Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the claim objections and the 101 rejection. The remaining issues are addressed below.
Title:
Applicant argues:
Applicant hereby amends the title of the invention in order to be more clearly indicative of the disclosed subject matter.
Examiner responds:
The newly amended title does not address what the invention is or does. A new title is suggested below.
112f
Applicant argues:
Without acquiescing to the Examiner's interpretation of the previous claim recitations, Applicant hereby amends the claims in order to more clearly avoid any invocation of 35 U.S.C§112(f).
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s amendments avoid a 112f interpretation.
Double Patenting
Applicant argues:
… which are believed to be patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,077,321 and 12,041,363, particularly in view of the recitations of amended independent claim 1.
… which are believed to be patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent Application Nos. 18/036,842 and 17/616,406, particularly in view of the recitations of amended independent claim 1.
Examiner responds:
The amendments are not patentably distinct, see the below updated art mapping.
112
Applicant argues:
In reply to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration.
Without acquiescing in any way to the Examiner's grounds of rejection, Applicant hereby amends the claims to recite subject matter that is clearly supported and enabled by the original written description.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
In reply to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as allegedly being indefinite, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration.
Without acquiescing in any way to the Examiner's grounds of rejection, Applicant hereby provides amendments in order to clarify the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Examiner responds:
These rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s prior art arguments are addressed in the below updated claim mapping.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Synchronizing Satellite Imagery With Ground Sensors.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not “enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.” 37 CFR 1.72(b). Specifically, it is not clear what this technology is used for or what the advantages are.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of each of U.S. Patent No. 12077321 and 12041363 in view of the prior art as applied below.
Claims 1-19 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of each of 18/036842 and 17/616406 (note that the issue fee has been paid in 17/616406, once that case issues as a patent, this rejection should be considered non-provisional).
Both the pending claims and the conflicting claims are all directed to synchronizing satellite photos. Therefore, all of the conflicting patents are directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in any of the conflicting patents are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patents in for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “wherein the ground data is analyzed according to a degree of coincidence of conditions under which the ground data is acquired at the predetermined place and at the predetermined time with conditions under which the satellite image is acquired,” but this is unlimited functional claiming. MPEP 2173.05(g). One cannot not even envision what analysis is intended, much less how it is accomplished. Claims are to be limited to steps, not results.
Claim 19 recites corresponding language and is similarly rejected.
Claims 9-11 recite “analyzes the ground data based on the estimated satellite image and the ground data,” but this is unlimited functional claiming. MPEP 2173.05(g). As an aside, while claiming analyzing data based on itself is definite, the examiner notes that this may not have been the intent because it is odd to say in English.
Claim 12 recites corresponding claim language and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites “acquires a subsequent satellite image,” but the specification does not show possession of a acquiring an image of something that has not yet occurred.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-19 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 “circuitry configured to acquire ground data at a predetermined place and at a predetermined time.” As shown in Fig. 6, this configuration is a matter of physically placing the data acquisition unit (i.e., the circuitry). In other words, the claimed configuration is not a structural feature of the unit, but rather of where the unit is placed. Therefore, it is not clear how to interpret the bounds of an apparatus claim where an element is not structural.
Claim 19 recites corresponding language and is similarly rejected.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 recite “according to a degree of coincidence of conditions,” but there are three problems. First, there is no guidance on what the conditions are. Second, it is not clear how to determine the degree of coincidence of conditions. Third, it is not clear how to tell if analysis is “according to” this or not.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 repeatedly recite “predetermined,” but this is subjective because there is not an objective standard (such as a value stored in memory). MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claims 1-4, 9, 13, 18 and 19 recite “corresponding to,” but this is subjective because different people can have different opinions about whether two things correspond. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 2 recites “a predetermined amount of time,” but this is subjective because it is not specified (such as specifying where it is defined). MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 3 recites “a predetermined distance,” but this is subjective because it is not specified (such as specifying where it is defined). MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 4 recites “that satisfies an environmental condition.” This is subjective because the environmental condition is not defined, and thus different environmental conditions can result in different outcomes. For example, there might be the same incident angle of sun light, but different weather conditions (such as wind or rain). Specification, [0131]. Dependent claims 5 and 6 resolve this.
Claims 5 and 6 recite environmental conditions that do not make sense in light of parent claim 4’s recitation of “satisfies.”
Claim 7 recites “satisfying a necessary condition.” First, the claim does not specify what “necessary” refers to, (note that if the necessary condition were merely that it was possible to acquire the image, this claim would fail to further limit the claim). Second, because the condition is not specified, there could be more than one such condition, and if those conditions had different states (e.g., one true, the other false), then it is not clear which condition would control.
Claim 8 recites “indicating,” but this is subjective because different people can have different opinions as to what is indicated. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). Reciting “that is” is expected to overcome this rejection.
Claims 9-11 recite “estimates … a satellite image,” but it is not clear what this means. For example, is the acquired satellite image adjusted to what the estimate believes that it should be?
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of acquired images,” but the antecedent basis is unclear because the only previous recitation of acquiring images is in claim 1, but that was only a single image, and claim 12 does not employ “the.” MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim 17 recites a “change point,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claim 18 is directed to a “method causing,” but it is not clear what the scope of the claim is (e.g., is it a method performed by the apparatus or is it a separate method that results in the apparatus performing the steps?).
