysis 300 by analyzer 306. In this illustrative example, a mission is a goal or objective. In other words, a mission in missions 310 may be one or more goals or objectives. The goals here read on target in the claim.
As per claim 8: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the at least one forest management activity further comprises at least one of a scenario-based carbon analysis for the forest stand or a scenario-based sustainability analysis for the forest stand (Vian shows col. 10, lines 49-58: (85) In these illustrative examples, forest inventory mission 408 may be used to generate information 220 used to classify land within forest 206. For example, forest inventory mission 408 may generate information used to identify a volume of wood that may be harvestable from forest 206. Additionally, carbon sequestration may be identified during forest inventory mission 408. In other words, the capture of carbon dioxide in forest 206 by trees and vegetation may be identified through forest inventory mission 408).
As per claim 9: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the forest development related simulation model comprises at least one of:
a deterministic forest development related simulation model comprising a forestry growth model with no uncertainty factor model;
or a stochastic forest development related simulation model comprising a forestry growth model and an uncertainty factor model.
Vian shows the above limitations at least in col. 8, lines 20-30: analysis 300 may be performed using any currently available analysis technique for data. For example, without limitation, analyzer 306 may perform analysis 300 of information 220 using image processing systems, light detection and ranging systems, geographic information systems, visual inspection systems, or other suitable types of systems. In particular, analyzer 306 may perform analysis 300 to obtain result 302 by using data clustering and correlation, anomaly detection, statistical and prognostic methods, and other suitable types of data analysis techniques. In some cases, analysis 300 also may include simulations using models of forest 206.
As per claim 10: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the uncertainty factor model is based on at least one of a random tree factor, a weather factor, a natural disaster factor, or an economic risk factor (Vian shows in col. 8, lines 9-15: analyzer 306 performs analysis 300 to generate result 302. Result 302 includes state 304 for forest 206 in FIG. 2. State 304 may be, for example, without limitation, the state of forest health, forest inventory, safety risks, illegal activity, and other types of states of forest 206. Col. 10, lines 57-65: With safety risk identification mission 410, information 220 about safety risks such as a presence of fire may be included in this type of mission. In these illustrative examples, a "safety risk" is a risk of harm to forest 206 as a whole, wildlife or vegetation within forest 206, humans, or a combination thereof. Thus, safety risk identification mission 410 is used to generate information 220 about the safety risks within forest 206.).
As per claim 11: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the forest development related simulation model further comprises an empirically estimated model for forest dynamics (Vian shows in col. 8, lines 9-15: analyzer 306 performs analysis 300 to generate result 302. Result 302 includes state 304 for forest 206 in FIG. 2. State 304 may be, for example, without limitation, the state of forest health, forest inventory, safety risks, illegal activity, and other types of states of forest 206. Col. 10, lines 57-65: With safety risk identification mission 410, information 220 about safety risks such as a presence of fire may be included in this type of mission. In these illustrative examples, a "safety risk" is a risk of harm to forest 206 as a whole, wildlife or vegetation within forest 206, humans, or a combination thereof. Thus, safety risk identification mission 410 is used to generate information 220 about the safety risks within forest 206.).
As per claim 12: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the forest dynamics comprise at least one of diameter increment, mortality or natural regeneration of trees (Vian shows in col. 1, lines 24-33: (7) The tools used to generate information for assessing the state of a forest may include, for example, without limitation, a clinometer, a data recorder, an increment borer, a wedge prism, a diameter tape, a global positioning system device, a tally meter, a laptop computer, and other suitable tools. These tools are used by forestry management personnel to perform various operations such as estimating numbers of trees present in an area, identifying the health of trees, identifying the age of trees, identifying tree spacing, identifying composition of soil samples, and other suitable operations.).
As per claim 13: Regarding the claim limitations below, Vian in view of Cooner shows:
wherein the forest stand comprises a single-species forest stand or a multiple-species forest stand (Vian shows in col. 1, lines 24-33: (7) The tools used to generate information for assessing the state of a forest may include, for example, without limitation, a clinometer, a data recorder, an increment borer, a wedge prism, a diameter tape, a global positioning system device, a tally meter, a laptop computer, and other suitable tools. These tools are used by forestry management personnel to perform various operations such as estimating numbers of trees present in an area, identifying the health of trees, identifying the age of trees, identifying tree spacing, identifying composit