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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the abstract objection, the title objection and some of the 112 rejections. The remaining issues are addressed below.
Abstract
Applicant argues:
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection to the abstract.
Examiner responds:
The examiner has provided a new suggestion.
Double patenting
Applicant argues:
particularly in view of the recitations of amended independent claim 1.
Examiner responds:
See the updated art rejections
As to the prior art arguments, see the updated claim mapping.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 (all claims) 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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 (all claims) 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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 (all claims) 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 1, 18, and 19 recite “correct[ing] information of the satellite image by using the acquired ground data,” but the specification does not provide written description support for all of the types of sensors. Specification [0030] identifies many types of sensors. Applicant has elected, by original presentation, that weather is being analyzed. MPEP 821.03 (The claims are not limited to weather, but directing claims to a different use may be non-elected). A review of the specification has not identified how most of these types of sensors are used in connection with weather. For example, while the specification explains how an optical sensor is used (e.g., infrared is used to correct NDVI data), or a GPS sensor can be used to correct a location, it is unclear how the following are used: acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor, a magnetic sensor, an odor sensor. Thus, the written description has not demonstrated possession of the full scope of the claim. Limiting the sensor to optical or GPS is expected to overcome this rejection. If Applicant wishes to claim other types of sensors, Applicant may wish to identify support in the specification, particularly how the correction is performed.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 (all claims) 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 “each sensor device being installed at ground level within a predetermined place and acquiring the ground data within a predetermined period of time,” but it is not clear whether the sensor devices are part of the claimed data analysis apparatus or not. If they are, ss 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. On the other hand, if the sensors are not part of the data analysis apparatus, then it is unclear what weight to give to their installation.
Claim 19 recites corresponding language and is similarly rejected.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 recite “information of the satellite image,” but it is not clear if this refers to the acquired satellite image itself or the analysis result.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 recite “corrected based on a degree of coincidence,” 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 correction is “based on” 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).
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 17 recites a “change point,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 (all claims) 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 from one or more sensor devices, each sensor device being installed at ground level within at a predetermined place acquiring the ground data within a predetermined period of time, and (Lindores, Fig. 4, Ground Data 405)
acquire a satellite image from above the ground level corresponding to the acquired ground data, (Lindores, Fig. 4, Satellite Data 410)
correct information of the satellite image by using the acquired ground data and an analysis result of the acquired satellite image, (Lindores, Fig. 9, step 930, “Use the ground-based data to calibrate the aerial data”)
control output of the corrected information of the satellite image, (Lindores, Fig. 9, steps 950 or 960)
wherein the information of the satellite image is corrected based on a degree of coincidence between conditions under which the ground data is acquired and conditions under which the satellite image is acquired, and (Lindores, [0058] “These small data collection areas may then be used to calibrate satellite data covering a large farm.” See also Fig. 6B.)
wherein the degree of coincidence is determined using at least one of temporal closeness or place closeness between the conditions under which the ground data is acquired including time and place of ground data acquisition by each sensor device and the conditions under which the satellite image is acquired. (Lindores, [0058] “Furthermore, the farmer may send a ground-based NDVI sensor to scan small parts of just a few of his fields frequently, perhaps once a week, for example.”)
[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 having an analysis result indicating 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 8] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires the satellite image satisfying an imaging condition that is 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 within the predetermined period of time, and wherein the circuitry corrects the information of the satellite image 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 the predetermined place within which the ground data is acquired, and wherein the circuitry corrects the information of the satellite image 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 having an analysis result indicating an environmental condition when the ground data is acquired, and wherein the circuitry corrects the information of the satellite image 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 acquire a plurality of satellite images and select from among the plurality of acquired images, and wherein the circuitry corrects the information of the selected satellite image by performing data processing on the selected 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.)
[Claim 13] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the circuitry acquires a satellite image corresponding to each detection time of the ground data within the predetermined period of time. (Lindores, Figs. 6A and 6B)
[Claim 14] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the circuitry acquires a satellite image obtained later than a detection time of the ground data within the predetermined period of time. (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 of the ground data occurs. (Lindores, Figs. 6A and 6B)
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected as per claim 1. Lindores, claim 17 teaches claim 19’s computer program.
[Claim 20] The data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the output of the corrected information of the satellite image includes information of the acquired ground data superimposed on the satellite image based on the degree of coincidence between the conditions under which the ground data is acquired and the conditions under which the satellite image is acquired. (Lindores, Fig. 3)
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.”
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
Prosecution Insights