Claim 18 recites “a data analysis apparatus,” but this is new terminology that is not defined by the claim (as opposed to claim 1) and lacks sufficient guidance in the specification. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US20140012732A1 (“Lindores”)
[Claim 1] A data analysis apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to acquire ground data at a predetermined place and at a predetermined time, and (Lindores, Fig. 4, Ground Data 405)
acquire a satellite image corresponding to the acquired ground data, and (Lindores, Fig. 4, Satellite Data 410)
analyze the ground data by using the acquired ground data and the acquired satellite image, (Lindores, Fig. 4, Processor 430 and Database 429. See also Field Prescription 435. Lindores’s field prescription teaches the output of the claimed analysis.)
wherein the ground data is analyzed according to a degree of coincidence of conditions under which the ground data is acquired at the predetermined place and at the predetermined time with conditions under which the satellite image is acquired. (Lindores, Fig. 4, Processor 430 and Database 429. See also Field Prescription 435. Lindores’s field prescription teaches the output of the claimed analysis.)
[Claim 2] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the circuitry acquires, as the satellite image corresponding to the acquired ground data, a satellite image within predetermined amount of a time from the predetermined time at which the ground data is acquired. (Lindores, [0059] “It is rarely possible to obtain ground and satellite NDVI data measured at the same time. If only a few days separate the measurements, the resulting errors may be small enough to ignore.” Lindores’ “small enough to ignore” teaches the claimed “close” time.)
[Claim 3] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the circuitry acquires, as the satellite image corresponding to the acquired ground data, a satellite image of a place within a predetermined distance of the predetermined place at which the ground data is acquired. (Lindores, Fig. 9, steps 910 and 920. Note that step 910’s aerial data and step 920’s ground-based data are both “within the geographic area.”)
[Claim 4] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires, as the satellite image corresponding to the acquired ground data, a satellite image that satisfies an environmental condition when the ground data is acquired. (Lindores, [0063] “In general, the time axis in FIGS. 6A and 6B may be replaced by a model which may include heat input, moisture, rainfall, sunlight intensity or other data that affect growth rate.”)
[Claim 5] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the environmental condition includes a weather condition. (Lindores, [0063] “In general, the time axis in FIGS. 6A and 6B may be replaced by a model which may include heat input, moisture, rainfall, sunlight intensity or other data that affect growth rate.”)
[Claim 6] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the environmental condition includes an incident condition of sun light. (Lindores, [0063] “In general, the time axis in FIGS. 6A and 6B may be replaced by a model which may include heat input, moisture, rainfall, sunlight intensity or other data that affect growth rate.”)
[Claim 7] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires the satellite image satisfying a necessary condition. (Lindores, Fig. 4, Satellite Data 410)
[Claim 8] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 7,wherein the necessary condition includes an imaging condition indicating at least one of resolution, a wavelength, or a synthetic aperture radar (SAR). (Lindores, [0053] “The resolution of today's satellite images is suitable for agricultural purposes”)
[Claim 9] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate, from the acquired satellite image, a satellite image corresponding to a detection time of the acquired ground data, and wherein the circuitry analyzes the ground data based on the estimated satellite image and the ground data. (Lindores, [0061] “The use of a linear plant growth model to compare asynchronous ground-based and satellite measurements of NDVI may be understood by referring to FIGS. 6A and 6B that show a schematic graph of NDVI data obtained at different times via different methods.”)
[Claim 10] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate, from the acquired satellite image, a satellite image of a place at which the ground data is acquired, and wherein the circuitry analyzes the ground data based on the estimated satellite image and the ground data. (Lindores, Fig. 9, step 930)
[Claim 11] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate, from the acquired satellite image, a satellite image under an environmental condition when the ground data is acquired, and wherein the circuitry analyzes the ground data based on the estimated satellite image and the ground data. (Lindores, [0063] “In general, the time axis in FIGS. 6A and 6B may be replaced by a model which may include heat input, moisture, rainfall, sunlight intensity or other data that affect growth rate.”)
[Claim 12] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to select a plurality of acquired images, and wherein the circuitry analyzes the ground data based on the satellite image obtained by performing data processing on the plurality of acquired satellite images and the ground data. (Lindores, Fig. 4, Processor 430 and Database 429. See also Field Prescription 435. Lindores’s field prescription teaches the output of the claimed analysis.)
[Claim 13] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the circuitry acquires a past satellite image corresponding to a detection time of the ground data. (Lindores, Figs. 6A and 6B)
[Claim 14] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the circuitry acquires a subsequent satellite image obtained later than a detection time of the ground data. (Lindores, Figs. 6A and 6B)
[Claim 15] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the ground data includes data acquired by a sensor device on the ground. (Lindores, [0015] “Local NDVI measurements may be obtained with ground based systems such as the Trimble Navigation “GreenSeeker”.”)
[Claim 16] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the ground data includes data collected through a store-and-forward scheme. (Lindores, [0077] “It is noted that in some embodiments, mobile device(s) 701, vehicle monitor(s) 702, and fixed asset(s) 703 can be coupled with PC 704 which in turn stores the data collected by these devices and forwards the data to database 429 and processor 430.”)
[Claim 17] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquired ground data at the predetermined time, includes ground data in which a change point occurs at the predetermined time. (Lindores, Figs. 6A and 6B)
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected as per claim 1. Lindores, claim 17 teaches claim 19’s computer program.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11151379B2 – “Method and system for crop type identification using satellite observation and weather data”
US11790410B2 - (from the summary of the invention) “With new satellite data becoming available, and computing power being able to deal with big data, it is possible to integrate remote sensing techniques with machine learning algorithms and system dynamics and catchment models, going far beyond what is possible with conventional manual or simple computational processes.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663